Gravity always fascinated me because it's the only fundamental law that interacts with time. Unlike electromagnetism or the the strong and weak forces, we are living INSIDE gravity (spacetime), which might be why we can't properly study it, because we can't step away from it to analyze it objectively

@lacommunautebienconnue349

Жыл бұрын

Everything interacts with time.

@hyronvalkinson1749

Жыл бұрын

@@lacommunautebienconnue349 What they meant is that gravity is not time-invariant like the other forces. Sometimes it's called a fictitious force like centrifugal force - real and measurable, but only a helpful tool and nothing more.

@lacommunautebienconnue349

Жыл бұрын

@@hyronvalkinson1749 Gravity isn’t a force.

@hyronvalkinson1749

Жыл бұрын

@@lacommunautebienconnue349 If I shove you, that's a force. It's not a fundamental force and it's caused by other phenomenon entirely but it's still a force. You can still use Newtons to measure gravity

@lacommunautebienconnue349

Жыл бұрын

@@hyronvalkinson1749 If it’s not the same definition then it’s not the same thing.

This is by far the simplest and clearest explanation of this issue that I've seen or read, period. Excellent, easy-to-understand graphics aid comprehension. Great job.

@ThomasJr

Жыл бұрын

There are many others. But your statement is accurate since you said "that I've seen". If you consider all the explanations, then this statement is no longer accurate.

@uglystupidloser

Жыл бұрын

it's entertaining... but i do not understand.

@replica1052

Жыл бұрын

(where gravity is shielding from cosmic radiation gravity can never exeed the speed of light )

@marcinha1973

Жыл бұрын

@@ThomasJr Can you provide some links or what to search for the other explanations you have in mind?

@ThomasJr

Жыл бұрын

@@marcinha1973 Do a search for quantum gravity and pick the videos with the most views, such as > 100K. I watched many wonderful videos and even better than this one. Especially from professor Leonard Susskind, Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder, Dr. Don Lincoln from Fermilab, and Dr. Matt O'dowd from PBS Space Time.

Feynman was renowned for his ability to explain very difficult problems to others and so do you Arvin very well done.

5:16 How would one even do a double-slit experiment with gravitational waves? Nothing blocks causality and it’s hard to articulate as an energy, though it does radiate 🤔

@charleshansmann

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/kZ2ErLd6qq6xfLg.html

@Ben-ee2xy

5 ай бұрын

Yooo what’s up tay zonday

@antonyguglielmone5430

4 ай бұрын

Test out heavy particles at ordinary vs. relativistic velocities? Might at least see time dilation effects 🤡

Arvin, you are absolutely my favorite science communicator. You don’t just make the explanations of the physics so clear, you also articulate the questions that demand more fundamental answers and the logic that gets us to new theories and solutions SO brilliantly. I learn so much from your videos, and the most valuable thing is how to *think* better. THANK YOU!

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

Glad you like them!

@SunDogGod

Жыл бұрын

Honestly! I watch other channels like pbs and they are not as good at making things simple and easy to understand

@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885

Жыл бұрын

@@ArvinAsh You should read Professor Basil J. Hiley. He was the collaborator with David Bohm only Hiley has now relied on noncommutativity to explain relativistic quantum physics. thanks

@wearethefruitoftheuniverse

Жыл бұрын

@@ArvinAsh what can be space-time like in our common day to day experiences? Gelatin Gelatin is like membrane of string theory Spacetime is ripple that is writing time code in particular fashion

@steelgreyed

Жыл бұрын

KZread algorythm doesn't handle videos above 15 minutes in length very well, unless you know what you are looking for you will go through a lot of trash and pseudo-science channels before Arvin Ash shows up, but by then you already know what quality is, or someone explicitly sent his link, word of mouth still works in the Digital World and Arvin's a diamond in the signal buzz.

I hope I live long enough to see quantum mechanics and general reality come together.

I have been looking for something about this topic for what feels like forever! it felt like people would just say "it breaks down once you try to include gravity" and leave it at that-- thank you for such a clear explanation!

Arvin, the graphics on your videos and editing consistently impress me. I learn a lot more because of how skillfully you integrate the text with images.

@Scott-qe4wy

Жыл бұрын

The graphics for timespace are inaccurate. They show a 2D representation of a 4D phenomenon. Timespace forms spheres or shells around all matter that warps inversely when a heavier object enters the field of a lighter object. It's not a flat trampoline.

@charlesblithfield6182

Жыл бұрын

@@Scott-qe4wy I get what you said and have wondered about such representations. If imagining/rendering the 2D plane distortion across a third dimension can the spherical warping be be represented? It’s such a common demonstration of gravity, the rubber trampoline bowling ball demo in science museums…

It’s crazy how you don’t have at least a million subscribers, this video was very easily understood by me (a junior in high school with a C in physics), and very well put together as well.

@whannabi

Жыл бұрын

He's almost there, don't worry

@rhyvehr

Жыл бұрын

For anyone who's lost, the first question should be "Wth is Space Time, anyways?" Well, Let me help. Space = Meters Time = Seconds Force = Meters/seconds squared. The squaring of seconds makes it a curve on le graph. Tada, Forces = Space Time Curvature. It's literally just a more confusing term to use to make everyone feel dumb Welcome to Einstein did nothing useful 101 ( and anyone hero worshipping him is weird because ykno, he abused his wife who probably did the math and actual science for him, then he left her for his cousin. What a charming "genius")

@josephdavis3472

Жыл бұрын

​@@rhyvehr I don't think your comment was on topic, warranted, or well explained. Nobody in this specific comment section mentioned Einstein. Anything I could look up on the subject shows that while they did often work together, he credited her for her contributions. But again, I's irrelevant anyway because nobody mentioned them. Second, nobody asked you to explain anything either, as nobody was lost. They were _specifically mentioning_ how the presenter did a great job of explaining, such that even a layman would understand. So finally, why did you decide to post that?

@rhyvehr

Жыл бұрын

@@josephdavis3472 "huh duh im finna protect einstein" You're right, I'm sorry, I'm not someone with a C in physics. In university my physics mark was 40% above the rest of the class and my professor was like "what?" Physics isn't difficult to comprehend, physicists are, and translating between the two is hard. Why did I excel? Because I translated the presented information into ideas I can grasp and then didn't bother to study *literally anything presented*. The biggest problem *with this content* is that this is all theory, most of it is going to be wrong within a matter of years because someone's going to have a new theory. And so without a *concrete comprehension of what's going on* people create *bullshit ones* and then *become superstars to everyone else* acting like they understand it *when they really don't*. I'm unfortunately not everyone else. I'm someone who thinks firmly that those who have the ability to understand a concept, have the responsibility to help those who don't. I only actually watched to the point he mentioned einstein, and stopped watching, as that, to me, discredits the entire presentation because it's based off of flawed principles. Hence my explanation about einsteins theory of gravity and why it's bogus (because it wasn't actually a new idea, it was just rewording the definition of force) But you're right, here we go, i'm going to watch it. Yeah nope I can't do it, "cant predict black hole center blah blah blah" Yeah, I'm sorry, but nobody's finna have an idea of what's going on inside a black hole until we have a way of getting sensors inside of it. What does that mean? This video is speculation about speculation about speculation. That's a few too many speculation ^ 2'd for me. And that's actually really important to realize, none of this is actually in any way accurate, it's just someones idea of what *may* be accurate *with our remarkably bad ability to observe the phenomena* and they never really tell you that. And the mere fact that you right now, want to discredit the ideas i'm presenting because I used the word "finna" actually says alot about who *you* are, not who *I* am. And the fact that I know exactly what you were *finna* think right now is kinda sad, because you like to think of yourself as unique and smart and well thought-out, but you're well worded, not thought-out'. And now you're wanting to act like i'm being crazy for predicting that, and that's even funnier because you're still thinking you've thought anything this entire time.

@rhyvehr

Жыл бұрын

@@josephdavis3472 Where'd you go man, I was actually really interested to see which angle you were going to take there.

This is one of the simplest explanation on this topic I have ever come across on internet. The graphics in video are super explanatory. In Physics, it is very important to have clear understanding of the most fundamental concept and your tremendous efforts to simplify such difficult subject are commendable.

Like others have already mentioned, I have never seen a simpler video that deals with heavyweight topics like quantum gravity. Arvin, you are gifted seriously. Your videos are simple and easy to absorb by total amateurs but at the same time it also serves the right amount of details. Great job! I had read about these topics on wikipedia but never did I ever feel complete in my understanding. After watching your vid, I am now in a position to speak one line or two on why gravity doesn't work at quantum scales and why do we even need to merge the two realms.

It is a pleasure watching your videos for those like me with no major math or physics background. So clear and easy to understand. So inspiring. Thanks.

This is a great video Arvin, thanks! You always do such a great job of explaining things. I particularly like the fact that your graphics showed the Feinman diagram's with the gravity field distortions underneath them. I have heard similar explanations before but without that specific graphic, I did not grasp what the speaker was trying to say. Great job!

@johnfitzgerald8879

Жыл бұрын

Small thing. I just learned yesterday that his name is spelled Feynman. I'd been spelling it as Feinmann too.

@OfficialGOD

Жыл бұрын

@@johnfitzgerald8879 lol

Damn, great video dude, it's all stuff we all mostly know too but its the way you pieced it all together for a decent explanation is what stands out. Thanks Arvin, keep it up

I've been looking for a video like this for a few months now. I can't get enough of quantizing gravity.

@DeepThinkersClub

Жыл бұрын

Then you might like to see my theory…. 1st Page: kzread.info/dash/bejne/Z591tNSTnJmcqKw.html 2nd Page: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hmej0dRymZCrmJs.html 3rd Page: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qY6nytFmnczIoag.html

THANK YOU! Excellent explanation for people like me who doesn't know tons of physics (I'm a Pediatrician) but really like physics videos! Hope your Channel gets more subscribers, all of your team deserves it!

@papasmamas1

Жыл бұрын

Check out the Fermilab youtube channel, also very easy to understand the basics.

Nothing I have seen brought me closer to an understanding like this presentation. Thank you.

I've been binging these science videos recently and have been learning a lot about quantum mechanics, general relativity, and physics. Thanks so much for this great information

@DeepThinkersClub

Жыл бұрын

Want to think outside the box? 😮1st Page: kzread.info/dash/bejne/Z591tNSTnJmcqKw.html 2nd Page: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hmej0dRymZCrmJs.html 3rd Page: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qY6nytFmnczIoag.html

Arvin, this explanation was simply fantastic. Like others have said, the coupling with illustrations was fantastic and by far the simplest explanation. Thank you!

Amazing video. You explain things with so much clarity and in such simple to understand terms. You have a deep knowledge and understanding this subject and I'm thankful you took the time to break it down so well.

@dr.pradeep6440

Жыл бұрын

Wonderful presentation ..

This video is fantastic, well done! Gives an easy to understand frame work of the issue and what scientists are actually working on for a solution. Great graphics, too!

You explain very complex concepts in a way that is accessible to novice students. Great stuff!

@DeepThinkersClub

Жыл бұрын

I figured it out! Check out my theory on here! 🤯

@brendawilliams8062

11 ай бұрын

All I can say is be glad the tens floated and saved the cyclic pi or the boat would be absent many more present day oars.

@andoletube

11 ай бұрын

@@brendawilliams8062 Is it time for your medication?

Wow, that was an explanation of quantum gravity and its problems that even a lay person could understand. That was a super impressive piece of work!

Knowing something and teaching or explaining something are completely different things! I really loved your explanation Thank you!

@Number6_

Жыл бұрын

If you can't teach it you don't know it .

@BrazilianImperialist

Жыл бұрын

@@Number6_ Not true

@jeanbriones1190

Жыл бұрын

@@BrazilianImperialist Very true

@enzop2835

Жыл бұрын

@@jeanbriones1190 Not everyone has the skill to teach. That's a skill all on its own.

@jeanbriones1190

Жыл бұрын

@@enzop2835 "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

Brilliant Arvin Ash as always - the reference to Wonderium even better - would strongly recommend if you can thread through your videos as a lecture series (over last few years) under different titles, that in itself too would be a great reference - amazing - appreciable efforts

@jeffreymartin8448

Жыл бұрын

He has a way. Almost as if I'm sitting around with friends and a couple beers saying whatever we think.

Best illustration and way of explaining qm I have seen so far. Thank you

Love your videos. I read Wikipedia on these subjects a lot but sometimes a video, an animation, or just your patient laying out of the issues is so much easier to grasp than pages of mathematical machinery to a layperson like me. Thanks a lot Arvin and crew!

Arvin, love the music selection! ❤ The subject matter is fantastic too!

Great video and very well explained 👏

Wonderful video Arvin. Really helped me understand how complex gravity is.

Amazing video. You made such a complex thing into something the every day person can somewhat understand. 10/10 GREAT JOB.

You're a great teacher. Thanks for making this!

Once again, another fantastic video. You've done so much to help the public understand science, Arvin. Thanks! The perfect balance of not over simplifying and not making it a tangled web of maths. You treat your viewers like intelligent people.

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for that. Yes, I try to treat viewers as intelligent people who don't need to be coddled with oversimplifications.

@theodorei.4278

Жыл бұрын

@@ArvinAsh If quantum mechanics is the correct one, then what does quantum mechanics say about gravitational effect of electorns or how they affect spacetime? Am I wrong to say that quantum mechanics say nothing about how the quantum particles affect spacetime? NOTHING AT ALL. And yet we always say that GR is not the correct, but we keep on a pedestal the QM. Very very concerned about the bias in favor of QM

@johnfitzgerald8879

Жыл бұрын

@@theodorei.4278 I think not. See time mark 12:02 of the video. The video presents the problem in a nice visual. Energy bends space-time and space-time directs movement of energy. Mass is, of course, energy. I think that is the point of the problem. Feynman was able to find a solution to the infinity of the states between combination and decay of particles by eliminating many. When space-time is added in, all those possible virtual particle interactions between combination and decay also affect space-time. I am not entirely sure of the precision of the diagram, but it does show the virtual particles as bending space-time. Simply, an electron has mass. Mass curves space-time. But, see, that's not really science. Science is calculating how much spacetime is curved as a result of the total energy and mass. Clearly, all mass, from that of a black hole to that of an electron bends space-time into a sphere around it, at some radius. But there is the catch, at what radius would a photon orbit and electron? I would be inclined to believe that the radius is less than that of some effective radius of quantum uncertainty. But then again, that's where it becomes science. There is no "bias". QM and GR are both well established theories. But it is important to understand what a scientific theory is as it consists of a sub-theories, pieces that have different levels of strength. A scientific theory is a mathematical model that specifies the equivalence between different properties of nature. It is capable of predicting the outcome of an experiment. Type I parts of a theory have been experimentally demonstrated to be absolutely factual. Type II parts predict things that can be experimentally tested. Type III parts are inferences that can't be proven by some experiment as nobody has a clue how to even go about testing for that. Type IV makes predictions that are considered a bit difficult to believe, like anytime the math leads to an infinity. The current problem is that we can't get the equations of GR to link up to the equations of QM. But we know that both are correct in terms of the scale in which they have been measured. GR must emerge from some aspect of QM, just as molecules emerge from atoms, classical thermodynamics emerges from atoms and molecules.

@theodorei.4278

Жыл бұрын

@@johnfitzgerald8879 once more you say that GR must coincide with QM at the quantum level. Be careful of the words you are selecting and the order you put them together, because you might sound biased. If you want to be neutral then you should say that GR must coincide with QM but also the other way around, I.e. QM must coincide with GR at the macroscopic level ( and I dont mean newtonian, I mean GR ). Which of course QM does not, because if from QM you could generate GR then the problem would have been solved and we wouldn't talk about this. So to wrap up, at best you can say BOTH theories are incomplete and they need to merge from one another. The video and you do not say that, you just assume that QM is the only well established theory and everything else must abide by this theory, which of course is not. So better talk about "General-Relativize" (if that is even a word) QM and not only quantized GR.

@johnfitzgerald8879

Жыл бұрын

@@theodorei.4278 There seems to be a general lack of detailed understanding of how a theory works. A theory, like QM and GR, any theory in science, Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, is not an all encompassing. There is a scale of factuality and deduction, extending off into a degree of speculation and even sensationalized headlines. Knowing the difference is important. Generalized, sweeping, inspecific, fault finding statements of "It's all wrong and doesn't work cuz this" isn't functional.

I'm a physicist and I thought that was very well explained.

That was one of the most approachable explanations I've ever seen. I hope that this is found by people who are interested in quantum gravity or the tension between relativity and quantum theory.

This was really well explained from start to finish

Thank you for explaining this topic in such a simple way 👌

Great explanation! Oddly enough, I'm reading about this very topic right now in Sean Carroll's "Something Deeply Hidden". I've peeked ahead and the next chapter has Feynman diagrams in it so I think there's a well-trodden path being followed here (I know that Sean is also going to discuss entanglement as the basis of proximity though, which is the bit that I'm curious about).

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

That's a good book. I'v read it, and even did an interview with Sean on my channel.

@macronencer

Жыл бұрын

@@ArvinAsh I saw that interview, yes! His podcast is also great: he interviews some incredibly interesting and informative people.

Perfect visual representations along with the explanations.

Awesome information….. I listen to your talks a lot….. you’re an excellent teacher (:

Looking at your animation of the double slit it made me think that a particle is an instantaneous "condensation" of the energy field foam into a point particle. I like this as a visualisation.

@BlueFrenzy

Жыл бұрын

I have a friend that said once while smoked something in the direction of "of course, if you spend the energy of the particle to interact at one specific point, there's no more energy to be able to interact elsewhere". So serious.

@ascensionunlimited4182

Жыл бұрын

Sort of like a how a wave crashes and the air and water at a moment are in a churn or mixing of the boundary layer (at fractally proportionate scales no less) only to coalesce into its separate constituent particles. Thus deciding its particle state. Literally from a wave function. Nature speaks volumes if we stop and listen

You do an amazing job of describing these concepts, Arvin. Thanks! Dave J

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

Many thanks. Glad you enjoyed it!

Outstanding, Arvin! As always.

This video explains different interesting topics and their relationships in a very simply way. Thank you for that.

Your wonderful videos never cease to amaze me. Describing the indescribable is a tough assignment, and doing it with a language most of us don't speak. Fantastic! Thank you!

@rhyvehr

Жыл бұрын

For anyone who's lost, the first question should be "Wth is Space Time, anyways?" Well, Let me help. Space = Meters Time = Seconds Force = Meters/seconds squared. The squaring of seconds makes it a curve on le graph. Tada, Forces = Space Time Curvature. It's literally just a more confusing term to use to make everyone feel dumb Welcome to Einstein did nothing useful 101 ( and anyone hero worshipping him is weird because ykno, he abused his wife who probably did the math and actual science for him, then he left her for his cousin. What a charming "genius")

I have never heard it explained like this. Thank you, it makes much more sense now. I think?

Thank you for uploading this.

You helped me understand "renormalisation" for the very first time... great!

When Arvin talk about his sponsors, his face changes with a bit of smile. 😆 I got you. Love your videos.

Fantastic video. One thing I missed was how renormalization works. When learning about infinite divergent sums, I've learned of several different summation methods, such as Cesaro, Ramanujan summation and others. If I remember correctly, it was specifically Ramanujan summation that was used to renormalise sums in QFT. I'm curious how exactly it's used and in what specific problems it's used to remove infinities in QFT?

@Reddles37

Жыл бұрын

I don't know the exact mathematical terminology, but basically whenever you have a Feynman diagram with a loop you have to integrate over the possible momentum going around the loop. And this can go up to infinite momentum, which tends to cause the integrals to blow up. But what you can do is find another matching diagram which gives a contribution with the opposite sign, and then cancel out the infinities from the two diagrams. In practice what you usually do is put in a maximum momentum cutoff for these loops to keep everything finite, and then when you add the contributions from all the possible diagrams all the terms depending on the cutoff should cancel out.

@Anonymous-df8it

Жыл бұрын

@@Reddles37 Why does this fail for gravity?

that explanation is really awesome

Once again, Mr. Ash, you have made clear to me what I've never quite been able to understand watching other videos. What the conflict is with relativity and the quantum world. Where the hell is it's gravitational effect. Well done. Again. No, very well done.....my friend.

"It is not incorrect,its incomplete" Sounds like me when i try to explain my math teacher why i deserve a point

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

Haha. Feel free to plagiarize that line my friend!

@omargoodman2999

Жыл бұрын

@@ArvinAsh When you steal ideas from one person, it's plagiarism; from many, research.

Thank you for this insightful video! I have one suggestion though. As you say, among people without a background in physics, one of the most common misunderstandings is that fundamental particles look like little billiard balls. Wouldn’t it be better to use a random image/object, like a watermelon or a basketball or something, to make it clear that it is just placeholder an not an actual depiction? I have no background in physics myself (just interested in learning about it), and it took me a while to realize that particles don’t really ‘look’ like anything in the classical sense of the word, and that depicitions are always schematic. In part this is because it’s kind of difficult to wrap your head around, but it was also because most science communicators keep using the same image of colored balls orbiting each other.

Two things I do when watching Arvin speak: 1. Slow my watching speed to normal from 2x. 2. Constantly anxiously checking timeline if the video is not over Such the power of soothing voice and simple explanations of complex topics. 🙏🏾

@pareeks

Жыл бұрын

Arvin I rhumbly equest you to open a channel in Hindi, translate same content, so that a large number of viewers.from remote villages in India gets Science in its most accurately discussed form. They are mugging up Bhors model, yet cracking IITs.

Thanks. It was Explained in a simple way… very hard for this kind of subject

Excellent video Arvin. Really interesting. Regarding the disparity between the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (and I'm not a physicist and only have a very basic understanding of both), but relating particularly to the discussion on infinites and wave theory, could it be as simple as it doesn't matter what form the particle is - electron, proton, neutron, meson, quark, etc - it's simply the aggregate mass of that 'system' (or quantum object) if you have both particle and wave? Sorry if I'm completely off

This was so great I may be getting greedy, but I'll ask anyway: Would it be possible to go into more detail on how Feynman, et al, canceled infinities as part of renormalization?

@Primitarian

Жыл бұрын

@Opterongeek Or it's a mathematical tool by which to facilitate accurate calculations, one of the two.

@Primitarian

Жыл бұрын

@Opterongeek Are you saying that this gives you a right of ownership? Since you wrote some of these variables down, as you say, nobody else gets to comment on them, they're yours?

@Primitarian

Жыл бұрын

@Opterongeek How have all of us been treating you?

WoW !!! You explain so well 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Arvin Ash has some fabulous comtent. His upload about Maxwell's equations is amazing, too

I've tried for years to understand what they say (when we try to reconcile quantum mechanics with gravity, things go to infinity) but I didn't understand it, I wish I could see it in mathematical equations to understand it more Also, I hope to understand the meaning of their saying ( gravity is non-normalization) with mathematical equations thank you my friend

This could be the best Video ever created in the universe. I'm not even joking. The most important problem, presented so that everybody can understand the basics. Also it's a peace of art.

Wow! What an excellent presentation in a way I can understand!

Big like for your big efforts!!

I'm here again Arvin. Thanks for the explaining note. This looks very good. Cap.

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

Welcome back Captain!

@CaptainPeterRMiller

Жыл бұрын

@@ArvinAsh That was a great video. I feel you need a greater audience. I endeavour to spread the word. Thanks Arvin. Great to be back.

Do we have to rule out the possibility that the space-time continuum is actually a wave form?.. If so, why? Isn't it the easiest way to explain the various fluctuations ascribed to various forces -and gravity too, as well? Your videos, Arvin Ash, are surely "food for brains" and I thank you about it! Looking forward for your next, but I'd appreciate any reply to my question, too!

Again another beautiful piece, Thank you.

This helps a lot. Thank you.

Thanks Arvin, I have asked that question for a very long time. How can gravity have a particle when its curvature? And finally you answered it and i totally understand. Which is saying alot about your skills. Im just going to say it, man i love you.😥

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

Thanks buddy. Love you back.

@lavkmr1

10 ай бұрын

Hey why all planets are circular . Because they are supposed to be due to curvature of space time

Excellent Explained

You are incredible Arvin! You are cool and you explain so well!

what a great video, incredibly well explained

Thank you Arvin sir, you make my understanding simple by putting Feyman Diagram into the explanation of gravity.

I'm interested to know why we can't apply renormalization to gravity. My understanding is that renormalization discounts most virtual particle interactions because their statistical likelihood is so tiny they barely have any impact on the final result. Why doesn't that extend to those interactions' effects on space-time?

This is such a great video

Great content! Thanks 🙏

Beautifully illuminating representation of the problem. Also, I think I’ve figured it out. 😊

@ezeleku

Жыл бұрын

Share it with us please.

@maverickjared4931

Жыл бұрын

Good luck boy then

Arvin, great video! Although pretty much all of your videos are very well done and informative, every now and then you conjure up one of a kind pinnacle performances. This video when coupled with the Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) vs. String theory ST video is a double grand slam. I have watched/read countless videos/articles purporting to explain where it is that General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) are incompatible, most with condescending pats on the head and marginally appropriate metaphors whose connection with the topic is often more confusing than the original question. I mostly come away with a slightly out of focus understanding and the vague feeling that the answer was somehow just out of reach, like with QM itself. Maybe the answers were obvious to others, but having watched your two videos several times, I conclude, you have put your finger precisely on the jugular, explicitly listing concrete issues with crystal clear language and animation, and at a perfect level of abstraction. The fog is lifted, as one might experience the world anew following cataract surgery. 1. A QM wave (before measurement) is probabilistically dispersed in space, while in GR, gravitational sources are localized. 2. QM operates against the fabric of space-time while gravity in GR is the warpage of the fabric of space-time. 3. And, woven into the discussion, QM is quantized while GR is continuous (analog). Personally, I suspect that the fundamental problem is with the continuous space postulate of GR. A solution to Zeno's various paradoxes supports the position that space is quantized as is clearly illustrated in the following video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/m4lpm7VueqfWg7g.html Finally, midway through I picked up on the intuition that that final solution lies with somehow combining LQG and ST, with the strings, rather than the loops, perhaps forming the fabric of space-time. Excellent job! Thank you very much! Jack Hill+

@goldwhitedragon

Жыл бұрын

Wouldn't that fabric itself require a background?

@gierdziui9003

Жыл бұрын

it is all just a simulation, and quantum phenomena such as planck lenghts etc are just limitation of floating point calculations

@jackhill2765

Жыл бұрын

@@goldwhitedragon I can convince myself that the loops/strings would be the background with "nothing" beyond that, but this is just a mental model of how reality might be. And, envisioning exactly what the "nothing" would be is difficult at best and maybe impossible for humans to comprehend.

@jackhill2765

Жыл бұрын

@@gierdziui9003 I agree that the simulation hypothesis is more likely than most people are willing to concede. And in the current era, most simulations are produced on digital computers so this is a natural metaphor for our age. But these simulations don't directly influence physical reality without a physical interface, i.e. airplane simulations don't actually fly nor do simulated tornados blow away buildings. Personally, I believe that infinities are a logical impossibility, at least in certain situations (i.e. Zeno's paradoxes or for physical movement generally), so that having a minimal unit of space-time is a logical requirement rather than a technical or mathematical issue.

@gierdziui9003

Жыл бұрын

@@jackhill2765 Yes, I agree that digital simulations are probably not a 1:1 transformation nor explanation why our world seems to have such boundaries - reality might be infinitely more complex than our computer simulations. Things I think about the most lately are how exactly someone can determine they actually are in a simulation? Let's say i play a computer game and for a moment get into the perspective of the player. Let's assume the game is minecraft, for example. How can I determine that I am, in fact, in a simulated world? Looking for answers to this and by model-like analogy, I think we could try to answer quantum phenomena in simulation theory based research. So not really looking at our world as a digital simulation, but as "*a simulation*" and find out how that it is a simulation assuming we know how we can conclusively find this in games and other world symulators. For me, this is a really fascinating concept that I hope I will be able to research in the future. After all, finding the core of the simulation (if there is such) will automatically obsolete ALL current understanding in every field by essentialy comparing them to *magic that somehow works* instead of ojr current, really weird assumption, that math is even formulated the right way. I hope you get the point :D

I love your thought provoking videos, and the bonus is that the sponsorship intro is only 5 seconds, then straight into the content. And you've got such a calm, relaxing voice.

You are a genius to making this video ! You manadge to mix thé best part of physics and math ! From m'y point of view this is a better way of doing physics then i ever have in lessons!

Renormalization might not be necessary if you have better number systems than the real numbers. In theory you can make a number line that can fit a copy of itself between any two (distinct)numbers without any distortion (just zoom-like rescaling), even between two numbers that are so close that their distance is smaller than any positive real number. That would allow you to fit the entire universe into a single point (well, in real numbers it would be a point, and from outside it would look like a point), but you could still walk around inside it, possibly not even noticing anything unusual.

Ok I have a question that probably is dumb but still it's stuck in my mind... What happens if we consider the mass/energy spread out along the wave function?

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

The problem is that there is no mathematical description of that. The wavefunction does not say that the properties of the object are spread out. Its norm only depicts the probabilities of what we we might find if we measure it.

Best explanation of gravity I have ever heard. Gravity may not have a quantum explanation as it is not a force.

Your stuff never gets old, keep it up! Also, you look much better without that benie 🙃

Quantum gravity is my future field of research. I intend to solve it, or die trying.

@user-fl7oc5vv6g

Жыл бұрын

Hello from Kazakhstan. It is interesting that the highest theoretical physics, cosmology rests on one result of the experiment, we do not argue with such an outcome. But you can do the experiment in a new way and get even more additional results. To test the modern theory, Michelson Morley's experiment gives the necessary results by 50%, with the experience of Zhavlan MASER, you can get all 97%. The Michelson-Morley experiment should use a solid-state continuous MASER, developed in England in 2018, as a light source. This experience can be used inside the vehicle while it is moving to determine the vehicle's speed relative to the DGF of the Earth's dominant gravitational field. The installation will almost also work as a traffic police radar, that is, the results will exceed the interference.. If you are at rest inside the DGP, then relative to you the speed of light is constant. If you are in motion in the DGF, then you break the symmetry and break the speed constant of light with respect to yourself. DGF - Dominant Gravitational Field.

It would be interesting to hear your take on the EP=EPR hypothesis. Interesting idea that space-time may be an emergent phenomenon of entanglement.

@StephenGillie

Жыл бұрын

The theory that locations in spacetime are only next to each other because they're very tightly entangled leads to the concept that you can change what's next to a given patch of spacetime by entangling it with a remote part of spacetime. Vacuum energy is spacetime maintaining locality by entangling with neighbors. To create a portal you could entangle 2 photons, leave 1 at a location, goto a different location, then use the 2 photons to entangle spacetime and create a portal. And if you believe in Remote Viewing, it could be a read-only version of Remote Entanglement, where one part of spacetime (or the beings there) could affect another part of spacetime.

@AlexanderShamov

Жыл бұрын

​@@StephenGillie You can't transport information through entanglement, so these "entanglement wormholes" are supposed to be non-traversable.

@StephenGillie

Жыл бұрын

​@@AlexanderShamov It feels like there should be some way, as though we just haven't figured out a clever way yet. Like we measure Z for a 0 and "anti-Z" for 1, where "anti-Z" might be halfway between X and Y. Though since point particles act like they are spinning spheres, maybe it's mathematically impossible to determine how one will respond to a measurement.

I always watch your videos because you got skill of converting difficult phenomenon into easy ones.

@ArvinAsh

10 ай бұрын

Thank you. Glad you enjoy these videos.

you explain complex physics so simply well thank you please sir

Very well done. This episode reminds me of a question and a recent debate. If a Plank length is the smallest possible known theoretical unit, does this not suggest a theoretical limit for Pi? A plank Pi if you will… :-)

@reisilva2940

Жыл бұрын

actually no, because you can enlarge your circle as much as you want, and the precision of pi would also increase accordingly with the irracional number

@JasonKlein97

Жыл бұрын

@@reisilva2940 This is only true if the universe is infinite. If the universe if finite, it would mean that pi has a limit. Interesting thought!

@reisilva2940

Жыл бұрын

@@JasonKlein97 pi is an abstraction it has no limit. Since the universe is expanding the most precise measurement of pi needed for a physical thing also grows, but I don’t think it is a particularly meaningful thing, just a coincidence, just like the best approximation for square root 2 needed to measure the diagonal of biggest square which fits in the universe, even if u call it the plank square root of 2 I just don’t think its a meaningful term.

It seems to me that subatomic particles expand into a very large area when they have to move and all that expanded blob is their gravity combined and when they hit something or are stationary, they are forced to contract into a single point again. That's the reason why the point where they form on collision can't be determined. because of the large expanded size they can have any of their parts move faster or slower and have it's shape change while traveling and whitchever part gets to have a larger density at the moment of impact, the rest of it's body contracts over there. It feel to me that subatomic particles act a little bit like cells but unlike cells and other solid macro scale matter, the subatomic particles have huge spaces of influece where they can contract and expand. If there is such a huge amount of space between an atomic nucleus and the electrons around it then that way of organising may be even more extreme at the smaller scale. And that also coincides with the way bodies at the huge scale work. The sun and the planet are tiny dots compared to the massive patches of space between them and yet if you were to look at a huge distance you kinda see galaxies as compact bodies with very little space inbetween stars. That's an illusion given by scale or distance.

Thank you so much!

I'm so glad I collapsed the wave function of this video today in my reality... brilliant and simple at the same time.. Thanks so much!

Thank you, this summarises well my own opinion of gravity which I have been pondering for over 30 years since studying physics at university. You did add a flavour to my picture, in that the interactions of quantum energy and matter, stand separate to space-time. An upper layer of sorts. I've picked up concepts and theories from so many places and tried to fit them in, many excluded, but the crux of my understanding is thus: Matter and energy exist and interact in predictable ways per the Standard Model, but how exactly do they create gravity. By interacting with Space-Time through an energy exchange mechanism. We're pretty sure that particles can briefly pop into and out of existence, known as virtual particles, which you touched on. What you did was make me think about how these virtual particle interchanges affect the fabric itself. I would posit that particle interactions and virtual exchanges warp Space-Time. The sum effect creating a gravitational field around the contiguous mass. The bigger the body (mass) the greater the warping effect and therefore the density of Space-Time increases, warping more again. Matter gets denser as gravity increases, and time slows (hence density). It's the presence of mass/energy that trickles across the fabric until enough of it pools. That pool of matter/energy pulls in more matter/energy. Gravitational attraction via density changes. This started 30 years ago when I considered all mass/energy in the Universe constantly flowing. A weak analogy would be that of water on Earth, however the flow of water etches the fabric of the surface of the Earth and Earth's gravity in isolation is merely potential difference. Further to the analogy, rain falls on the landscape, follows the shape of the fabric eventually forming small streams, then creeks, rivers and into the oceans (the pool at the bottom of the potential difference). By watching streams one can see currents, channels, and eddies. They are always changing, some look static for a while but still eventually change. The water flow is analogous to energy (EM waves) and the current eddies analogous to matter. The eddies can look consistent but can dynamically change when more energy flows through its locale. Standard Model interactions are analogous to this, dynamically changing particles (eddies) in a quantum manner, as shown by your Feynman diagrams. In the water model, the Earth surface is the underlying fabric, which itself can be interacted with. Energy and matter flows in create arcs across the Universe, arms of galaxies, energetic jets of energy, galaxy clusters, and the strands that bind them in super clusters. If we watch and follow the flows they all pool at the bottom of deep gravity wells where the matter is annihilated and rebroadcast out into the local area like a geyser. The key to all this is how energy/matter interacts with Space-Time. Those minute warps of the fabric can add up to a lot. Well it's a theory.

@clientesinformacoes6364

Жыл бұрын

I have a question, if two particles with different masses and equal constant speed moving in a expanding space, they will move in different speed or maintain the same speed relative to one another?

@blokin5039

Жыл бұрын

Got a RESEARCH paper coming up?

Around 10:00 you show an electron/positron pair annihilating and sending a photon on its way. After splitting into various virtual particle pairs that recombine it ends up splitting into a real electron/positron pair. Question: how does the photon “remember” that it’s supposed to end up splitting into an e/p pair and not some other particle/antiparticle pair?

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

What the photon splits into generally depends on the energy of the photon, so if it has more energy than an electron-positron pair, could could transform into a heavier particle pair, not just electrons.

Well information. Good show.

This is a fantastic channel, I mean brilliant.

I think trying to reconcile QM and GR is the wrong approach. QM is all about *matter-matter interactions* while GR is all about *matter-spacetime interactions* They're completely different things. Asking why the two theories aren't compatible is like asking why a ball dropped to the floor bounces but the same ball dropped in water sinks instead of bouncing.

@Casperdghost618

Жыл бұрын

Fluid dynamics

@feynstein1004

Жыл бұрын

@@Casperdghost618 What?

Why gravity must work at small scales ? Is it an assumption tht it should ?Also tht thing/assumption about cumulative effects must work at large scales ?

@amjadalhindi7350

Жыл бұрын

Because if it didn't, then how can we say it's a broad explanation of the universe? This is how theories must be, broad, unified, and applicable at all situations, not just certain phenomena

@Cats2Fat

Жыл бұрын

Even if gravity didn’t work at small scales, you would still need a theory to explain the emergence of large scale gravitational effects.

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

precisely!

@iam6424

Жыл бұрын

All this makes me think...That theories come out of conscious minds 🙏🏼 So one day Science must proceed into the inner subjective world 🙏🏼

This was a fantastic explanation

Arvin, in my limited knowledge of this area of science, I see spacetime as a monitor screen whereby time (and photons) act as the "refresh rate" With photons serving also a "change state" role. We are "encoded" onto the monitor screen itself