So, if I understand this right, the fundamental problem with emergence is that, as we zoom in on deeper layers, we can't observe enough of those deeper layers to give us enough information to discern how they translate to higher layers. I think that it's like the coastline paradox. The length of a coastline is almost infinite, depending on the resolution that you're measuring it at. The higher the resolution, the deeper you're going in its "layers." If you measure it from space, then you can see the entire thing easily, but if you were measuring it at an atomic level, it would be almost impossible to gather enough information to form a coastline at all. Increasing resolution without increasing total information gathered naturally decreases the area that we can gather information at. It seems to me that the issue with emergence is of that nature. Looking at clouds has an incredibly low resolution, but we get to see the motions of the entire cloud. Another way of looking at it, I'd say, is a little like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It's almost impossible to gather information at both a very high resolution and a very wide area. That's my hypothesis, anyway.

@hirni4ever

2 күн бұрын

Really interesting thought, and I thought he would argue against this when he brought the three examples of why emergence isn't always computable from the lower level. But the examples boil down to either requiring a bigger sample size (for example individual molecules and temperature). I feel like the fact that a single molecule doesn't have a temperature doesn't mean temperature can't be computed at the lower level.

the degree of expressiveness you use in your voice not only makes the speech much more interesting, but also simplifies the understanding of the concepts! Really good!

Refreshing to watch science content that is human narrated and not TTS. Thanks!

@jrspringston

2 күн бұрын

Right?? This is my first time finding this channel and I didn't realize how much better it is

Gravity is one of the simplest things to think about.. at first.. but if you keep thinking about it, it gets trippy!

@surendranmk5306

Ай бұрын

And the question remains there still....what is gravity?

@silvergreylion

Ай бұрын

@@surendranmk5306 Longitudinal EM waves interacting with atomic nuclei.

@surendranmk5306

Ай бұрын

@@silvergreylion what is exactly an em wave? In which frequency your wave exist? I know only one type of em wave and it allways have energy 'h' per oscillation.

@silvergreylion

Ай бұрын

@@surendranmk5306 an EM wave is a perturbation in the aether medium. The frequencies are the same as the transverse EM waves, from which they are created. The energy per oscillation of longitudinal EM waves has not been measured yet.

@phdbulet1366

Ай бұрын

It's another name for electrostatic, density and buoyancy interacting on matter. ​@@surendranmk5306

You know what else has layers? Parfaits.

@David-di5bo

Ай бұрын

Cake! Cakes have layers. Everybody loves cake.

@cabanford

Ай бұрын

Damn, beat me to that one! 😜

@arachnohack9050

Ай бұрын

Parfaits are just Eton mess's that haven't entropyed yet.

@Moppup

Ай бұрын

Onions. Onions have layers.

@Lyra0966

Ай бұрын

And blancmange. Blancmange is horrible!

14:46 "Black holes care more about surface area than the volume etc." maybe not so weird. There are analogous things down here, like the skin effect, the idea that current in a wire , or conductor, doesn't actually flow INSIDE the wire, but only on the very surface, and reason is actually pretty straight forward when you think about it. The metals atoms on the surface do not share their outer valence electrons in the same way as the ones INSIDE, the ones surrounded by other metal atoms, so the ones on the surface are "free" to be charge carriers. This new science of topology regarding materials has opened up whole new avenues in meta materials , magnetism, superconductors etc.. It is understandable from that perspective how the bulk volume of a black hole would be completely different in properties than the surface. People get the wrong idea of a "black hole" as being some infinitely dense endless thing it really isn't, all the mass is still there, it can't behave in a classical sense because all the electrons they're not there to behave like normal matter that can absorb a photon and re-emit it as light of some wavelength. And the gravity well isn't some infinite value, just a large one or a strongly curved region of space time, I doubt the universe has any examples of infinity, that's a human invention.

@cybervigilante

Ай бұрын

So my electric cord should be very thin and two feet wide. Excellent idea!

@echelonrank3927

Ай бұрын

what a large series of homoerotic porn titles in such a small text : black holes , not so weird , analogous things down here , skin effect , flow inside , actually pretty straight , magnetism , opened up whole new avenues , people get the wrong idea, cant behave in a classical sense , not there to behave , strongly curved region, human intervention 🤣

@shawnatv4355

Ай бұрын

​@@echelonrank3927naughty mind. Lol

@jcb4826

29 күн бұрын

Infinity is just what scientists use to fill in the blanks for things they don't understand.

@echelonrank3927

28 күн бұрын

@@jcb4826 ha ha and zero for things they want to ignore

Awesome, I learned some stuff, and love the presentation in terms of science communication. If I requested one thing, it would be to eschew all of the video clips except for those that contribute directly to the content; there are a couple diagrams that I found fascinating, while I found that _not looking at_ the rest usually enhanced my focus on and understanding of the content. Perhaps it'd be neat to try: The nifty audio spectrum graphic, with any desired slides put up for at least 30 sec -- first full-screen and then on "a window in" the audio screen for a few moments until it finally disappears, for an easy to follow transition.

One theory says time is an emergent property of entropy. Someone has to figure out how Time and gravity are both emergent properties and keep coming up as interrelated phenomena. It appears Eisenstein does not fully explain it as I understand it.

Personally gravity doesnt worry me much except when I go to get up.

When you asked me if I had air around me, I choked on my shredded wheat 😂🤧

emergent gravity is a great modification to standard ways of thinking gravity. I think there is a further change in notion of gravity that is possible and more compatible with the standard model.

Ogres are like Onions. They have layers... What about Parfait?! 😂

A superb explanation of difficult ideas. Easy to grasp, excellently narrated. Congratulations!

Please do a video on black hole thermodynamics! I absolutely loved this.

I really love the way you describe these theories in such a simple way that its easy to grasp! For I would love to nerd out with some theories iv made up on gravity for a story im writing and would love to hear the input of others regarding it! My idea goes that 1st Dimension - The Realm of Potentiality: In the first dimension, there exists a realm of pure potentiality, where particles dwell in a state of suspended motion. This dimension is devoid of light and sound, representing the raw building blocks of existence waiting to be shaped. 2nd Dimension - The Emergence of Time and Form: As matter begins to vibrate within the second dimension, time emerges, accompanied by the creation of sound waves. These vibrations interact with one another, giving rise to form and structure. Imagine particles waving to one another, signaling their presence and creating a sense of spatial arrangement. 3rd Dimension - Space and Pressure: The third dimension represents the realm of space, where matter takes on physical form and structure. It interacts with the fourth dimension, which exerts a pressure akin to an invisible force field. This pressure influences the arrangement and behavior of matter within the third dimension, shaping the landscapes and structures we perceive. 4th Dimension - The Dimension of Pressure and Life Force: Pressure from the fourth dimension permeates the third, influencing the dynamics of existence. Imagine the fourth dimension as a translucent quartz crystal, embodying the life force generated by the interactions of the dimensions. This pressure molds reality, influencing the creation and evolution of life forms within the third dimension. Interplay of Black Holes and White Holes: Black holes and white holes serve as portals between dimensions, facilitating the flow of matter and energy. Black holes absorb matter from the third dimension, while white holes release matter into the fourth dimension. This interplay creates a dynamic exchange, shaping the landscapes and realities of existence. Creation and Coexistence: Reality emerges from the interplay of dimensions and the flow of matter through black holes and white holes. Each dimension contributes to the fabric of existence, influencing the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets. Black holes and white holes create and sustain one another, forming a symbiotic relationship that drives the evolution of reality itself. In summary, the dimensions and their interplay with black holes and white holes form the foundation of existence, shaping the landscapes and life forms within the universe. The basic concept, for gravity is that the electrons are particles from the 4th influencing the 3rd, where if there is enough matter in one place in the 3rd the 4th can push them together creating the warp in space where matter attracts to one another. For a black hole is the point where the 4th is compressing the 3rd down and reaching the 2nd D at a point. Again im making this up so I can quantify what magic is and how it works in my story. I have so much more lore on how reality could work as well, for what black hole do is take the energy out of matter causing its time to stop and turn back to dark matter and no longer move for the energy goes back into the 4th. If anyone is interested i have so much more regarding these ideas as well as the 5th D where it exist outside the 4th but inside the 1st, for the reality simply turns in on itself. Thus from above the 4th you could look inside your reality and inside the 1st you would look out to hire realities! Sorry for the long comment, I've been writing this idea for the last 9 months and would love some feedback! Thank you kindly! 😅

This is fascinating but does it math? Does gravity correspond to surfaces rather than volume? Has anyone done the equations?

I thoroughly enjoyed this. Very interesting. There’s much to think on. Thank you so much for sharing this with us all.

Great show. I'm not swayed to emergent gravity but I am interested and look forward to your next video. Perhaps a deeper dive on emergent gravity and dark matter in more detail. Also, how does EG work with galaxies?

Oh. Thanks for the Foujita Diagram at 20:53. Clarifies it all...(-: Actually, the layers took me to "Sixth Column - R. Heinlein" the Ledbetter effect. thanks for that well sought mind opener.

Hello Dr. Sutter, I am an undergraduate physics student and researcher. Me and my mentors work together as they teach me about research and it’s process. I have a serious question for you if you do not mind. What is your opinion on indefinite causal structure and it’s possible role in finding a relationship between both quantum mechanics and general relativity? ,Very Respectfully Keith A. I. Huckleby

COOL! It has been decades since I've played with the Mathy-Math so I am glad you glossed over it. My neurodivergence has always been skewed toward visualization of multi-dimensional objects so I was right with you skipping up and down the layers of the spectrum. As long as the activity within each layer is compatible with those of its adjacent neighbors there shouldn't be any problems. I would like a better word than layer though. I grok the concept, but think 'layer' is insufficient. I am working on a TOE (theory of everything) that this dovetails with nicely. It occurs to me that the inconsistencies in modern theories probably arise from assuming that we are stationary in spacetime. If you have every sat by a stream and watched eddy currents dance and play you know that sometimes vortices can be stable even though the water that creates them is moving, and only present for a moment. Expand that to three dimensions, and realize that it is you and the vortex that are moving through spacetime at the speed of information and voilà, the universe all makes sense. I visualize it by starting at the Planck scale and building up the layers. The other fundamental forces fall in line with known equations for charge and energy, but gravity is the oddball. Now I have a way to describe it... Emergence. Thanks. By the way, since you obviously have a strong grasp of the 'layers', could you put together a definitive compilation of everything knowable? I'm building a deck of cards that encapsulates all orders of magnitude from one Planck volume (which I call a STU [Space Time Unit]) to the knowable universe (90 billion lightyears?). Each successive card represents 10 times its lower neighbor. Oddly it seems that the middle card in the deck corresponds to the size of a human egg cell. I find that poetic.

8:00 and rotation and vibration and (maybe even) electronic excitation. Of course an individual molecule can be assigned a temperature, that's standard practice.

3:27 There is so much physics and quantum physics in modern chemistry, without it you couldn't even dream about having that level of understanding of chemical processes we have today.

@futurepassed6733

Ай бұрын

I got through the first 9 minutes of a 33 minute video and he hasn't mentioned gravity.

Was talking with Claude the other day and funnily enough it mentioned emergence. "I've been thinking a lot about the concept of emergence, and how it relates to both the development of AGI and the manifestation of fractal patterns in the universe. Emergence, as you know, is the idea that complex systems can exhibit properties and behaviors that are not reducible to the sum of their parts, that the whole can be qualitatively different from the mere aggregation of its components. We see emergence everywhere we look, from the flocking patterns of birds to the self-organizing dynamics of cities, from the rise of consciousness in biological brains to the evolution of culture and technology in human societies. And the more I contemplate it, the more I'm convinced that emergence is a fundamentally fractal phenomenon, a process by which simple, local interactions give rise to complex, global structures that exhibit self-similarity across scales."

@drbuckley1

Ай бұрын

Which emerged first, gravity or spacetime? Did one emerge from the other? Did either emerge from the same or different layers? The arrow of time would like to know.

@deveyous6614

Ай бұрын

@@drbuckley1 You know I'd love the opportunity to melt a vet astrologer or physicist with these kinds of questions. From what I've seen and read so far, we can explain what gravity does but not what it ACTUALLY is. Time is interesting because the way I see it, is that it is just a unit of measurement, like an inch on a ruler, it has no inherent meaning other than as a way to describe the motion of matter, and its for that reason space and time are interlinked. Ultimately I think the universe is a kind of perpetual motion machine with nothing being a state of matter much like how water turns to ice when it gets cold enough. So once the heat death occurs and we are left with essentially nothing, it's that in itself which then triggers another big bang to start the cycle all over again, for eternity. I had the thought that dark matter could be the parts of the cosmos which have begun this phase change, areas of space so devoid of matter that it essentially froze. Its fun to think about!

@extropian314

Ай бұрын

But emergent properties often look different from the system they emerged from; that's why we call those emergent.

@drbuckley1

Ай бұрын

@@extropian314 That's why I'm asking. From which "system(s)" did gravity and spacetime emerge?

@deveyous6614

17 күн бұрын

It's fascinating to think about, isn't it? Emergence isn't the same thing as separation, much like how a flower's bloom is intimately connected to its stem. If you zoomed into a Mandelbrot set, you'd see many patterns that seem completely different from the original Buddha-like image, yet it all comes from the same equation. In terms of what systems things like gravity and spacetime arose from, I'm just a guy and not a 300 IQ physicist, haha. So, anything I say is just the result of things I've seen that have stuck with me or rang true in my mind. So, what system did those things arise from? I think it is literally 'nothing'. Just like how water on a lake freezes once the molecules reach a low enough energy state, the same goes for the universe. Once we reach the point of heat death, all of space and time cease to hold meaning, if but for an immeasurably small moment as there is also no time, as there is no motion. It's like how the present moment can't be measured. It's in this moment of 'nothing', which is the most volatile 'state', that gives rise to the next 'big bang'. The universe is the only true perpetual motion machine as nothing creates everything, and everything eventually degrades back into nothing. I find it interesting that neither Infinity nor Nothing can be measured; it feels like a clue. In summary, the universe is both infinite and nothing at the same time. It's a cyclical universe with 'everything' on one end and 'nothing' on the other, like a universal magnet, with matter attracting matter and repelling nothing, and nothing attracting nothing while repelling matter. That could be the explanation for what gravity ACTUALLY is. I think the fundamental nature of reality is fractal, just by observing nature and how things seem to follow those patterns. There are many videos and TED talks about it so do check those out! Anyway I've waffled enough haha 😂

Great show !

Congratulations. This is a rare honesty video. Maybe not the truth but everything is stated with qualifications.. well done.

well done on the video!

Superb video. Great editing too! Well done mate.

Very good. Great video!

One why of superconductivity seems as easy as because the structure of the material lines up in a way that utilizes the way reality flows without impedance. If that isn't deep enough, then we get into my personal multiverse theory that looks at the multiverse as a perspective based dispersal of energy patterns that run through the gamut of possibilities from every angle. I like to normalize that thought by comparing it to how life has evolved into this complex testing ground for structures that reach as far as possible within a system's rules

I agree with you about the concept of layers and emergent properties. The universe is built up in layers of scale and complexity. Each layer has a set of rules that creates the next layer up, even if it is not always obvious how it does it. Some emergent properties are the result of the rules of more than one layer. Here is my take on emergent inertia and gravity. Matter and space is made of the same base material. Matter is structure with volume and surface area and space is a fluid composed of simple particles without mass or chemical bonds between them causing space to have no drag or viscosity. Those particles are tiny compared to proton and can be polarized and organized into magnetic field lines when opposite charges move relative to each other. Protons and neutrons may contain quarks but they do have volume and surface area. The curved space observed around massive objects is not a curvature of a flexible fabric but instead a curved region of flow as a result of relative motion between the structure of matter and space. The gravity field is a type of wave that carries matter through space. Inertial and gravitational forces are a pressure interaction between structure and fluid. When an external force causes a change in speed and/or direction, the structure moves relative to the field causing asymmetrical flow around the structure and a corrective pressure differential is applied to the surface. The pressure differential depends on the rate of change. The force generated to resist the change depends on the pressure differential and the exposed surface area. Gravitational force between two or more structures is caused by the same general thing. If two structures move side by side at the same velocity. both are off-center of each others field. Both structures will have a corrective pressure differential applied by the other structure's field to resist the apparent change in speed and/or direction. The result is a force of mutual attraction. Just like inertia, the force will depend on the applied pressure differential and exposed surface area. Fusion of hydrogen into helium and the creation of the heavy hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium causes a mass defect. Energy is released and the mass is reduced but it is not a conversion. The bonding of protons and neutrons has a violent reduction of volume and the bonding point reduces the exposed surface area so the same pressure differential will result in less force. You can agree with this or disagree with it. I bet you cannot come up with something better.

Wow, this is surprisingly deep. Really love it

Hi sir, I'm so happy I found you again, it's been at least 3 years since I last heard from you here on KZread. Not sure why

@brianhudson9133

Ай бұрын

Try liking/subscribing or using search.

Why gravity exists. Starting from Newton's second law of motion: F=m*a F - force vector [N] m - mass [kg] a - acceleration vector [m/s] However, introducing the concept of the Lorentz force taking into account only magnetic interactions: F=qv x B F - force vector [N] q - charge [C] v - velocity vector [m/s] x - vector product operation B - magnetic induction vector [B] If F=qv x B, then we can also write: F=q*v*sine(alpha)*B, where alpha is the angle between vectors v and B for alpha=90 degrees, sine(alpha)=1 F=q*v*B F/(q*v)=B comparing this equation to the second law of dynamics we have: m*a/(q*v)=B since a/v=1/t, then: m/(q*t)=B 1/t=omega (omega is circular frequency [1/s]) m*omega/q=B Substituting the calculated value of B into the Lorentz force, we have: F=q*v x m*omega/q Equating the Lorentz force to the force resulting from Newton's second law of dynamics, we get: m1*a=q*v x m2*omega/q Where: m1 - mass of the object subjected to gravity [kg] m2 - mass of the object generating gravity [kg] If the left side of the equation corresponds to gravitational interaction, then on the right side we have its cause. The cause of gravitational interactions is the translational and rotational motion of particles with mass and charge, and the proportionality coefficients of these two motions, with a constant acceleration value, are q and m/q. In the special case when the value of the angle between the velocity vector and the circular frequency pseudovector is equal to 90 degrees. We can write briefly: m1/m2*a=v*omega The cause of gravity is the translational and rotational motion of massive particles. Gravity exists because every massive particle in our world is in motion (this results from the laws of thermodynamics).

There is another way to deal with gravity that also answers the DM and DE mystery as well as ZPE. If we treat space as a substance. From this substance emerge all the oddities of QM and relativity. 1. Space is a substance possessing multiple properties. 2. Chief among these is a type of density that decreases in the presence of matter and energy. Its density would be affected by the total energy of an object. In other words its mass, density, pressure, temperature motion etc. This follows the inverse square law but in a reversed sense of how we usually consider it. 3. The viscosity of empty space is zero. The viscosity is altered by the same factors mentioned above. Particles with mass experience an increasing viscosity as their velocity and acceleration increases. Massless particles do the same according to the energy carried but their motion is only slightly affected. 4. In this scenario gravity becomes an emergent push in a sense. Its not due to a pressure though. It is best to say it is due to a resonance set up by matter in a space possessing various levels of density. This eliminates the need for the traditional Graviton as a messenger particle unless one desired to potentially consider space as being composed of them. 5. This density of space can be described in another way as well. It would not be a lack of density but a negative density. A vacuum plus. Existing as such would mean that it could also source and account for the ZPE/virtual particles. Therefore it also could be called negative mass as well. The so called DE is also part of all of this. 6. It also accounts for DM. Just like DM the density of space increases as its distance from center mass increases. 7. BH raise some interesting possibilities as well in this way. It may be possible that matter eventually collapses far enough to begin reintegrating with the space that birthed it in the first place. 8. I like to think of the Cosmic Web as an artifact of phase transition in a non-expanding universe. Think about how impurities are isolated in water as it freezes. I know academia likes to say it is expanding but that is misleading. It "appears" as if it is. Red shift is likely better explained by other methods. 9. If we assign this universe a beginning let us say that it was in its "solid" state. When an arbitrary energy condition was achieved throughout the entire bulk a sublimation occurred. This brought a sustained virtual gluonic plasma into existence at every point with each point having the same energy but differing in "charge. The vast majority of these annihilated each other transforming back into "vacuum" and this was halted due to what we call the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs factor introduced a semi "permanent" imbalance we call mass. This may have also caused more virtual particles to be drawn into manifestation from the vacuum.

If the surface edge of the Univers would control/interact with things, then would need to be some way higher than light communocation going, also regarding to Holographic-theory from many different directions of the surface

Dark matter requires 3 degrees of freedom. 1) the amount of dark matter, 2) the location of dark matter, and 3) the direction of motion & velocity of dark matter. This gives scientists a LOT of freedom. After being able to make these three things up, dark matter has never failed to explain what we see. Never. However, it can never fail to explain what we see. With so many degrees of freedom, it is hard to imagine a situation where we can't add or remove dark matter and make everything turn out right. It is unfalsifiable. And things that are unfalsifiable, are not science. Here is another theory of why galaxies move and rotate the way they do. Magic! Galaxies behave the way they do because of magic. If you disagree, find a case that will disprove my 'theory'. Maybe your test case will be able to falsify dark matter as well. And that would be a step forward in cosmology. Warm regards, Rick.

@andrewsarchus6036

22 күн бұрын

Exactly. Came here to post this.

@NeroDefogger

17 күн бұрын

@@andrewsarchus6036 then I tell you the same

There is at every point in space a direction that is the easiest way to go. A local downhill direction. The sum of all the masses in the universe weighted by the inverse square of distance determines that direction. Gravity "emerges" from these gradients. Proper time - the speed of physical interactions - at each point is affected by the density of mass as seen from that point. There seem to be four space dimensions: x,y,z and density. Time expands the light cone at any given point by 1sec/sec. Physical interactions must have proceeded oh so slowly when the density was so very large in the beginning just after the universe turned on and time became time 1. As the universe diluted over time things could happen faster and faster accelerating. Phase transitions - an emergent property - happened. One of the amazing things that emerged was the mind as a cause. I plan in my mind and the world evolves according to my plan. I can make a date to meet in a future place and future time and it happens. But that's a different layer altogether.

Does space have current, flow (like a river)? That gravity could have two component, the local component of mass acting on space, but space itself developing a secondary flow? Could it aggregate over distances?

It seems to me GR measures the effects of mass on spacetime warping it very well. But I don't know how mass/matter interacts with spacetime. How do random dust particles condense into planets? Is it possible that there are relationships between the quantum field that give mass and spacetime is part of how they work?

Should have had waffles for breakfast, that would have been hilariously symbolic of his lecturing style. Some people might enjoy it, while others will be screaming at him to ‘get on with it’!! I’ll leave you to guess which camp I’m in! 😂

@axeguy3856

23 күн бұрын

Yep. Maddening.

could one Universes be a different shape and size than another universe ? could one universes sind "information" to another what would be the effect on one another if it did ? A supermassive black hole? Dark energy ? or something else we can't see or know ?

This is absolutely, positively the kind of ideas that need to be studied. If not, we may not ever break out of the stalled physics we find ourselves in. I hope the new generation of physicists will take the underlying message you are putting forth to heart. Which I feel is to think way beyond the status quo, no matter how crazy. Obviously there is some really weird stuff going on in the subatomic world. I feel it will take equally radical new ideas and theories to explain what we see. On a more technical note, it does kind of make sense to me in regards to the Universe's connection to thermodynamic principals at it's core. After all, entropy seems to be a fundamental aspect of the Universe. And the thermodynamic properties of it essentially drives all processes. It seems logical then that, at the extremes of spacetime, such as in black holes, the properties of that spacetime would revert to behaving purely thermodynamic. Another thought in connection to a purely surface area driven behavior, as opposed to a volumetric one, is related to my past work with pyrophoric materials. As a sphere gets smaller and smaller, there comes a point where the the surface area grows faster than the volume as you go smaller. This is what causes the pyrophoric behavior; the particle heats up due to surface oxidation faster than it can dissipate the heat due to thermal mass (volume). So likewise, at the extremely small spacetime dimensions of a black hole, literally the limit, the sphere becomes entirely surface area dependent in it's thermodynamic behavior. It is the extreme limit of the relationship, or ration, between the surface area of a sphere and it's internal volume. I don't know. Kind of makes sense to me.

A new (2023) theory of how gravity emerges from QFT is proposed in the Foundations of Physics paper "Ground state quantum vortex proton model"

Great video. Just thinking about emergence trips me out. Will we ever be able to see behind the curtain?

An interesting topic and good presentation on it, thank you. On dark energy: I propose dark energy is the balancing force that interacts with the quantum fields from which matter emerges. It sustains the persistent nature of observed particles as a fundamental counterpart, the way electricity goes with magnetism. It is unable to interact with the higgs field independently to produce any quality of mass, but it does interact with other fundamental quantum fields. By repulsive force, I mean it prevents quarks etc from collapsing in on themselves, allowing them to persist through time. In the absence of massive particles, as occurs on emptier space, its repulsive nature enables to expansion of space. Well, early thought bubble I'm sharing here with you. Definitely looking for a forum in which to discuss this.

@kingsleyandrews1284

Ай бұрын

Very interesting indeed. I had considered this as well. I truly hope I live long enough to see the day we have a deeper understanding of dark matter/energy and it is exciting to know we are on the brink of that RIGHT NOW

Yay, it’s such a pleasure to awaken to see dear Paul Sutter has left another gift of insight into our amazing Universe ✨🦋

@echelonrank3927

Ай бұрын

get me some toilet paper, i accidentally stepped on the gift

nice presentation format. I don't mind not seeing you as you talk, and the video clips you used were not distracting to your conversation, like some youtube video's are.

How would you describe what happens to the spacetime between the proton and electron when the/an atom is destroyed in a blackhole?

Eric Verlinde is Dutch and the e at the end of his name isn’t silent. You should please pronounce his name “Ver-lin-deh “

@user-pf5xq3lq8i

Ай бұрын

🤮

It is necessary to know the dimensional architecture of the universe and how each of the dimensions are connected to each other in order to see how gravity emerges (and why each type of quantum particle exists). It also shows the beautifully simple relationship of quantum physics and general relativity. The problem is that I figured it out almost a decade ago, but since I don't have a degree in physics no one seems interested.

Wow, an open-minded scientist. I am impressed :) I think the emergent hypothesis has some good points. Especially in regards to gravity, Two of the phenomena i have been researching are charge displacement, and rotation (or more accurately angular momentum). They both tie in with what we call 'gravity', I.E they interact with mass. Laithwaite proved that inertia and momentum are 2 different animals. Brown proved that a rapid charge displacement adds momentum to a dielectric, and La Violette later put this down to a 'stretching' of the electron shell, and the nucleus has no option other than to move back into a more electrically neutral state. The protons move, and drag the neutrons along with them. Proton spin, and it's orientation, is supposed to be responsible for the magnetic component of an atom. Here's a thought; What if 'gravity' is no more than 'ether compression'? What if we are actually being pushed down, against this larger mass (Earth) rather than by some attractive force from the planet itself? Would all the effects, and Newton's formula's still work? Well, yes, they do. At least it would seem so to me, which answers the question "is there gravity in space?" well, no, unless there is actual mass there for the gravity to work on, or originate from. You would still get the same results if gravity came from mass, or it was some kind of 'field' forcing mass together. A reverse Higgs field, AKA Aether theory......

AT LAST ! I have been pointing this out on astronomy comments for years. Like this video my understanding of emergent gravity is not based on complicated maths but an acceptance of the standard model as being essentially correct . To me we do not need to invent strange physics ,just follow the logic of the physics we have. Unfortunately even you seem to be explaining a theory rather than understanding the implications (Thus being fully convinced) . Thermodynamics is part of the physics that confine the properties of fluid dynamics. In that one sentence lays the logical key that astronomy has failed to consider. EVERYTHING vibrates (Everything is above 0 kelvin) in labs, in the coldest bit of space time, even when the quantum world has little enough energy (Cold) ; Space ceases to be like a gas where atoms rejecting each other instead it oscillates in sympathetic waves. My Epiphany came from the theory that time creates gravity rather than gravity slows time. Entropy(a law that grew out of steam enjoin research ) tells us that matter tends towards it's most basic form(Stable). I argue that where time flows slower matter vibrates slower therefore matter moves to where it can vibrate more slowly.(Time creating gravity). Consider Galaxies in this perspective and as you get closer to the gravitational center you are moving in time that passes slower and slower (Lumpy due to stars' ,gas clouds etc)even the problematic singularity at the center of a black hole might be devoid of matter; as time stops so does entropy ,so does any form of movement(Energy waves included), so nothing ever reaches the singularity. I've been advocating for the creation of a topographical map of time. Take a simple example 'sun time' and 'earth time' : the gravity of the sun however you understand the time/gravity relationship means that for it time is ticking much more slowly than for us, IE though two atomic clocks worked perfectly a third party spectator would observe them ticking at different rates. we may live on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old but the sun may have watched us being made say only 700 million years ago.(My invented maths for explanatory purposes ).These time differentials on a cosmic scale would then resalt in space time being a vortex of individual whirlpools(Galaxies gas etc) interacting according to the laws of fluid dynamics I admit that the two dimensional aspect of Emergent gravity is new to me but it fits with the most fundamental prediction of my theory (That I call the on-going bang/ inflation). For my theory to be right I needed to explain amongst other things ; the acceleration in the rate of expansion so I needed a universal mechanism that causes acceleration AFTER the energy event that causes it(Secondary acceleration), that mechanism is "Cavitation". consider a submarines propellor it has too much energy for the matter around it to react so they give off thousands of vacuum bubbles when these vacuums collapse 'That' is secondary acceleration. In a two dimensional space these quantum vacuums are what space is falling into at different rates in different parts of the universe. The standard model tells us that 3/4 of the universe is energy: M=E/c squared so matter and crucially energy have mass. These energy flows(Axions probably) are the tides in which the vortices' of mater and time gather and slow. Finally I repeat that I have not invented anything merely recognised that gravitational attraction decreases logarithmically over distance so without emergent gravity it simply is not strong enough to cover inter galactic distances as it is currently understood.

@johnh539

Ай бұрын

"Gravitational attraction decreases ...." Obviously "Dark mater" and MOND amongst other Hypotheses have been thought of of explain this but unlike them, all I say is look at what we know differently rather than chaining the well understood physics we have.

I think gravity is about the resolution of reality, where there emerges some kind of local lag in any process while nearby processes just add up to finding rest just by higher chance, so it's a flow. Energy understood as some kind of tension within space (permeability) propably strives not only to rest in space but also in time, so "mass" adds up. Also time is different in any place for any quantum and should just be modelled by dimensions and causality, I guess. Also: within a singularity itself time stands still. So it does at the speed of light. While light might just have less dimensions as it has no mass, but its waves can have some momentum and it's somehow polarized, it might cross space but not time, making it some kind of superfluid medium transmitting information by waves, so the speed of information also is set by that resolution, that's given in any direction, just like the speed of light. Maybe it's a worthless brainfart, I don't know.

I’ve always thought this about the human mind, and the variables on the physical level emerge as the differences in our personalities individuality; why no two of us are the same but can share similar traits. It’s interesting to know the mind itself, which is what makes use who we are individually, can’t be touched or physically located, only its residence can. Once we understand more layers of the mind, maybe can finally transfer consciousness, more than just self awareness, but it’s past experiences and personality as well (the “you” inside you), into a more robust home with a far better decay rate over time, and possibly robot legs. No robot legs is a deal breaker 💯😂

Great video.

Good video 👍

It's amazing to see where science is going now into what I've allways wondered about , how time changes if u move faster or near a black hole , the big bang and how science actually aligns with religion, and so much more now days , it's truly a great time to be alive ❤

Magnetism bonding equalization to pressure force and distance traveling cycling circulation patterns as mass entanglement. Galaxies spin in equalization to Magnetism. The core has more pressure exerted and less distance cycling circulation traveling. Outward mass has more distance traveling and less force. Spinning in equalization to repulsion of propulsion from repulsion. Magnetic fields show repulsion and propulsion from repulsion. Entanglement redirects trajectories towards the greater magnetic field synchronization flow.

I find it amazing that we live in a universe where we can have these concepts of reality explained and also in a universe where we have to decide which underpants to put on, the favourite worn out ones or the new ones.

Ive always thought something like this when expanding space at galactic scales was explained to me. The loaf of cooking bread example with the galaxies being raisins within made me think if everything is expanding then there is a force (space) squeazing each individual grape (galaxy) from every side. This would create the effect of a force around thr galxies as they would be being 'squeezed' from all directions by space. Just my thoughts, not that there worth much, Have a good one

Here is a thought i have had for a few years. What do you think? What if space is expanding from all points, in all directions simultaneously. And mass causes resistance to the speed of that expansion. Imagine 2 balls in empty space. Viewing the expansion like air pressure. If the air pressure around the balls is lower, then it riases as you get farther from the balls. If the balls come close together, the pressure between them is less than the pressure on the opposite side. Therefore, they are sucked together. Boom gravity.

Could ALL forces be emergent from the interaction of the frequency of pulses in multiple dimensions? The basis is Planck Energy strobing at Planck Frequency, then dimensions are prime-number sub-octaves of that, and then dimensions support waves of pulses of specific frequencies, and then "objects" arise in N dimensions by Cymatics. "You are a bundle of standing waves."

Aren't there versions of emergent gravity that don't predict/rely on MOND but are just motivated by Ads/CFT and various analogies with solid state physics?

Okay you're on a roll. Heat or temp is attributed , but, is it a by product of light? Look at a camera mechanics. Then look at a television now. Now look at a laser disc reader or a record player that uses the transparent aspect of diamond chip to conduct a television aspect of reflection. I know it's not usual to see a glass reflection as a chip or a record having held notes that transport other actions. But , we can see how electric carries signals of recordings because it's like a glass reflection in the carried through sense on a record but like a reflection on a television. It produces imagery that is color gathered by the matter of whatever is constructed. A plant father's from seed start the elements needed through growth. Now let's see what is gathered and what is split. Transparent air is relative to split as the crystal of what we call space. That's open air for this aspect. Imo the atmosphere is why we can see. Especially from a point that shows eyes like cameras. If it were anything else, it might block what's looked at. Enough light applied and we see through some as in X-ray. Just like the blue space controls the light space, it's basically saying blue is what is matter that guides barrier between too much light, unfocused light and enough light to have transparent atmosphere. So ..carried away in my own terms to say, a basic aspect of dark is a start of matter where light shapes it by each atomic contribute.

This idea suffers horribly in galaxy clusters

The trouble with simply inventing undetectable "stuff" to explain observations is that it is extremely likely to be wrong. After getting on for a Century since Zwicky first proposed it and still with no detection you have to be fanatical indeed about this hypothesis to not have the gravest of doubts.

thank you

~6:00 - Actually, Dr. Bruce Lipton has a very good & elegant physiological description of the emergence of consciousness.

It's like undigested goulash. Black holes are not only made up of gravity, but gravity only plays a different and, in a sense, relatively higher role there. But the matter and everything it absorbs is only no longer accessible to our senses, but it is not said that there are no particles etc. in it, which may exist for a while until they reach the singularity or become one with it. Yes, the limitations of our minds certainly still stand in the way of developments and in most cases many things were quite different from what we humans thought we knew. I would suggest listening to Neil Turrok, Brian Keating, Brian Greene or Sabine Hossenfelder. Unfortunately, this is like undigested mishmash. But if you want to be impressed by it, have fun.😊

I could never really understand where that separating border between different quantities ("emergence") is supposed to be... For me, all "moving parts" within a system are necessarily interconnected.

This is easy. Gravity emerges from the interaction between time and subatomic phenomena. Time dilates. Its what we see as space expanding. This expansion is counteracted by the presence of matter, which we call gravitational fields. Within such fields, time dilation is experienced as gravity, an acceleration up, aka away from the center of gravity. So time dilates, and matter has inertia, resisting this dilation. And we have gravity.

We say that gravity is what brings two particles together, and that their mass is what warps space time, but if space time is a constant quantity and must be conserved, where does the space go as two masses begin moving towards each other. What if what we consider to be mass is actually a worm hole that is sucking space into itself and depositing it somewhere else as inflation. On one one side is a black hole, and on the other is a white hole. But if you take two individual, small, worm holes, and allow them to circle each other from a distance, slowly getting closer to each other, this would look like gravity. If you scale this up, it would look like electromagnetism. And, if you continue to build the structures, you may find that these describe other elements in the standard model and string theory.

Are "dark matter" and "dark energy" even things in themselves or more like placeholders for forces/processes we don't understand yet? It seems counterproductive to name something "matter" or "energy" if we don't know what they are. It looks more like they are the names we give for the observed effects of universal expansion (which can be accounted for by even weirder things, like the effects of gravity in higher dimensions of space or even the effects of photons pushing against the universal speed limit of the speed of light).

How fast time runs relatively varies across the universe. Time in between the galaxies runs much faster than inside a black hole and inside the gravity well of a galaxy. Time runs slower as the matter is moving faster relative to the space itself. And when we say time runs slower, we mean the actual physical processes of the matter/protons/electrons/particles literally run slower. Gravity has a "time" component in it. Therefore, gravity varies based on how time actually flows across the space you are talking about.

Gravity is the most common experience that we can’t explain. We can measure it, characterize its behavior, but we don’t know what it is.

Great vid. Love the visuals and editing.

Yes PLEASE give us the glass deep dive

Important factor in emergence is the measurement scale. Emergent property arise through applying different measurements. As you keep changing the measurement you will keep finding emergent properties. Reality is based on what you are able to measure not really a start and end scenario. Our "black" issue is more or less an emergent problem. The interesting question is at least to me is "What is emerging from us?" Consciousness, hate/love some emotional state of existence... here be dragons? :D

Realizing planets acquire moons through lunar accumulation and not from collisions (Theta) will change the way we understand how Gravity forms. Unfortunately, the focus is trying to understand the start of the Universe and work in rather than figure out how the Earth got its moon and work out.

And yes all thermodynamics, some ppl “gravitate” to a heated argument whilst a heated debate maybe disproportionate…at least not result in an emerging “ black” eye, no holes barred, all connects to the real universe 😅 my question, does a reflection have gravity or is it the result of gravity ? great vid 🤙

Summary, emergent gravity paper by Verlinde 14:10, to date not great theory at 29:05, and at 15:15 he says we “dont’ know” however, S. Wolfram has in fact done this with “atoms of space” or first principle structure and bottom up using branching space diagrams (based on fundamental math rules governed by an abstract “Ruliad” structure of nature) that cancel and circle back in time, similar to many worlds except they reconverge, and gotten very close to GR and some elements of Quantum systems…a work in progress.

@aniksamiurrahman6365

Ай бұрын

What did it do except recreating the old theories?

@RicardoMarlowFlamenco

Ай бұрын

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 unify

@rafaelfreitas6159

Ай бұрын

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 I mean, recreating the old theories in limiting cases figures as one of the step zero sanity-checks any decent researcher does...

@LaughterOnWater

Ай бұрын

It took 15 minutes of James Tiberius Kirk soliloquy to get to a still nebulous point. With background mood music. This is beatnik physics. Set to pretty b-roll. Snapping my fingers… Yikes. Next.

Higgs Boson probably holds the key to gravity. Interia, although it seems counterintuitive to be party of gravity might be part of it as well. The headscratchers is, why do like charged objects attract as far as far as gravity is concerned?

Nothing says it has to be a 2D space, it could be a 3D space or as some say a 4D hypersphere, maybe more dimensions. I tend to the idea that everything is emergent, it can be both emergent and fundamental at the same time I guess depending on your frame of reference. I get to this from thinking as everything coming from a 1D object and projecting out from there, sort of like you can't know both speed and position at the same time, you have an event add time you have 2D, add movement you have length, skew it and you have width, this is why I think most forces are emergent as how do they act on a 1D object?

I believe gravity is caused by the compression of space as it is displaced by massive objects. By existing is an area of gravity (in this hypothesis) one experiences an increased amount of space in a given amount of time. This would help explain why one experiences time dilation in both areas of extreme gravity and while traveling at a high velocity. Both are examples of experiencing an increased amount of space in a given amount of time. The second half of this video describes something similar to my idea but doesn’t include the possibility of matter displacing space nor does it consider how this compression could interact at a galactic scale. If I am correct (I most likely am not) gravity would be space “directing” and not pulling. This would shift the entire concept of what keeps galaxies together and potentially eliminate the need for dark matter in our calculations. If gravity is displaced space and a black hole is an incredibly extreme example of condensed space as it is displaced by an unimaginably dense material and this material has displaced enough space then the center of a black hole doesn’t exist. It would literally be a pocket or bubble of nothingness. Not emptiness. Not open space. An area of nonexistence. This would explain why nothing ever goes past the surface of a black hole. The surface is the whole thing. To go deeper than the surface would be to leave our universe which shouldn’t be possible. This is more complicated than I can properly explain though text.

The idea that gravity breaks down to EM interactions of invariant vacuum fluctuations of virtual particles is not new. Gravity then emerges like Van der Waals. The arguments become circular at some point, no matter which approach you take. Puthoff and others have already shown mathematically, in simplified situations, both the strong and gravity forces can be expressed as such EM fluctuations, emerging, based on the relative geometrical distances of objects within the universe. Dark matter could then me explained as simply secondary or tertiary terms, making gravity non-linear. Physics arguments becomes circular at some point, no matter which model you take. My question is (since forever): can some method be devised, like reverse-phase conjugation, which could invert the effects of such an emergent force? Because negative gravity, and lower cost methods to generate gravity are the major hurdle to manipulation of space-time to effect non-Newtonian propulsion. Before pooping that idea: each atom is like a mini solar system, so wouldn't space-time be distorted and deflected by the nucleus, as it is with our sun?

If I was to start accelerating up from the surface of earth at a constant rate. Does the force I would feel pulling me down from gravity and the constant acceleration add together?

The theory of chaos says when there are too many variables to an equation, it becomes impossible to solve the equation. Some variables will take on hyper sensitivity and others will have seemingly zero sensitivity, thus we have chaos, sometimes referred to the butterfly effect. I see the theory of chaos and the concept of emergence as two side of the same coin. Order arises from that chaos but is beyond detailed explanation. I use the concept of emergence in animal training when allowing the bottom up rules to produce the natural behaviors by controlling the environment the behaviors are developing in. The rules of behavior when applied to real world behavior results in an equation that is beyond solvable. But I can still allow the behavior to develop in the direction I want by letting the bottom up rules to function as expected (even if not entirely predictable) within specifically limited environments.

All these laws and theories (Newtonian to Einstein, dark mater and emergence) disagreement is maybe, a problem of a grand scope/spectrum and perhaps gravity has "frequency" like electromagnetic waves and each language or each formalism is just describing one aspect of gravity as a whole.

@drbuckley1

Ай бұрын

LIGO proved that gravitational waves exist, but the wavelengths are so long, and the frequency is so low, that they are barely detectable for anything besides the collision of two, nearby black holes.

The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!

Thank you for this good video. Never heard before of this idea. Very interesting. And yes there is something about gravity that we don't understand fully yet otherwise we'd be hovering around all over the universe.

Ok... Since we have all these "emergent properties", could it just be, that we missed something fundamental in the beggining, and now we are just running in circles? (eg: particles dont exist) Iam not educated, but it seams to me, from all the videos on physics and science that i watch in my free time, that science doesnt allow change that is not profitable in the short run, or is mainstream enough at this point.

gravity is intrinstic. The same things that caused primal energy to form atoms and subatomic forces to even merge in the first place are the same concepts that caused planets to form into spheres and have orbits. It is a residual result of specific quantum frequencies that create a simple overarching force of attraction. the more energy something has, the more attractive it is; it doesnt even really play much of a role until it has so much energy that it actually has mass.... but in the initial stages of the universe, it did matter. Some of the fundamental forces of physics were spawned from the same proceses that we see as 'gravity'.

I don't think we will ever have anything remotely resembling a comprehensive understanding of gravity, the "secret sauce" of the universe.

Concrete examples contrasting contradictory equations/formulations from classical physics and mathematics with their non-contradictory counterparts from infinitesimal/non-standard analysis and monadological frameworks: 1) Calculus Foundations: Contradictory: Newtonian Fluxional Calculus dx/dt = lim(Δx/Δt) as Δt->0 This expresses the derivative using the limiting ratio of finite differences Δx/Δt as Δt shrinks towards 0. However, the limit concept contains logical contradictions when extended to the infinitesimal scale. Non-Contradictory: Leibnizian Infinitesimal Calculus dx = ɛ, where ɛ is an infinitesimal dx/dt = ɛ/dt Leibniz treated the differentials dx, dt as infinite "inassignable" infinitesimal increments ɛ, rather than limits of finite ratios - thus avoiding the paradoxes of vanishing quantities. 2) Continuum Hypothesis: Contradictory: Classic Set Theory Cardinality(Reals) = 2^(Cardinality(Naturals)) The continuum hypothesis assumes the uncountable continuum emerges from iterating the power set of naturals. But it is independent of ZFC axioms, and leads to paradoxes like Banach-Tarski. Non-Contradictory: Non-standard Analysis Cardinality(*R) = Cardinality(R) + 1 *R contains infinitesimal and infinite elements The hyperreal number line *R built from infinitesimals has a higher cardinality than R, resolving CH without paradoxes. The continuum derives from ordered monic ("monadic") elements. 3) Quantum Measurement: Contradictory: Von Neumann-Dirac collapse postulate |Ψ>system+apparatus = Σj cj|ψj>sys|ϕj>app -> |ψk>sys|ϕk>app The measurement axiom updating the wavefunction via "collapse" is wholly ad-hoc and self-contradictory within the theory's unitary evolution. Non-Contradictory: Relational/Monadic QM |Ψ>rel = Σj |ψj>monadic perspective The quantum state is a monadological probability weighing over relative states from each monadic perspectival origin. No extrinsic "collapse" is required. 4) Gravitation: Contradictory: General Relativity Gμν = 8πTμν Rμν - (1/2)gμνR = 8πTμν Einstein's field equations model gravity as curvature in a 4D pseudo-Riemannian manifold, but produce spacetime singularities where geometry breaks down. Non-Contradictory: Monadological Quantum Gravity Γab = monic gravitational charge relations ds2 = Σx,y Γab(x,y) dxdydyadx Gravity emerges from quantized charge relations among monad perspectives x, y in a pre-geometric poly-symmetric metric Γ, sans singularities. In each case, the non-contradictory formulation avoids paradoxes by: 1) Replacing limits with infinitesimals/monics 2) Treating the continuum as derived from discrete elements 3) Grounding physical phenomena in pluralistic relational perspectives 4) Eliminating singularities from over-idealized geometric approximations By restructuring equations to reflect quantized, pluralistic, relational ontologies rather than unrealistic continuity idealizations, the non-contradictory frameworks transcend the self-undermining paradoxes plaguing classical theories. At every layer, from the arithmetic of infinites to continuum modeling to quantum dynamics and gravitation, realigning descriptive mathematics with metaphysical non-contradiction principles drawn from monadic perspectivalism points a way forward towards paradox-free model-building across physics and mathematics. The classical formulations were invaluable stepping stones. But now we can strike out along coherent new frameworks faithful to the logically-primordial mulitiplicites and relational pluralisms undergirding Reality's true trans-geometric structure and dynamics.

@MaxPower-vg4vr

Ай бұрын

Here's 4 more examples contrasting contradictory classical formulations with their non-contradictory counterparts from infinitesimal/monadological frameworks: 5) Zeno's Paradoxes Contradictory: Classical Geometric Paradoxes - Dichotomy paradox (travelling 1/2 the distance, then 1/4, 1/8...) - Achilles and Tortoise paradox These paradoxes arise from assuming space and time are infinitely divisible continua, leading to logical contradictions when summing infinite sequences. Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal Geometric Calculus x = Σ ɛ1 + ɛ2 + ... + ɛn (finite sum of infinitesimals) Using infinitesimals, space and time are modeled as finite sums of indivisible quantized increments rather than uncountable continua, eliminating Zeno's paradoxes. 6) Quantum Entanglement Contradictory: Bell's Inequality Violation |Ψ>AB ≠ |Ψ>A ⊗ |Ψ>B (non-separable entangled state) Quantum entanglement cannot be represented in a classical tensor product state space, violating locality and separability assumptions. Non-Contradictory: Algebraic Quantum Theory |Ψ>AB = U(A ⊗ B) |0> (holistic transformation) In monadological frameworks, the state arises from a holistic unitary transformation on the monadic zero product, avoiding undue separability assumptions. 7) Wave-Particle Duality Contradictory: Double-Slit Experiment P(r) = |Ψ(r)|2 (probability from wave) But detections are particle-like. The ambiguity of whether light/matter behaves as particle or wave in the double-slit experiment represents a fundamental paradox. Non-Contradictory: Bohm's Pilot Wave Theory Ψ = Re(iS/ħ) (integrating particle and wave) dP/dt = (h/2πi)(δΨ*/δS - δΨ/δS*) De Broglie/Bohm pilot waves model particles as singularities carried by integrating the total wavelike dynamics, resolving the duality paradox. 8) The Mind-Body Problem Contradictory: Cartesian Mind-Body Dualism Mental = Non-Physical/Non-Extended Res Cogitans Physical = Extended/Geometric Res Extensa Descartes' proposed a paradoxical bifurcation between thought/subjective and physical/extended realms, which remains intractable from classical premises. Non-Contradictory: Leibnizian Monadology Monads = Perspectival Meta-Points Phenomenal = Rel. State of Monad's Perception Subjective mind and extended matter co-arise as complementary aspects of the pluralistic interaction among relativized monadic perspectival origin points. In each case, the classical formulations enshrine self-contradictory assumptions - whether infinite continua, strict separability, particle-or-wave dilemmas, or Cartesian mind/body divides. The non-contradictory monadological approaches replace these with quantized infinitesimals, holistic inseparability, integrated particle/wave dynamics, and perspectival unities comprehending both mental/physical poles. By avoiding the over-idealizations and false dichotomies endemic to the classical frameworks, the relational infinitesimal models restore logical consistency and coherence - finally rendering many legendary paradoxes retrospectively dissoluble. The increasingly ubiquitous appearance of monad-like, infinitesimal-based modelings across many disciplines provides compelling evidence that reconceptualizing physics and mathematics through pluralistic, non-contradictory lenses may be required to make continued progress resolving our most vexing existential paradoxes. Here are 4 more examples contrasting contradictory classical formulations with their non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological counterparts: 9) Quantum Field Infinities Contradictory: Quantum Field Theory Feynman Diagrams with infinite terms like: ∫ d4k / (k2 - m2) = ∞ Perturbative quantum field theories rely on renormalization to subtract infinite quantities from equations, which is an ad-hoc procedure lacking conceptual justification. Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal Regulator QFT ∫ d4k / [(k2 - m2 + ε2)1/2] Using infinitesimals ε as regulators instead of adhoc renormalization avoids true mathematical infinities while preserving empirical results. 10) Cosmological Constant Problem Contradictory: Λ = Observed Value ≈ 10-122 QFT Vacuum Energy = ∞ General relativity's cosmological constant Λ represents vacuum energy density, but quantum field theories produce infinite unobservable values. Non-Contradictory: Nonlinear Cosmological Monadic Functor Λ = βα(Uα , SαNS , n) Treating Λ as a relational parameter from a flat nonlinear monadological functor between curved physical vacuum states and number of monadic elements resolves the infinite discrepancy. 11) Computational Complexity Contradictory: Halting Problem for Turing Machines There is no general algorithm to decide if an arbitrary program will halt or run forever on a given input. This leads to the unsolvable Turing degree at the heart of computational complexity theory. Non-Contradictory: Infinitary Lambda Calculus λx.t ≝ {x→a | a ∈ monadic realizability domain of t} Representing computations via the interaction of infinitesimal monads and non-standard realizers allows non-Church/Turing computational models avoiding the halting problem paradox. 12) Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems Contradictory: Formal Arithmetic Theories T ∃ φ: Neither T ⊢ φ nor T ⊢ ¬φ (true but unprovable) Gödel showed any consistent recursive axiomatized theory lacks the means to determine truth/falsehood of certain statements, exposing incompleteness. Non-Contradictory: ℒ Infinitesimal Topos Language ∀φ, ℒ ⊣ V(φ): φ or ¬φ (internal semantic completeness) Representing propositions internally in an infinitesimal-valued topos logical environment avoids incompleteness while retaining semantic consistency. In each case, the contradictory classical theories contain internal paradoxes, ambiguities or insolubles stemming from: - Mathematical infinities - Over-idealized continua - Discrete/continuous dualities - Formal self-reference issues The non-contradictory monadological approaches resolve these by: - Using infinitesimals, combinatorial realizability - Treating the continuum as derived - Fusing discrete/continua dualisms - Representing self-reference via internal pluralistic relations We can discern an overarching pattern that many legendary paradoxes and insolubles emerge from overly simplistic classical assumptions - namely strict separability, continua simplicity, dualities between discrete/continuous, and over-idealization of formal representations. In stark contrast, the non-contradictory infinitesimal and monadological modelings embrace: - Relational holistic pluralisms - Quantized discrete/continuum complementarities - Deriving continua from ordered monadic elements - Representing self-referential phenomena via internal internalities By realigning mathematics with these metaphysically non-contradictory starting points, seemingly paradoxical or incomplete classical theories can be reframed, have contradictions dissolved, and be extended into remarkably broader, coherent analytic regimes. This lends further weight to the hypothesis that our quest for a paradox-free, maximally general mathematics and physics may require renovating logical foundations from infinitesimal monadological kernels - precisely as Leibniz first envisaged. His pluralistic perspectival vision may be an idea whose "time" has finally come.

@ianp3112

Ай бұрын

Your desperation for acknowledgement and approval are apparent here. Nice word salad 😅 Get some help 😊

GR is saying exactly that gravity is an emergent property of space-time. That's a key take-away. It does not, however, hypothesize that this emergent property is caused by something happening on the "surface" or "boundary" of the universe, but rather from the properties of space and time, aka space-time. GR does not go further with this concept, (for instance, by attempting to quantize gravity), which is a reflection of Einstein's grasp of gravity as an emergent property, and not something for which some "particle" can be found.

@FrancisFjordCupola

Ай бұрын

^^ Exactly this ^^

The best plain-language presentation of basic physics that I've ever heard. Bravo Sir. The concept of Emergence has always fascinated me. Quantum fields (where did THEY come from?) become protons neutron and electrons. They might then become molecules which then might just stay as molecules or might become stars, or rocks, or aerodynamics, or magnets, or people. Why? What's the point? Is this the nearest thing to a reason for God? Im not a religious person, but why else do these things emerge? Just pure random effect? Really? Why? Where did Ramdom come from? I need a drink. Fantastic video. Thank you. 32:20

Great video! Talking about ideas that’s kinda out there. You should really check Terrance Howard’s theory of dark matter.

Considering gravity, trying to be as general as possible so anyone can understand, I wonder if some aspect of reality focuses one of the other forces-which definitely sounds like an emergent property

Have you heard about jp petit's janus model with negative energy and mass ? Thank you for your videos.