The Fetzer Franklin Fund was established by the John E. Fetzer Memorial Trust, with the support of the John E. Fetzer Institute, to advance the scientific exploration of a relationship-centered view of reality. The Trust is administered by Bruce Fetzer as President and CEO and actively overseen by a Board of Trustees, which is chaired by Lou Leeburg, to set the direction for the scientific legacy of the organization’s founder John E. Fetzer (www.fetzertrust.org). Additional members of the Board of Trustees are: Tom Beaver, Bruce Carlson, Michael Gergeley, Jeremy Waletzky, and Jan Walleczek. Jan Walleczek is also Director of the Fetzer Franklin Fund
Пікірлер
There are two words she left unspoken: Kochen & Specker. Why? Because she cant unless she admits that Superdeterminism is a Superconspiracytheory.
Penrose speaks like a graduate student explaining how he came up with a novel solution to his instructor's homework assignment.
Oppenheimer really emerges as the tortured anti-hero of the era.
And there is another guy who doesn't understand physics trying to teach physics. ;-)
Why is he so desperate to prove to everybody that he doesn't understand physics? ;-)
maudlin's hexapla!
This physicists became mambo jambo club of supercazzole. Happy that Machine Leaning is going to wipe out all science. The act of the faluire fundamental science.
37:40 - Tortoise Coordinate. ^.^
BTW, the curl of a circle is zero.
Jack Tuszynski, PhD, recently conducted an experiment with a computational model of a microtubule. His team simulated shining a light into a microtubule, sort of like a photon sending an exciton through a plant structure. If the light lasted long enough before being emitted-a fraction of a second was enough-it would indicate quantum coherence. Specifically, Tuszynski’s team simulated sending tryptophan fluorescence, or ultraviolet light photons that are not visible to the human eye, into microtubules. After conducting the experiment 22 times, Tuszynski reported that the excitations from the tryptophan created quantum reactions that lasted up to five nanoseconds. That is thousands of times longer than some had expected coherence to last in a microtubule. It’s also more than long enough to perform the biological functions required.
The third sentence may be well revised as: 'a scalar field is an <omnipresent physical efficacy represented by an> assignment of real numbers to space-time points'.
Yes, it's an abstract. Nature can not even implement a single real number, not even using the entire matter in the entire universe.
gigachad
gooooooooood
I ain't a scientist but it doesn't take science ta prove yer perty cute!!! Smart too.
Excellent
Excellent
Thank you for posting.
The noise from the environmental variables could itself be quantized into discrete regimes. But if this not the case, and if a testing apparatus featured variable speed of operation, a simple measurement of differential indeterminacy should be sufficient to prove or disprove superdeterminism. So, perhaps a co-fundamental inquiry should comprise testing whether environmental noise has continuous or discrete effect?
Nothing can disprove bullshit. Just look at religion. :-)
This also points to a common disease of scientific thinking, where the theory gives you a seemingly self-consistent construct of axioms, consistent with the formalism of euclidian geometry, which solves some of the dynamics, but cannot identify the cause, and typically contains paradoxes resulting from that choice of construct. Just as non Euclidean geometry subsumes and explains some of the paradoxes that cannot be resolved from within the Euclidian deductive framework, a similar issue as Plato’s cave metaphor is happening in many dead-ends of science and physics. The escape question is always, what makes possible, that which I see on the surface? The popular methods of scientific reasoning, typically circular formalism itself, are paramountly guilty of baking in hidden assumptions that blind a model to higher causes, as if “what works” is the finish line, rather than seeking the higher organizing principle behind the described phenomena.
DougMds3u • Yes, correct. The REAL causal chain is completely broken. Instead of correcting everything and reconnecting the lost causal steps, they march ahead with absurd theoretical patches and absurd paradoxes, like everything would be OK like that. Well, it is not right. It is in fact a human cognitive fallacy. People with no tallent in the domain are roaming with strong authority and impunity maintaining the ignorant and dogmatic status quo. That's why the science in this domain has been on the wrong track for so long. Like Max Planck once said: 'science advances one funeral at the time'.
If you are trying to say that Plato was an idiot, then we can both agree. ;-)
Wow, he has identified the hidden annoying ambiguity in scientific work. This is so refreshing and badly needed to be raised to the first pages of the process guide for physics composition, if such a guide existed. I am awestruck by the ontological clarity this presentation provides, a solution to circular reasoning headaches long endured. Physics is hard enough without getting tied in a knot of circular reasoning. Maybe now we can get some traction on uncracked paradoxes. The map is not the territory, and neither is the math. So glad someone pointed this out. This feels like the science of science, thou hast spoken, ahmen.
Science of science is called philosophy ;)
I am awestruck by the depth of your bullshit. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 mate just because you're too dum to comprehend and appreciate philosophy, it doesn't mean everyone else is.
@@lepidoptera9337 just because you're too stupid to understand and appreciate philosophy, it doesn't mean everyone else is also.
@@lepidoptera9337 just because you're too d um to understand and appreciate philosophy, it doesn't mean everyone else is also. Stay in your lane.
I would like to hear a newer version, this is from 2013. She made new suggestions about testing SD, might be interesting.
Relief to find him. "Experts" tell what vitamins are in the juice, but refuse to name the fruit. The majority are so smug, so certain, & believe the map is the territory. The last time I asked for explanation, I was called "kiddo" & told I didn't pay attention in hs. When I explained it wasn't taught, they insisted it was too late, I was robbed of a proper education, I should get my "money back", assuming a tuition was paid.
And then the dude finally tells me there is actually no matter, as if to claim their is no fruit, no juice, only vitamins, & I should just shut up & believe because the nutrition keeps me alive.
Nice talk. But how come the video editor filled 75% of the screen space with a useless still image? Must have a fetish for the backs of old bald guy heads.
Cant read
great talk. Watching close-up screen as he paces like a caged tiger makes me sea-sick. no stable point as the shrubbery flies by.
Wowow… wow
what the hell is wrong with this video?! the people aren’t moving, but the presentation is
The whole idea of the measurement experiment (9:23) assumes that the spin of electrons resembles the spin of classical objects. This means that we have some spatial components x, y, z and the only problem is that we cannot measure them at the same time (even two) because the next measurement "destroys" the previous one. Meanwhile, "spin" only shows the electron's sensitivity, exactly in the direction of the magnetic field lines (the measurement indicates that electrons deflect towards one or the other pole). If we rotate the magnets by even a small angle, the electrons will immediately "adapt" to the new direction (a rotation of 30 degrees from the "vertical" will cause the probability of "staying" in this deflected "stream" to drop from 100% to approximately 93%). A rotation of 90 degrees (e.g. from "up-down" to "left/right") changes this probability to 1/2. I don't know what any "memory" related to the previous measurement would result from. The first measurement selects two opposite directions (in relation to the field poles), subsequent changes in the measurement direction change the number of electrons in the new beam, depending on how much we change the direction of the magnetic field.
Yes, that's a complete misunderstanding of the concept of spin and measurement. :-)
27:55 The geometry of space in general relativity theory turned out to be another field, therefore the geometry of space in GR is almost the same as the gravitational field.” (Smolin). In "GR was QG" there is no problem with empty (~ geometric, mathematical) space-time, since the real variable gravitational field of any physical object is identified with the phase space. When the gravitational field is space-time in the Planck system: F(G)/F(e)=Gm(pl)^2/e^2=1/α, that is, gravity~strong interaction*. This assumption follows from the Schwarzschild solution: the gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass: r(G)=2GM/c^2 Consequently: 2E(0)/r(G)=F(pl)=c^4/G=ε(pl)/r(pl): with indicating the mutual quantization of the mass (energy) and space-time: m(0)//m(pl)=r(G)/2r(pl)=n,where n-total number of quanta of the system; the tension vector flux: n=[(1/4π)(Gћc)^-½]gS ( const for all orbits of the system: n=0,1,2,3....). Moreover, the parameter r(0)=r(G)-r(pl)=(2n-1)r(pl), defining the interval of the formation of the system, at n=0, when r=r(G)=0 (for example, the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang) turns out to be a quite definite quantity: r(0)=-r(pl). In the area [(-rpl) - 0 - (+rpl)] there is an implementation of external forces, "distance": (-rpl)+(+rpl)=0 (≠2rpl). On the Kruskal diagram of the hyperbole r=0 corresponds to the true Schwarzschild feature, the features V and VI are not even covered by the global (R, T)- space-time and correspond to the "absolute" vacuum; then the singular areas above and below the hyperbolas r=0 can be formally treated as the energy source (external forces). That is, the frightening "true singularity" is actually a superconducting heterotrophic "window" between the proto-universe (the source) and physical bodies**. P.P.S. As a fundamental theory, GR has the ability with just one parameter: r(G)/r=k to predict, explain new physical effects, and amend already known ones. Photon frequency shift in gravitational field Δw/w(0)=k; the angle of deflection of a photon from a rectilinear propagation path =2k, the Newtonian orbit of the planet shifts forward in its plane: during one revolution, a certain point of the orbit is shifted by an angle =3πk, for a circular orbit (eccentricity е=0); in the case of an elliptical orbit - for example, for perihelion displacement, the last expression must be divided by (1-e^2). ------------------- *) - GR/QG predicts a new physical effect: w/w(pl)=k; expression for gravitational radiation from a test body. This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present. **) - From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^½ (w)=-[h/4πm(pl)]w. Final formula:ф(G)=-[w/w(pl)]c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, r(n')=nλ/π=(n+n')2r(pl)l , the corresponding orbital radius, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - obviously, the quanta of the field are themselves quantized: λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl) = 2πc/w, where n'/n - system gravity unpacking ratio, n'- the orbit number (n'=0,1,2,3…). Obviously, on the horizon [r=r(rG), n'=0] the "door" is closed, however, the quanta [λ=λ(pl)] can go out singly and form the first and all subsequent half-orbits (n'=1,2, 3 ...) during the time t(0)=r/c=2nт, where т=1/w, т=((1+n'/n)т(pl), spending part of their energy on it each time. And it is this mechanism that provides the step-by-step formation of a variable gravitational field: variably accelerated expansion of spacetime as a phase space: |a|=g=πc^2/L, where L is the length of the phase trajectory (of course, the quanta coming through the "window" are also rhythmically restored). The phase velocity of evolution v'/π= r(pl)w/π; m(0)=(c/2G)rv', where v'=v^2/c. The angular momentum: L(p)=|pr|=n^2ћ [const for all orbits of the system; at n=1: L(p)=ћ] and moment of power: M(F)=dL(p)/dt(0)=nћw/2=-E(G)=E*, where t(0)=r/c, E*- energy of self-action. According to GR / QG, gravitational field [E(G)=-E*] is characterized by a spontaneous flow: J*=(v'/π )(1/4π) g^2/G, where v'/π- phase velocity of field evolution. Entropy (here: a measure of diversity/variety, not ugliness/disorder) of the system: S=πε(pl)r(t)=(n+n')k, where k is the Boltzmann constant. Obviously, on the horizon entropy=min and with fundamental irreversibility, information is preserved (+ evolves, accumulates). Accordingly, m=m(pl)/(1+n'/n), where m=ħw/c^2, is the quantum of the full mass: M=n'm [<m(0)]. The parameter mλ [=m(pl)λ(pl)=m(w)λ(w)=m(e)λ(e) ] covers the entire spectrum of particles. Thus, m(0)=(n+n')m, where 2∆m=nm - mass defect; M/2∆m=n'/n: on the horizon m(0)=2∆m, M=0. That is: ф(G)=-Gm(0)/r=-[G/2r(pl)]m. Can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment. {The experimenter needs only two parameters; the mass (gram) of the body under study m(0) and the distance from its center (centimeter) r: so the energy of the quanta of the field ε(eV) ~1.83(m/r); the radiation flux J*[erg/cm^2•sec]~7.57•10^-27(m^3/r^5). For example: A lead ball suspended on a strong chain from the ceiling of the laboratory can serve as a test body; at radius r=27,6 cm, ball mass is m=1т. The energy of quanta/photons of the field (photons are characterized by different parity and helicity, and it is not quite accurate to say that a photon has an integer spin equal to one) at a distance r from the center of the test body to the detector (practically on the surface of the ball) =66,3 keV. The flow: J*=4,5•10^-9 quanta/сm^2sec; this is a measurable flux for modern world-class gamma detectors. (On the Earth's surface, the frequency of the quanta of the Earth's gravitational field: w=2.57*10^34 Hz (~2.7 J); the flow: J(G)=0.3 MW/cm^2).}
27:25. In fact, the observer's self-esteem in QM is underestimated to the level of the infamous ostrich. The observer is always involved in an unavoidable measurement process. It seems that there have never been any problems with QM already within the framework of GR (for example, in the case of the Schrodinger/Carroll cat). A live cat breathes and, accordingly, emits gravitational waves according to the formula GR with intensity: I(G)=(2G/45c^5)(M^2)(l^4)(w^6), where M is the mass of the cat, l is its characteristic size, w is its frequency breathing.The frequency of gravitational radiation should be on the order of w~ 2π/т where т is the characteristic time of accelerated mass movement (pulsation, rotation, collision, non-spherical explosion).It is clear that the dead cat is not breathing and I(G) =0*. In principle, all this lends itself to a certain (improbability) constant measurement without opening the "black box", since gravity is not shielded [w=w(m)]. Moreover, the behavior of the radiation source is also controlled, since it emits only in an excited state. ** Of course, Carroll's sleeping cat breathes, but differently (can be measured) than the waking one.*** Sweet dreams to you QM, on the interpretation of the Born wave function. P.S. Why didn't Einstein use this argument? He wasn't sure about the reality of gravitational waves and assumed only the presence of hidden parameters… --------------------- *) - By the way, a "smile" without a cat can be detected according to Einstein's equations. Raising one of the indices, substituting I=k and summing, we find: R=-(8πG/c^4)T, where T=T(n) is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor (~ "gravitational memory."). **) - If the cat is replaced with a detector, then with each absorption its state will change (which makes measurement possible). It is clear that this will also cause additional radiation of gravitational waves, since the included detector is already a source. ***) - The formula can be given in the following form for a photon: I(G)={[w/w(pl)]^2}ħw^2. Of course, this approach is also applicable to the case of entangled particles. "When physicists offer metaphysical explanations for physical phenomena, I start swearing." (Raymond Tallis). Frame of reference in GR: "In the general case of an arbitrary variable gravitational field, the metric of space is not only non-euclidean but also changed with time. This means that the relationships between different geometric distances change over time. As a result, the relative position of the "test particles" introduced into the field in any coordinate system can not remain unchanged." ( Landau-Lifshitz, II). It turns out that since the Big Bang, all the particles in the universe speak, hear and listen to each other in the language of gravity (= irreducible spontaneous measurement). Addition The main misconception in the interpretations of quantum mechanics is that the equally probable nature of phenomena implies their equivalence.* Moreover, not only at 50/50, but also at 99/1. However, equality and equivalence are completely different things, even if they are causally related; for example, all inertial reference systems are equal in SR or QM, but far from equivalent. Obviously, if a dead or a living cat, the spin of entangled photons up or down, pairs of socks or letters marked + or - in different parts of the world are equal, then they are not physically equivalent; and also, branched universes. When an tails falls out after a coin toss, then they talk about the collapse of the wave function, when tails and heads are just equal, but not the same even not only for numismatists.That is, these are physical parameters of different physical phenomena, and their representation by a single wave function according to Born is ridiculous. For example, when energy E=mc^2, then mass m=E/c^2, since they are parameters of the same physical entity, and therefore equivalent. For comparison: in GR, in a gravitational field or in an equally accelerated frame of reference, all events are not only equal, but equivalent, so Einstein criticized QM for not being as radical as RT.** Moreover, RT is even more radical: "Two world points located at zero distance from each other do not necessarily coincide." (Pauli, RT, paragraph 7, Four-dimensional world). That is, even with a repeated loss of heads (or tails), both of these phenomena are not equivalent. Moral: a particle cannot even be in one state at the same time. Finally, we can say that the concept of "frame of reference" was self-sufficient, and the introduction to physics of the concept of "state" was an unsuccessful attempt to describe reality. "A good joke should not be repeated twice."(Einstein).*** --------------------- *) - In logic, this is the basic law: the law of identity. **) - For fans of the multiverse: the equivalent Universe can only be the accelerating Universe itself. ***) - It seems that the uncertainty principle is the result of a misunderstanding of probability/equivalence. In the Heisenberg inequalities, the mathematical apparatus was formed before the interpretation of their physical essence. It is funny that these inequalities indicate that there are no exact values of coordinates and momentum vector in the states of microobjects at the same time; and thus exclude the equivalence of these parameters.
The gravitational field is space-time in the Planck system: F(G)/F(e)=Gm(pl)^2/e^2=1/α, that is, gravity~strong interaction. This assumption follows from the Schwarzschild solution: the gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass: r(G)=2GM/c^2 Consequently: 2E(0)/r(G)=F(pl)=c^4/G=ε(pl)/r(pl): with indicating the mutual quantization of the mass (energy) and space-time: m(0)//m(pl)=r(G)/2r(pl)=n,where n-total number of quanta of the system; the tension vector flux: n=[(1/4π)(Gћc)^-½]gS ( const for all orbits of the system: n=0,1,2,3....). Moreover, the parameter r(0)=r(G)-r(pl)=(2n-1)r(pl), defining the interval of the formation of the system, at n=0, when r=r(G)=0 (for example, the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang) turns out to be a quite definite quantity: r(0)=-r(pl). In the area [(-rpl) - 0 - (+rpl)] there is an implementation of external forces, "distance": (-rpl)+(+rpl)=0 (≠2rpl). On the Kruskal diagram of the hyperbole r=0 corresponds to the true Schwarzschild feature, the features V and VI are not even covered by the global (R, T)- space-time and correspond to the "absolute" vacuum; then the singular areas above and below the hyperbolas r=0 can be formally treated as the energy source (external forces). That is, the frightening "true singularity" is actually a superconducting heterotrophic "window" between the proto-universe (the source) and physical bodies.
In a convoluted way, Tim seems to be talking about the Kantian trinity. His canonical Commentary is the Semiotics required for communication. Physik: Things with attributes Logik: Relationships among things Ethik: Consequences of the relationships "All that can fall within the compass of human understanding, being either, first, the nature of things, as they are in themselves, their relations, and their manner of operation: or, secondly, that which man himself ought to do, as a rational and voluntary agent, for the attainment of any end, especially happiness: or, thirdly, the ways and means whereby the knowledge of both the one and the other of these is attained and communicated; I think science may be divided properly into these three sorts." John Locke
Physics has never been about things. Physics is about systems. Logic, OTOH, has always been about objects. It doesn't work for cases for which we aren't talking about objects like for colors or quanta of energy. But why are you telling us that you weren't paying attention in high school science class? Did the consumption of too much Kant go to your head? ;-)
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .
Awesome pic at 0:40 - the place, the company. I wish I had been there. Next time you go into the mountains for a powwow let me know ( you'll be pleasantly surprised at the mental refreshment).
Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!
Why is imposing "energy" conservation the same as allowing the statistical manifold to be dynamic? And why does Born's rule follow, as well as interference due to the phase term? It seems like there are other ontic and epistemic constraints besides energy conservation (I have some ideas on this having to do with GR and singularities) that could nail down specific wave functions for different kinds of particles (bosons, fermions, massive, charged, colored, etc). Also, how does relativistic spacetime emerge, rather than a Newtonian time?
Mathematics is just another language like French or English. Maths is just more rigorous and less ambiguous than the verbal spoken language. If you can’t express the physics theory in Maths, it is either impossible in any spoken language.
Omg, that was amazing.
-1......0......1
My microtubules could not sync until I lowered the playback frequency to 0.75, then it blew me away. This is the first in depth explanation of this hypothesis I have come across and, like many others, am both deeply impressed and yet puzzled by the deafening silence from the wider science community.
Heheh, it's because they're scared and don't want to be associated with mysticism. (There are some forms of quantum mysticism you can find here on KZread for instance which are basically meditational visualization at best and bs pseudoscience at worst, even though I'm guilty of getting pretty into that sort've thing myself) :P That said, I commend hameroff and penrose for trying to tackle this issue and thinking about these things like this publically. I really think they're onto a lot here. You might find Justin Riddle's quantum consciousness series here on KZread really fascinating. They actually taught a class on this at a prestigious college, (I forget which rn and I'm on my slow phone) and they're basically teaching the same class here on KZread for free for anyone who wants to check it out. Hameroff was even a special guest on one of the "episodes."
من تنطع الوهابية يريدون ان يحرموا قراءة القرآن اكثر من مرة اعوذ بالله ان اكون من الجاهلين
I studied physics. This is a very important lecture, that is not yet fully appreciated by mainstream physics community, but it will. One cannot deny the choice of gauge, being the nonlocal one as physical. It is high time to rewrite text books. Aharanov and bohm indeed deserve applause. Maudlin for seeing the big picture. Very grateful for the insights he brings.
This is an outstanding video. I watched it once before some years ago, but didn't really "get the point." I think I got it this time, and it's very well done. I would really be interested in seeing more about what can be done with this "foliation" Dr. Maudlin refers to near the end - particular with respect to how it could assist us in developing a relativistic version of pilot wave theory.
41:00: That's bothersome to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't choosing a gauge much like choosing a right handed or left handed cross product convention? What would cause the gauge to just suddenly change in practice? Physically, I mean? Are we to look at the gauge freedome as an un-driven physical thing that can just randomly drift around?
It seems plausible, that it is a particle-universe consisting of C(10^120) particles 4:37. Nonexistent paths may be due to uncertainty in the initial conditions(ensemble interpretation). I don't see the opposite helicity, which is kind of strange. Two things i am certain of: all fields are effective(fractal field) and nature obeys local realism.
How ironic. The modernist-times' forgotten classical physics field (nowadays they don't even work on it, almost completely left it to engineers) exposes the fundamental crakcs of post-modern times' most trusted (and allegedly the best ever) physics theory.
I hypothesize, there's a self-reference in superdeterministic analog of RG equations 5:18 But RG equations themselves can also represent self-reference. Apparently, superdeterminism is needed to return to local realism.
This guy making me unconscious....... ZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Let’s invite a speaker with the worst annunciation skills ever to present on a topic that requires a high level of clarity.
21:40 and the Kripkean analysis there, shows Parmenides, JS Mill and Alexius Meinong were right: if you can conceive of it, it must exist somewhere; be it potentially or manifestly. Subjective probability as a mental event is only possible due to evolution having grinded down and created our brain from the ground up. Considering we could conceive of probabilities, and are a natural evolutionary product, this logic necessarily must have been found somewhere in nature: in this case quantum mechanics. Nothing that we can conceive of has not been given to us by nature, through evolution. Our logic is also evolutionary, based on classical newtonian physical interactions. Of which some are quantum mechanical, like the Pauli exclusion principle and probabilities