Do we even need a theory of quantum gravity?

@Self-Duality

2 ай бұрын

We need to take Penrose’s dictum seriously and think about what it means to “gravitize quantum mechanics.”

@Thomas-gk42

2 ай бұрын

Yes, we need to understand how at the transition of QM to classical physics works. That would lead to new insights in nature and perhaps technologies.

@starwaving8857

2 ай бұрын

Yes but for different reasons that help find the truth.

@egay86292

2 ай бұрын

the baby birds must be fed SOMETHING!

@starwaving8857

2 ай бұрын

@@egay86292 hehe

I really enjoy Smolin's writing and his eloquent takes on modern problems in physics. I think he is likely correct in highlighting the fact that resolving the tension between the way GR and QFT treat time so differently is key to making progress towards a unified theory. He is at once humble and passionate about advancing our understanding of the universe and whatever criticism he levies towards others' ideas is always impersonal and with the explicit purpose of advancing the field. I hope he's doing well in his struggle against Parkinson's. I'm thankful we have such courageous intellectuals in the field such as Lee, who is unafraid to go against the grain. More physicists like Smolin in this world would definitely be a good thing!

Basically, another good reason for quantize Gravity is the Existence of gravitational waves... Well i think that only one reason (black holes) is enough to go for it The soul of physics is to understand as far as we can Reality with capital R.

@oliverjamito9902

2 ай бұрын

Is the Olive...REAL? Beloved many accusers will say is this your Kingdom? The Olive...REAL will say unto all HIS ANGELS who persevere and heard the WORD and Heirs Hosts will say "INDEED"! Love you my Heir Hosts!

Good question! Thank you both for putting in the time. Being so natural. Makes the topic more accessible to laymen.

@DrBrianKeating

2 ай бұрын

Our pleasure!

@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler

2 ай бұрын

​@@DrBrianKeatingwith proof of the singularity in magnetism and in a convex and concave mirror it is easy to infer that a singularity does exist and we can have a cyclical Universe like a toroid... I have information about replicable experiments proving that magnetism is a torrid with opposite spinning vortices. Contact me for more information.

Roger is the maybe one of the best. I can’t say everything he said is right. We still have to have a lot of respect for him because he put himself out there for everyone to critique.

“You know what? You can’t do it”. Gah - don’t stop THERE!!! Because why not please?

@frun

2 ай бұрын

Link to the full video is in the description.

The resolution of this conundrum lies in the following two theorems of A-topology: Theorem #1: In the class of generally ordered spaces, weakly perfect spaces are one and the only real generalization of perfectness; Theorem #2: The existence of weakly perfect spaces that are not perfect is almost a rule. I am going to write a paper about it. You cannot consider QM/GR without A-topology, a discipline contrived in the 30s by Pavel Alexandroff and devised from only 3 basic axioms: Axiom #1: The set X and the empty set are open. Axiom #2: Any union of open sets is open. Axiom #3: Any finite intersection of open sets is open.

@Burevestnik9M730

2 ай бұрын

Key insights and hypotheses: Each point in weakly perfect space W corresponds to a potential quantum state. The open sets in W represent the possible state configurations or superpositions of those quantum states. We define a function to map from W to a state in ℋ Hilbert space that defines the following condition for weakly perfect continuity: f(W) ⊆ ℋ is continuous iff for every open set O in ℋ, f⁻¹(O) is an open set in W. This condition ensures that the mapping preserves the topological structure of quantum states as conceptualized in weakly perfect spaces. Now, if we consider a set S in W comprising multiple points, each corresponding to a different quantum state, then the union of these points (U = ⋃ p_i, where p_i ∈ S) represents the superposition of these states. This union, being an open set in W, adheres to the properties of weakly perfect spaces. In terms of quantum entanglement, we can extend this idea further. If two particles are entangled, their combined state cannot be described independently of each other. In our A-topological framework, this can be represented by a set E in W, where the points in E are so intertwined that their corresponding quantum states in ℋ are non-separable: For p, q ∈ E, the states f(p) and f(q) in ℋ are entangled iff f(p) ⊗ f(q) ≠ f(p) ⨁ f(q).

If anyone has ever falling in love at first sight.. the ground dissapears beneath your feet.. in that moment, you understand what gravity is !

Yes everything is quantized, just in smaller and smaller amounts which becomes less and less important, BRIAN.

@oliverjamito9902

2 ай бұрын

Is like the least sitting upon the lowest seat LASTS! Will be great in front of thee all!

Ambitwistor String Theory, also encompass Sir.Roger ideas, amazing Brian and Smolin...

@starwaving8857

2 ай бұрын

What is hindering us from making the leap? Is it we already know, part of evolution or hidden by abuse like all of history like Copernicus.. I would doubt we are just not smart enough NOW.. right?

Hello from Portugal.....

I propose we rename the interior of a black hole as "Las Vegas"

@erdossuitcase7667

2 ай бұрын

Maybe Lost Wages. Thanks SD.

@drgetwrekt869

2 ай бұрын

vivaaaaa black hooolessss! - ZZ Charm

Sad to hear of his illness. His ideas and thoughts on how to improve the physics and the physics community, are needed.

A digital analysis of any system demands a calculatable solution. In an analog interpatation of a gravitational system that uses gravitational logic gates in the form of Intermetrics patterns one would only get a analog output. (I know Lots of words) LOL

I love Lee Smolin, he's really out there, I bet those paintings behind him are a reflection of how he sees the world, highly abstracted and colourful.

@PrivateSi

2 ай бұрын

It's sad that people like Lee Smolin are revered when they're just wishy-washy liberal science philosophers who border on sci-woo preachers (and I'm not sure which side of the border half the time).. I'm yet to hear someone simply lay out all the ways gravity could be quantised. Gravitons as EM field phenomena? quantised graviton field of its own? G is quantised and so is mass as its made from quanta (particles with constant mass), ++. You see, I just did better than Smolin on this subject with 1 short sentence. Smolin mixes sci-waffle and sci-woo with fake objectivity to sell confused, confusing books to lay people who think they'll be cleverer if they read them.

0:50 It has always been known that the space-time metrics created by rotating and static bodies differ significantly from each other in GR.* In the first (stationary) case, g(ik) depend on the angular velocity of rotation of the body w=dф/dt (ф is the azimuth angle), the sign of which changes when reflected x(0)~-x(0), but when simultaneously replaced with ф~-ф, the angular velocity does not change. By the way, Kerr's solution speculates on this, however, the nature of the gravitational field depends on the sign of the angular velocity and no coordinate transformation can turn all g(ik) to zero and save the invariance of the interval: g(01)=g(02), but g(03)=g(0ф)... not =0. And that's it. ----------- *) - But not in Newtonian gravity: there's no problem with that here; and with a hint that squint and chiral are different things.

Hi Brian, Noticed R. Gupta published his ApJ paper today, and he has thanked you in the acknowledgement. He has made substantial progress in answering critics of his CCC+TL model, which apparently not only replaces dark energy and explains JWST observations of “early” galaxies, but also replaces dark matter and explains BAO observations. Clearly tired light and a varying gravitational constant are two ideas that are not going away. You should have R.G. on your podcast, he’s an interesting person. (By the way, sorry to hear about Lee Smolin, who has advanced Parkinson’s, I think this interview is a few years old)

@DrBrianKeating

2 ай бұрын

Amazing. Please share the link to Gupta paper

@PhysicsNative

2 ай бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating arxiv 2401.09483 (ApJ doi in the links to the right)

Congrats on the B-Day speech!

Would love to see a discussion put together between Roger Penrose and Roy Kerr to discuss the recent paper Kerr put forth stating the Singularity theorum is incorrect and due to a centrifugal force, the interior of a black hole is closer to a "overly dense" neutron star. Since reading the paper have been waiting to hear Penrose respond to the paper.

@bjornragnarsson8692

2 ай бұрын

Me too! I personally have always felt using the Schwarzschild metric to postulate internal black hole behavior is too ideal of an approximation of any physical black hole to expand about. We model stars as spherically symmetric too, but there are many higher order corrections due to angular momentum, surface temperature, internal density gradients, temperature gradients, magnetic field structure and perturbations due to magnetohydrodynamic plasma properties both near the surface and internally within the convective -> radiative zones and radiative -> convective zones…I think I’m making this more complicated than it should be. The Kerr and Kerr-Newman metric are the closest approximations we have to all directly and indirectly observable physical black holes. Perhaps all physical black holes we’ve come across eventually do equilibrate into idealized, spherically symmetric, non-rotating Schwarzschild black holes with enough time. But I’m somewhat skeptical of that.

That would create a direct manipulation of any object being viewed.

Nice 👍

@charleswilson8897

2 ай бұрын

We should quantize gravity because WE CAN! Can you even imagine how gravity can prevent us from doing it?

I have to check out Lee because he has my middle name but I’m intrigued by his gestures.

Why is Brian including clips from videos that are over three years old?

I love the video at the end the problem is although we can see structure we can't find substance. So the picture respectfully must be incorrect. But in the actual EMFSYSTEMS, this picture may be correct, but it could be pulsating, within the structure itself. Just sayin. Peace 😎 ✌️. Smollin is great. From Canada, eh. Entanglement from galacty to galacty?

Gravity is indeed not a force in the traditional sense, as described by Sir Isaac Newton. According to Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity is the result of the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass and energy. Massive objects like planets and stars warp the spacetime around them, and this curvature guides the motion of objects, which we perceive as the gravitational "force." In this framework, gravity acts more like a mediator, influencing the paths that objects take through spacetime rather than pulling on them with a force. This is why all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field, regardless of their mass, because they are all following the curved paths that spacetime dictates. Here's a simple analogy using a trampoline to visualize this concept: - Imagine a trampoline stretched out, which represents the fabric of spacetime. - When you place a heavy ball in the middle, it creates a dip or a curve on the trampoline's surface. - If you then roll a smaller ball across the trampoline, it will move towards the heavier ball not because there is a force pulling it, but because the surface it's moving on is curved. In mathematical terms, Einstein's field equations describe how mass and energy determine the curvature of spacetime, and the geodesic equation describes how objects move along the paths dictated by that curvature. The equations can be expressed as: $$ G_{\mu u} + \Lambda g_{\mu u} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu u} $$ where \( G_{\mu u} \) is the Einstein tensor, which represents the curvature of spacetime, \( \Lambda \) is the cosmological constant, \( g_{\mu u} \) is the metric tensor, which describes the geometry of spacetime, \( G \) is the gravitational constant, \( c \) is the speed of light, and \( T_{\mu u} \) is the stress-energy tensor, which represents the distribution of mass and energy. Objects then follow geodesics, the paths of least action, in this curved spacetime, which are described by: $$ \frac{d^2 x^\mu}{d\tau^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta} \frac{dx^\alpha}{d\tau} \frac{dx^\beta}{d\tau} = 0 $$ where \( x^\mu \) are the coordinates of the object in spacetime, \( \tau \) is the proper time, and \( \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta} \) are the Christoffel symbols, which encode the connection properties of spacetime. In essence, gravity according to General Relativity is not a force but the manifestation of spacetime curvature, guiding how objects move within it.

what happened to his theory of maximizing variety? I found it quite interesting but had no following?

Great great channel

Hello from Kazakhstan. If we add NEW 50% of the Michelson-Morley experiment, then it is “possible” to prove the postulates: 1. Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. 2. Dominant gravitational fields affect the speed of light in a vacuum, its direction and frequency of oscillations. I need help co-creating an invention. The light in the device has a path of 9000 meters in a volume of 0.4/0.4/0.4 meters.

Reading Einstein's published papers in order sounds really cool and fascinating!

I wonder if one reason why it has been difficult to observe the Higgs Boson. .is because the experiments in the collider have been conducted on a horizontal plain relative to earth. ..and i am guessing it is actually significantly related to gravity, and would be observed easier on the verticle, perpendicular to earth, relative in line with the gravitational force. Just a thought based on some suprising photos I happenned to take that I can only describe as Higgs boson. .I don't think it's that difficult to observe, and won't require a verticle collider going up into the stratosphere.. .but axis of observation is relative to gravity, and experiments need to be conducted as such . If I'm right. .you can thank me someday, ok ha.

@valentinmalinov8424

2 ай бұрын

Thanks, sure, you are a genius. Just read the book - "The Higgs Fake" and you will learn the Truth!

(1/(π l_P general relativity maximal power)) = 1 putative quantum gravity suggested light time lag per energy and distance = (1/(l_P Planck power/4 π)) is 180° to 720° curvature of spacetime.

@user-pe8gm3ht9p

2 ай бұрын

Gravity is indeed not a force in the traditional sense, as described by Sir Isaac Newton. According to Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity is the result of the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass and energy. Massive objects like planets and stars warp the spacetime around them, and this curvature guides the motion of objects, which we perceive as the gravitational "force." In this framework, gravity acts more like a mediator, influencing the paths that objects take through spacetime rather than pulling on them with a force. This is why all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field, regardless of their mass, because they are all following the curved paths that spacetime dictates. Here's a simple analogy using a trampoline to visualize this concept: - Imagine a trampoline stretched out, which represents the fabric of spacetime. - When you place a heavy ball in the middle, it creates a dip or a curve on the trampoline's surface. - If you then roll a smaller ball across the trampoline, it will move towards the heavier ball not because there is a force pulling it, but because the surface it's moving on is curved. In mathematical terms, Einstein's field equations describe how mass and energy determine the curvature of spacetime, and the geodesic equation describes how objects move along the paths dictated by that curvature. The equations can be expressed as: $$ G_{\mu u} + \Lambda g_{\mu u} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu u} $$ where \( G_{\mu u} \) is the Einstein tensor, which represents the curvature of spacetime, \( \Lambda \) is the cosmological constant, \( g_{\mu u} \) is the metric tensor, which describes the geometry of spacetime, \( G \) is the gravitational constant, \( c \) is the speed of light, and \( T_{\mu u} \) is the stress-energy tensor, which represents the distribution of mass and energy. Objects then follow geodesics, the paths of least action, in this curved spacetime, which are described by: $$ \frac{d^2 x^\mu}{d\tau^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta} \frac{dx^\alpha}{d\tau} \frac{dx^\beta}{d\tau} = 0 $$ where \( x^\mu \) are the coordinates of the object in spacetime, \( \tau \) is the proper time, and \( \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta} \) are the Christoffel symbols, which encode the connection properties of spacetime. In essence, gravity according to General Relativity is not a force but the manifestation of spacetime curvature, guiding how objects move within it. 🌌

If Albert Einstein were alive today, he would have changed his views on E=MC squared (etc…) to go in an entirely new direction. That’s because he would have seen his formula as outdated in the light of a new imaginative scene of discovery which is more useful to the needs of our time as it was to his own time. He would have still accepted today’s technology as secondary to the imagination of the physicist. Einstein would have withdrawn from the screens (monitors, etc…) of today, and done a physics so very local so as to make the macrocosmic universe come to his own microcosm and not the other way around.

Hmmm your thoughts on interesting on why you mention that QM and GR need not be combined... well exotic physics is this world and lets find nature, no?

With large masses, the quantum states will be so close as if they are continuous.

gravity can only be quantized if entropy can be quantized

Tell Lee to investigate supplements. They help me a lot.

What if gravity is so weak because the curvature of space is synonymous with the curvature of the Earth? Such as that when you go so small that a curvature looks flat and thus why gravity is so weak and almost nonexistent?

can we donate so science bro can get a better mike, amen.

Quantized Geodesic Space-time. Einstein used Stressors and Tensors in his field theories. Not Vectors.

Мы можем для большой науки, сэкономить очень большие средства. В Китае и Индии в плане строительства детекторов Г. В. Также есть запуск тяжёлых ракет с межпланетными спутниками, типа LISA и так далее. Это более 4 миллиард $, не считая других ресурсов.

we do not. no reason to think oscillation rate is anything unique to individual particles. seems emergent,.not fumdamental.

Lee Smoulderin'

Who was the Polish physicist that Lee Smolin mentioned, please? Captions have "Pansky" but that doesn't seem to be right. Familiar Polish physicist names like Poplawski and Podolsky don't seem to be right either.

@davym3195

2 ай бұрын

I think he’s referring to Jerzy Plebanski.

We need to quantise gravity because its the information field expressing the relationship between all "matter" and its location within the system. "Space-time gravity-information gradient" doesn't exist without "matter". Laurence Krauss is wrong if he thinks "space can do what it wants"........

I’m going to study Lee, my middle name. 😃

@DrBrianKeating

2 ай бұрын

Love that!

@JungleJargon

2 ай бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating Yep

Maybe people are looking for the source of gravity in the wrong place. Maybe it's not a force exerted by matter but a force exerted by space. Could be that space's tendency to expand and matters resistance to it leads to gravity.

@user-pe8gm3ht9p

2 ай бұрын

Gravity is indeed not a force in the traditional sense, as described by Sir Isaac Newton. According to Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity is the result of the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass and energy. Massive objects like planets and stars warp the spacetime around them, and this curvature guides the motion of objects, which we perceive as the gravitational "force." In this framework, gravity acts more like a mediator, influencing the paths that objects take through spacetime rather than pulling on them with a force. This is why all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field, regardless of their mass, because they are all following the curved paths that spacetime dictates. Here's a simple analogy using a trampoline to visualize this concept: - Imagine a trampoline stretched out, which represents the fabric of spacetime. - When you place a heavy ball in the middle, it creates a dip or a curve on the trampoline's surface. - If you then roll a smaller ball across the trampoline, it will move towards the heavier ball not because there is a force pulling it, but because the surface it's moving on is curved. In mathematical terms, Einstein's field equations describe how mass and energy determine the curvature of spacetime, and the geodesic equation describes how objects move along the paths dictated by that curvature. The equations can be expressed as: $$ G_{\mu u} + \Lambda g_{\mu u} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu u} $$ where \( G_{\mu u} \) is the Einstein tensor, which represents the curvature of spacetime, \( \Lambda \) is the cosmological constant, \( g_{\mu u} \) is the metric tensor, which describes the geometry of spacetime, \( G \) is the gravitational constant, \( c \) is the speed of light, and \( T_{\mu u} \) is the stress-energy tensor, which represents the distribution of mass and energy. Objects then follow geodesics, the paths of least action, in this curved spacetime, which are described by: $$ \frac{d^2 x^\mu}{d\tau^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta} \frac{dx^\alpha}{d\tau} \frac{dx^\beta}{d\tau} = 0 $$ where \( x^\mu \) are the coordinates of the object in spacetime, \( \tau \) is the proper time, and \( \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta} \) are the Christoffel symbols, which encode the connection properties of spacetime. In essence, gravity according to General Relativity is not a force but the manifestation of spacetime curvature, guiding how objects move within it. 🌌

Quantising Gravity to me could mean lots of different things.... It's already quantised by G and mass which is quantised as it's made from quanta (particles with quantised mass). You could have a force carrying quantised particle (graviton), but that goes against Einstein's spacetime, so why not stick with gravity quantised by mass & G? Another way to quantise gravity is to have a unified EM + gravity field (where gravity is emergent) made up of quanta (I'd suggest a field cell as a positron + electron in superposition that can be split into a free electron + positron. Gravity could be field density or a cell polarisation gradient where cells are partially split/elongated into a dipole pointing in a direction)...

Lee is having brain drain. He needs more energy for his head like me. 😄

@oliverjamito9902

2 ай бұрын

Share! Thy shared "i" AM. The rest knows belongs?

Perhaps we can confine gravity waves inside a toy universe 🥸

gravity is dialated time. not cause and effect. it comes from the vibration of the nucleus of the atom based on its density. time slows accordingly.

@surendranmk5306

2 ай бұрын

Great! Go on with that vibration. At the end of the vibration make sure the quantum is in place.

@atticuswalker

2 ай бұрын

@@surendranmk5306 I don't know why there is so much friction to the idea. it fits all observable fact. at least everything I can find

@surendranmk5306

2 ай бұрын

@@atticuswalker You are surfing. Things are different in the deep. In physics all things are not going in the right way. Continue your thinking, play fine notes in that guitar we can wait for satisfying explanation for every thing.

@atticuswalker

2 ай бұрын

@@surendranmk5306 I feel like a dog watching monkeys try start a car. I am full of admiration they got the door open . but I am getting old and know what keys look like. I am not a physicists. bu I found the answer to the yang mills mass gap problem. the length of a plank. the fine structural constant, the gravitational constant. and supersymetery. mabye just mabye. the idea is worth considering.

@atticuswalker

2 ай бұрын

@@surendranmk5306 I can tell you why the sky is blue. from my surfboard. while you search the deep for faries. sorry dark matter .

you see it evry day in your water sink

Hmm, 🤔 ... quantizing gravity not working, eh? Have you considered, uh, _gravitizing quantities?_ 😉

Why are you confused? There is no force called gravity. There is only momentum/mass and spacetime warping in the presence of energy/mass. But there is no force of gravity. I can’t quantize a nonexistent force, but I can quantize energy/momentum, which we already do. s=186k miles. e=m, c=1

@user-pe8gm3ht9p

2 ай бұрын

Gravity is indeed not a force in the traditional sense, as described by Sir Isaac Newton. According to Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity is the result of the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass and energy. Massive objects like planets and stars warp the spacetime around them, and this curvature guides the motion of objects, which we perceive as the gravitational "force." In this framework, gravity acts more like a mediator, influencing the paths that objects take through spacetime rather than pulling on them with a force. This is why all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field, regardless of their mass, because they are all following the curved paths that spacetime dictates. Here's a simple analogy using a trampoline to visualize this concept: - Imagine a trampoline stretched out, which represents the fabric of spacetime. - When you place a heavy ball in the middle, it creates a dip or a curve on the trampoline's surface. - If you then roll a smaller ball across the trampoline, it will move towards the heavier ball not because there is a force pulling it, but because the surface it's moving on is curved. In mathematical terms, Einstein's field equations describe how mass and energy determine the curvature of spacetime, and the geodesic equation describes how objects move along the paths dictated by that curvature. The equations can be expressed as: $$ G_{\mu u} + \Lambda g_{\mu u} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu u} $$ where \( G_{\mu u} \) is the Einstein tensor, which represents the curvature of spacetime, \( \Lambda \) is the cosmological constant, \( g_{\mu u} \) is the metric tensor, which describes the geometry of spacetime, \( G \) is the gravitational constant, \( c \) is the speed of light, and \( T_{\mu u} \) is the stress-energy tensor, which represents the distribution of mass and energy. Objects then follow geodesics, the paths of least action, in this curved spacetime, which are described by: $$ \frac{d^2 x^\mu}{d\tau^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta} \frac{dx^\alpha}{d\tau} \frac{dx^\beta}{d\tau} = 0 $$ where \( x^\mu \) are the coordinates of the object in spacetime, \( \tau \) is the proper time, and \( \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta} \) are the Christoffel symbols, which encode the connection properties of spacetime. In essence, gravity according to General Relativity is not a force but the manifestation of spacetime curvature, guiding how objects move within it. 🌌

Magnetism and gravity are 2 different expressions of the same phenomena. Magnetism is chiral!!!!!!!.......

Gravity is indeed of quantum origin. The proof is in plain sight.

@user-pe8gm3ht9p

2 ай бұрын

Gravity is indeed not a force in the traditional sense, as described by Sir Isaac Newton. According to Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity is the result of the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass and energy. Massive objects like planets and stars warp the spacetime around them, and this curvature guides the motion of objects, which we perceive as the gravitational "force." In this framework, gravity acts more like a mediator, influencing the paths that objects take through spacetime rather than pulling on them with a force. This is why all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field, regardless of their mass, because they are all following the curved paths that spacetime dictates. Here's a simple analogy using a trampoline to visualize this concept: - Imagine a trampoline stretched out, which represents the fabric of spacetime. - When you place a heavy ball in the middle, it creates a dip or a curve on the trampoline's surface. - If you then roll a smaller ball across the trampoline, it will move towards the heavier ball not because there is a force pulling it, but because the surface it's moving on is curved. In mathematical terms, Einstein's field equations describe how mass and energy determine the curvature of spacetime, and the geodesic equation describes how objects move along the paths dictated by that curvature. The equations can be expressed as: $$ G_{\mu u} + \Lambda g_{\mu u} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu u} $$ where \( G_{\mu u} \) is the Einstein tensor, which represents the curvature of spacetime, \( \Lambda \) is the cosmological constant, \( g_{\mu u} \) is the metric tensor, which describes the geometry of spacetime, \( G \) is the gravitational constant, \( c \) is the speed of light, and \( T_{\mu u} \) is the stress-energy tensor, which represents the distribution of mass and energy. Objects then follow geodesics, the paths of least action, in this curved spacetime, which are described by: $$ \frac{d^2 x^\mu}{d\tau^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta} \frac{dx^\alpha}{d\tau} \frac{dx^\beta}{d\tau} = 0 $$ where \( x^\mu \) are the coordinates of the object in spacetime, \( \tau \) is the proper time, and \( \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta} \) are the Christoffel symbols, which encode the connection properties of spacetime. In essence, gravity according to General Relativity is not a force but the manifestation of spacetime curvature, guiding how objects move within it. 🌌

A new vision about phisical world must be found. Revelation need. From this vision, quantum and relativity wil become obvious.

@valentinmalinov8424

2 ай бұрын

The "New Vision" about the World is here already - It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

1,2,4,8,7,5 losing 9s

Gravity isn't even a force. There's three fundamental forces, not four.

@starwaving8857

2 ай бұрын

I agree. I am curious though of your definition of reason for gravity beyond attraction.

@smlanka4u

2 ай бұрын

Gravity is a force, and general relativity doesn't explain it.

@rwarren58

2 ай бұрын

Interesting. Have you seen the two steel ball experiment that proves that gravity is a force? It might influence your conclusions.

@surendranmk5306

2 ай бұрын

There is only one force. That is called electric charge. Force is allways dual and so there is positive and negative charges. Our universe is positively charged, that we experience as gravity. It's equal negative charge is existing out side the universe.

@starwaving8857

2 ай бұрын

@@rwarren58 locality is being used as a source rather just a piece. Gravity is the aftermath of dimensional waves. It is the accumulation of past forces pressed together by bigger dimensions only less drastic than a hole.

actuallly penrose is turning 92 not 90

My theory has Quantum Gravity dark matter dark energy and new particles. I will show in 5 minutes

quantifiable but the decimal pt would be infinate. One would have to truncate the output to be readable.

Hahahahahahahha

There is an overlooked constant in Einsteins early papers. It seems like he missed it himself. And nobody has seen it in 120 years.

@johnbrooks6243

2 ай бұрын

Give hint please

@emiljunvik3546

2 ай бұрын

@@johnbrooks6243 It’s in his paper on E=mc^2, or rather, L/c^2=m.

@johnbrooks6243

2 ай бұрын

@@emiljunvik3546 nice profile pic btw

Damn poor guys how come from catgirls they come to this

"Why should we quantize gravity? " To give an explanation for dark energy through virtual particles.

@Lilladdish

2 ай бұрын

First they need to prove that dark energy or matter even exists, which they haven’t.