🎬 Sharing of science from world class scientists
Science for free is a multidisciplinary, multicultural and accessible video library of knowledge in science. Science for free is a memory, a place of expression and expertise, of testimonies and meetings between enthusiasts and researchers from all over the world.
⛳️ Participate in the propagation of quality science by experts in their field 🏅
👀 And of course, subscribing is free! 👏
Пікірлер
Absolute legend.
And that may also answer the mercury question. Peace ✌️ 😎.
On the light cones Prof, the negative is the sphere the plus ➕️ is above and below. Nothing gets in Professor Penrose. Why is the plus sign above and below? Because the EMFSYSTEM flips at the sphere, Professor Penrose and gives us the negative. It gives us poles in a closed system and the sphere is negative. Peace ✌️ 😎 from Canada, eh. Thanks Professor Penrose.
In quantum reality, Schrodinger wave function evolves coherently only to produce deterministic outcome, otherwise each quantum state produce decoherent state.
Beautiful. Recommended.
The boundaries of the light commeet where the Big Bang occurred; the mass of all the photons that exists is not zero; so light does have mass and randomness in the valiant areas that we call infinity; the expansion of space time would increase the area of the light cone surface so that the geometry is projected as a hologram within the visible universe which only exists in the tangential points of the Hawking points which are joined by entanglement from the initial energy of the previous eon. The gravity from the mass of the previous eon which spins around a black hole brings the current universe in which we live is off the frequency scale of the previous eon making entropy increase just as current physics would predict; who can know the mind of God?
Unfortunate he was cut short. The most important part is that the prior black hole projects back out in a cone shape as a new big bang. Our current position in this aeon should theoretically show condensing of matter in certain positions and that is what they see.
Can someone PLEASE get this genius some display devices that work?!!! JFC.
Brilliant! I`ve always suspected that strict RNA-approach to the search of origins of life is not quite right, it seems to be too much complex and bulky. Seems more plausible that evolution has used much more simple chemical pathways from the huge amount of reactions which took place on the early Earth and this process became more and more complex and interconnected in time. Wish you good luck in your research work! Can`t wait to see positive results in search of a continuous path from simple chemistry to biology!
Boltzmann
Mathematics is a series of observations, nothing more.
Interesting but audio and video is messed up. Idk why
the point is anyway, that if you examine quantum mechanics carefully, you realize it is just as easy to describe classically as a theory of the statistics of dice throwing, in principle that is. if you take the predicted outcomes as the only criteria for a deterministic substitution with another theory, then you can easily do it, there is no problem, therefore property realism was never really changed at all by quantum mechanics or its features. what we should be discussing instead is how to know what property realism best reflects what is actually going on, and that is the only question there is. nothing of this nonsense has anything to do with property realism, that is a confused thought that comes out of confusing what could be true about nature, vs what we could know about nature. and it is only people who think they want to know that their current heuristics reflect real objects or a real ontology that manage to confuse the two. it is always possible that out thoughts about our theories are just nonsense, and the mathematics is just a scheme to get some predictions right in terms of the results of outcomes and not the character off outcomes of experiments as they are. property realism just means that stuff has properties that are specific, the only other thing it could mean is that our theories have a realistic picture of such properties, and that is necessarily not possible to determine, but it is not possible to negate either, beyond finding better theories, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether nature is specific, or whether in principle we could have a theory arbitrarily close to containing all the details of what is really going on. there is the thing in itself, it does its thing, we know nothing about its character, other than that it produces some outcomes, that conform with some of our ideas. we can chase it would forever producing less and less conflict, but we can never prove to ourselves that we are finished, or that we are not wrong in some way, but crucially we also cannot prove that we are not completely right, it is just not the kind of thing suited to logic or mathematics, or experiments, to prove we are not right simply means to find out that there is some conflict, but that has to occur in a setting that we know about, if we had a theory we could not find any flaws in, we could not prove it had no flaws, even if we granted that nature always does what our theory says. we can only prove ourselves wrong by being lucky enough to find an experiment where our theory is wrong about the pattern produced by the thing in itself. we can state that the thing in itself cannot contradict itself, it cannot be ambiguous in its operation, and it has its content, whatever it is. the reasons why we cannot deny those things is that the thing in itself defines what is possible, and what is ambiguous, it is logically impossible to say it is doing the wrong thing, or that it does multiple things at the same time, because that would be its notion of doing one thing and so on, so it is what it is, we don't know what it is in detail, but we do know that, and any denial of that is just m ad and silly.
there is nothing more to be said, he makes a metaphysical assumption that is extreme, just to say that we can't be sure about something, and that it is still possible to consider quantum mechanics complete, but that means nothing.
now, it is true that any physical theory is tentative, and it is not necessary that we will ever know anything about how nature actually works, but that applies equally to all theories, including quantum mechanics, and so you cannot just assume quantum mechanics is complete and true and that the consequences are just what you want them to be for the purposes of argument, that is what we call nuts in technical language. bohr confuses what is true, with what is knowable under criteria, he applies a criteria, he sees that under that metaphysical criteria we can't know something, therefore he argues that it doesn't exist, or rather that it doesn't necessarily exist, which is true, but it is equally true for all theories that match experiments, it has nothing to say about whether quantum mechanics is complete, or whether the criteria he applied has anything to do with a fundamental restriction applied to ontology or possible knowledge, because he assumes what is real to make deductions about what cannot be known in general, that just cuts the conclusions of at the root at the outset.
quantum mechanics is not necessarily incomplete, but no theory is necessarily incomplete, nor complete, and so this is just hogwash, nothing is special about quantum mechanics, it is only different from systems where you could in principle measure without disturbing, if you assume it to be complete. which is just as arbitrary and random a conclusions as assuming newtons gravity is a complete theory. if you don't assume quantum mechanics is complete or incomplete then you cannot argue that quantum mechanics necessarily does not have a deterministic underlying state to it, that if understood properly would predict every outcome, this is certainly always possible to any theory with uncertainties that is not necessarily a complete theory. if you have a deterministic theory or an in-deterministic theory and you assume them to be true, that is all the predictions are exactly true, that does not imply they are complete or incomplete. completeness and truth of predictions are not the same thing, if a theory makes false predictions, it cannot be complete, but if it makes just true predictions that does not mean it is necessarily complete. the question of whether quantum mechanics is complete is a tough one, but it can only be decided by knowing whether its predictions are A all true, or not, and B whether more is going on, But for uncertain outcomes where in experiments we always get specific outcomes, there is always a theory that is trivial that lists all the outcomes that are possible and which ones will happen, that is more complete than quantum mechanics or any other in-deterministic theory could be, so it is always possible to extend a theory, even if it only makes true predictions, and when you know things happen in nature that is not predicted by the theory, there is always a more complete account of what will happen, this is not necessarily true for deterministic laws, but it is necessarily true to in-deterministic laws. the EPR criteria of reality just states informational completeness, that is a valid principle but not a necessary principle for ontology. if we say that a complete theory has to account for what happens in the future then quantum mechanics is not complete, unless you assume as i said earlier that the theory predicts a random outcome and that is all there is to nature, then it can be considered complete, but would be less complete than just such a theory of possible outcomes plus a list of the outcomes that will happen, and so whether you consider it complete or not, is down to whether you think nature has to know what happens next or not, that is you have to assume one or the other conclusion to say whether the argument is good or bad. however by assuming that quantum mechanics is complete you are not learning anything, and you might very well be wrong, where as if you assume it is incomplete you can at worst end up with quantum mechanics plus a list of outcomes, therefore Bohr is just smoking crack, it is an irrelevant argument to science. you could apply it to any other theory, and say it is in principle complete, but the utility of doing that is simply to stop looking for better theories, which i think is misguided. there is also every reason to believe that nature has the answers to her own questions, that nature is informationally complete, like a computer, and that nothing happens as a consequence of information that doesn't exist, therefore it is natural to assume that when we get a specific outcome, it happened that way for a specific reason, because it was determined to come out that way because of the state of the world, there is no other way to explain it other than to say it happened because it could happen, and it did happen, and frankly i think that is just as much bullshit as sympathies and antipathies. why postulate no reason because we have no theory? that seems wildly unscientific, there is no good conclusion that makes it necessary or likley that the real account of why things happen is now suddenly that there is no reason, rather than there being a reason we don't understand, it is an arrogant and silly way to think about a physics problem, the problem might be too hard to solve, but assuming there is no solution when no such determination is necessary, is just dumb. sorry, i know people respect bohr and want to buy into it because it has been around for a long time, and you don't want to believe that it is this simple and stupid, but it is, and get over it, the essential ambiguity with respect to quantum mechanics only exists if you assume quantum mechanics to be complete, but that is the question you tried to answer, there is no use assuming conclusions.
it is just silly, because he assumes he knows what is going on, to then derive that we can't know, and even if you grant that sort of nonsense, it is still no implying that some presumptuous picture of a definite evolution is false. true and testable is not the same thing. but because we don't already know the answer, we can only really tell that it looks like everything is quantized, so we cannot even know that we can't know in the future, any process to any given level of detail, because that could be the consequence in principle of new physics, that do not conflict with experiments, that cannot be gotten rid of entirely because of the nature of the claim, if it can be arbitrarily soft, we can never get the noise low enough to understand that something like this is not there. this nonsense is what happens when you make one assumption to many and run away with the conclusion, the QP in the first place is questionable as a fundamental rather than a tentative postulate, that looks true in some respects. it then all boils down to being just speculation. and not particularly impressive speculation. the grandest sin to me, is to just imply constantly that the classical way of thinking is actually in conflict with any of the ideas he invokes, but they are not, a classical picture is a proposal for what is going on, we do not need to believe it necessary or exact to use it in science, and we do not need to believe it to be non exact or wrong in any way, just because we cannot necessarily test it in a positive sense, neither is necessary and therefore, this just turns out to be nonsensical.
I can't imagine any type of calculation that could ignore the uncertainty principle and locate the precise positions and velocities of any particles.
What a brilliant mind..Tutor to Stephen Hawking..later collaborator..one brilliant mind has gone...may Roger Penrose reach 100 years old...he is 93 years ..not long to go...i have read his book emperor's new mind...found it difficult
I don't agree that conformal cyclic cosmology requires a Ragnarok. There could be precipitous exchange
'Promo SM' 😕
Here is something to consider that "on the surface" might not seem obvious or important, but perhaps is. what I am thinking is that the reason we may believe probability seems to govern the Quantum level is because we have not fully grasped the role of “Time” in the Quantum Realm. We throw around the concept of “Certainty” like “our” Certainty is everyone’s Certainty. Without Time there can be no certainty and we know that Time is not an “absolute” but it can be different for different observers. Therefore perhaps the “measurement problem” is only a problem because we are imposing our concept of “Time” on the Quantum Realm and it gives us the only answer possible from “its” perspective which is a range of probabilities that may apply in our Macro Realm. In other words just as Einstein suggested that Time was not absolute maybe “certainty” is not an absolute but can be different for different observers in different levels of what we call Reality. Maybe what is needed is mathematical equation/s that would describe exactly how to transform the certainty at the quantum level to the certainty at some other level of Reality.
The uncertainty principle is a fundamental limitation on objective measurement.
Point taken and understood, but I was not referring to the Uncertainty associated with "The Uncertainty Principle" when I was talking about Certainty but more so the expected Certainty associated with "The Collapse of the Wave Function" and the Probabilistic nature associated with the answer as given by the Probability wave that emerges as the only answer we seem to be able to get as in the Theory of QED.
I give 10 hawking's points to the uploader of this video.
Thanks a lot!
If they were called “Joe Schmoe Points” instead, no one would pay attention
Well that’s ridiculous.
Too bad the audio is so low. I can just almost hear what he's saying.
This is part 2?
@JasonAGregg You're right! This is the second part of the talk.
At the end he says "This is the conclusion of the first part of my talk"... Did you also put the second part on KZread?
A lot of this makes perfect sense. Thinking in terms of geometry is a powerful tool, because it allows us to imagine and process ideas beyond the conventional. The most powerful concept here is the notion of inverted geometry which puts infinity at the other border of the representation, rather than a conventional singularity. It's most certainly got me thinking - like an introduction to another world?
I know this is an old video and post, but where do you consider time and space in this "inverted geometry" with particular attention on the question of time? Time as emergent and not real, or time as something more fundamental?
You have insulted me. I quit
I m sorry for the shock I am displaying. If a calculator can give you numbers and say they are 3435973837 and 429496724 and that is candy popcorn then we are all in a mess
A calculator is real. So how can a calculator be a cubist? Does one imagine a calculator?
Thankyou
The Doppler effect of the spacetime continuum must be taken into consideration. Time must compress in inverse proportion to the expansion rate of the universe otherwise quantum gravity collapses. This results in a reverse big bang.
Old post but an interesting thought :) I am attempting to formulate in my own mind something akin to this. A more substantial relationship between time geometry and space geometry, where I may expect one being the inverse of the other is some sense.
What happened to shut up and calculate?
6:56 ::: THERE YOU SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS SMART MAN ::: HE CAN NOT THINK OUTSIDE "HIS BOX" ::: HE IS TRAPED IN THE BELIEVE OF A SINGULARITY !!! BUT THE "BIG BANG" HAPPENED EVERYWHERE AT THE SAME TIME ::: NOT LIKE AN OLD TV STARTED) ::: BUT LIKE A MODERN TFT-MONITOR IN 3d ::: (TO EXPLAIN THIS TAKES 2 HOURES)
His model aims to eliminate arbitrary inflation: he’s thinking far outside the box. But you did write a comment incoherently and in all caps, so you must be correct.
i think you do not understand what i mean !!! READ THE TEXT AGAIN ::: COMLETELY BEFORE YOU ANSWER !!!@@Paine137
Seems like there may be a missing component to this model. Water might not be liquid during the volcanic phase. It may be confined to two phases in the atmosphere. Steam and ice. In which case the planet may have been covered by an ice sphere with a compressed gas and water steam atmosphere between the rocky plates and the ice cover. The ice would eventualy turn to water and start to rain when the temperature and pressure dropped enough to allow liquid water to form oceans.
I agree with him; I would just not focus on time so much but on the concept of the present. So presentism
I am building a signal processing ai or rather deep mashine learning (training it on all the public domain signals and decoding (you can get the plain text but need to know the start, package, stop bit, and checksums. So, it will identity what kind Key shifting etc.... the using "wavelets" try and decode unencrypted data..
RIP bro
From Photography to Astronomy. It's interesting to hear how he came about that career.
Smolin is great. I'm in the school that law is fundamental. Strings (wink, wink) don't care about time. The fabric of spacetime doesn't even care about time. Time exists only because we mark it and need it to make physics work.
Why do we need time to make physics work if it doesn't exist? Are there other nonexisting things that we need to make physics work?
@NextLevel-kv5kn Some claim time started at the big bang, so time wasn't needed for physics to happen. Physicists use particles that don't exist to make the standard model work. There are probably particles that can't exist according to the standard model that do exist. Time is just a metric. There is no time force or time particle. Same for space. Or we're just a simulation.... 😁
@@julioguardado So why is it 3am and why isn't it 3am anymore? Some claim whatever doesn't mean time wasn't needed for physics to happen. Physicists use particles that don't exist to make the standard model work. This is incorrect.
@NextLevel-kv5kn That's like asking why isn't over there over here. Seriously though, no one really knows what is time. It's a topic of debate among people much smarter than KZread posters, myself included. But I know I'm right. 😁
@@julioguardado That is kinda like asking why isn't over there over here. So can we stop pretending that we understand time. When you do that you realize just how much we don't understand time. I made a video about it where I explain everything. Can you tell me what you think about it?
Is that your car?!?😮
James Tour is gonna explode when he watches this
This isn’t science. It’s nonsense. Life making itself is mathematically absurd billions of times in succession.
4% left on loophole 3 - would that count as an argument against Superdeterminism? Or is Superdeterminism per definition untestable?
I think it's untestable, but I'm no physicist. I would love to know.
Very nice presentation of clear thinking! Relational quantum metric can be in-formed (algorithmically nested) in fairly simple manner from the chiral pair of relational operators < >. These foundational operators are empirically motivated as symbolizing continuous directed movement, meaning that they are object independent and can be comprehended also as arrows of time. Some main features: The foundational algorithm is computationally prenumeric analogue of the familiar Stern-Brocot algorithm, ie. concatenating mediants: < > < <> > < <<> <> <>> > < <<<> <<> <<><> <> <><>> <>> <>>> > etc. Monogamy of entangled pairs of mirrored words, which can be interpreted also as rotations, each new word concatenated is unique (no-cloning), palindromic rows satisfy reversibility. Number theory given by interpreting the second row words as objects of unary counting, < or > for integral numerator element and <> for denominator. Thus counting we get totally ordered rational in their reduced forms. As we have three qualitatively different countables, <> containing < and > as proper parts, the theory of rationals is mereological, instead of the usual view of rationals as dividing integer by integer. The white space between rational words (in which we can also think of < and > as acceleration and <> as inertia) forms a binary tree where in which "irrationals" can be represented as path information < for L and > for R. Worth remembering that as with closely related continued fractions, square roots in Stern-Brocot type structure have repeating structure. Continuity condition satisfied by continuous operators, without the Zeno machine of the real line metric. The number theory starting from mereological rationals is mereological also in the sense that integers and naturals are proper part decompositions of rationals. When integer mark-antimark pair >< is found in same word they can cancel each other (cf. 1-1=0). Del>< also provides also the notion of halting (<> both increases and decreases; >< neither increases nor decreases. Let's leave the implications to Landauer erasure to later discussion, think we have now enough juice to proceed to the next step. With same algorithm for numerical counting, we can concatenate mediants also from the bitwise component > <. Also Boolean NOT is good for reversible computing. As arrows of time, seed < > generates totally ordered metric of increasing resolution outwards, seed > < "measures" inwards, and as "7th degree of freedom", we can turn inwards at any desired row of finite measurement resolution. Here's the numerical interpretations of the left sides of the outwards and inwards generated words from the 5th row of generation: <1:0 4:1 3:1 5:2 2:1 5:3 3:2 4:3 1:1 3:4 2:3 3:5 1:2 2:5 1:3 1:4 0:1 >1:0 4:0 3:0 5:1 2:0 5:2 3:1 4:2 1:0 3:3 2:2 3:4 1:1 2:4 1:2 1:3 0:0 Many interesting observations can be made, but let's leave also those for another discussion. By the looks of it, this is already sufficient for the first condition of coherent quantum metric, which we can think of as the inside of the qubit, before and after it's separated by classical gates and/or statistical mechanics into countable objects. As numerical interpretation of rational word hides their path information ordering from the numerical perspective, we can give also 'locality' a new definition: Locality is numerically bounded observing. Couple more comments: strong holography is easy to incorporate in the quantum metric in various forms and degrees, e.g. by opening denominator elements to outwards generation. And naturally, the seeds of generation are not limited to < > and > < only, but we have available the whole combinatorical range of palindromic seeds constructed from relational operators and blanks, offering very rich quantum timespace for algorithmic etc. relational study. Mitakuye Oyasin <3
So in the first minutes he actually says he is going to talk nonsense and then talks nonsense indeed! Well that is nice. So you don't have to waste your time....
Incorrect models can spark new perspective, which can lead to better ideas. There’s always value in such proposals, so shhh.
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
Great video. I have published along these lines, calling it “Bohmian trajectory gravity”. kzread.info/dash/bejne/qIGkj5Wqj7LVhMo.html
That was one of the best explanations I've ever seen or read for those topics. Now that I am refreshed on those loopholes, I'm going to revisit Eric Reiter's Threshold Model.