Talk given by Dr. Alexander Unzicker, accepted by the DPG meeting in Bonn 2020. Follow also my backup channel: odysee.com/@Th... My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/
I am not a physicist, I am just a person trying to think outside the box. My son was a physicist and I use to like to discuss things with him, but unfortunately my son Dr Thomas Frawley passed away ( cancer ) aged 30.
Study and think about your son and learn with the idea that he might have survived death and is learning along with you. You will never know this idea is wrong, only if it’s correct.
My deep condolences sir. I think you can find a lot of smart guys similar to your deceased son in this channel. Besides, I am physicist too. We can discuss these scientific topics too.
Sure. Newton, Maxwell, Euclid, Darwin, Adam Smith, Keynes, Pasteur and Mendeleev - please step aside for Gödel with his work on logic. Forget about mechanics, electrodynamics, geometry, evolution, economy, microbiology and the discovery of chemical elements. What's important is that some mathematical statements aren't provable (never mind that finding such a statement is really hard and almost all somewhat meaningful statements are provable and have been proven).
I have recently just graduated SUNY Binghamton with a math and a physics batcher and I have to say that within the past few years I have fallen very skeptical of modern physics so much so that I lost the motivation in looking for graduate physics programs and have begun studying to get in graduate math programs to follow in Dirac's footsteps of approaching physics with a math background thank you so much for reaffirming that I'm on a good course
4:02 so if You take into account the new CERN-studies of Anti_Hydrogen and it's most probable "weight" of 0.75_g in Earth's 1.0_g_Field, then You would get F_e+(positron) / Fg = 3,0266666E39 ratio!! This also bears the question: will Anti_Neutrinos "feel" only 3/4th_G ? Very hard to meassure, indeed! Of course this 3/4_G_of_antimatter is still made/measured by only one experiment and is still to be taken with a grain of salt!! if a Neutrino collides with its Anti~ , what will happen? can it anihilate completely, or not? What would those two emit: a Gravitaional wave? the only possibility?
My lovely late Great Grandmother. Told me 40 years ago, That she knew the Dirac family. They were close neighbours in Bristol. She did not know the boys well. They were younger than her. However she often helped Pauls mother with errands etc. She told me that they were a very strange family. I believe her.
The weird thing in this theory is that it it presents gravity as a force which is more consistent with the Newtonian approach but today most physicists believe that gravity is the interaction between a massive object and the fabric of spacetime the more relativistic approach.I have a problem with the notion of spacetime because if it is a physical thing we know too little or even nothing about it what it is made of and it is a merely mathematical description that really has proven to work by measuring gravitational time dilation with atomic clocks
I think you have spotted the problem with today's fashions. Challenging the idea of spacetime is precisely what ine must do.. see my other videos or www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Reality-Space-Time-Illusion/dp/B0849ZXQB1
I devised the following approach from A-topology in resolving GR/QM conundrum. From A-topology: Theorem #1: In the class of generally ordered spaces, weakly perfect spaces are one and the only true generalization of perfectness; Theorem #2: The existence of weakly perfect spaces that are not perfect is almost a rule. A-topology is based on the following 3 basic axioms: Axiom #1: The set X and the empty set are open. Axiom #2: Any union of open sets is open. Axiom #3: Any finite intersection of open sets is open. Here are key insights and hypotheses: Each point in weakly perfect space W corresponds to a potential quantum state. The open sets in W represent the possible state configurations or superpositions of those quantum states. We define a function to map from W to a state in ℋ Hilbert space that defines the following condition for weakly perfect continuity: f(W) ⊆ ℋ is continuous iff for every open set O in ℋ, f⁻¹(O) is an open set in W. This condition ensures that the mapping preserves the topological structure of quantum states as conceptualized in weakly perfect spaces. Now, if we consider a set S in W comprising multiple points, each corresponding to a different quantum state, then the union of these points (U = ⋃ p_i, where p_i ∈ S) represents the superposition of these states. This union, being an open set in W, adheres to the properties of weakly perfect spaces. In terms of quantum entanglement, we can extend this idea further. If two particles are entangled, their combined state cannot be described independently of each other. In our A-topological framework, this can be represented by a set E in W, where the points in E are so intertwined that their corresponding quantum states in ℋ are non-separable: For p, q ∈ E, the states f(p) and f(q) in ℋ are entangled iff f(p) ⊗ f(q) ≠ f(p) ⨁ f(q).
You have strong feelings about this topic, I see. From my humble experience: Pissing people off, especially with the truth that they efforts and profession is futile make them less open for arguments. You don’t have to attack them personally, just the idea they hold on to and you will have a foe for life. Anyway, I love what you do and say and how you do it to. Thanks
Provide where anything he said was verifiably true? Making up lies about people's profession to prop yourself up is also a very good way to make enemies for life.
@@mechamahou8467guess the people who voted for jc punishment had similar arguments. Bad rhetoric my dear. If you are right and possess integrity and a spine you don’t care who is calling you an enemy ( also an jc quote )
Two years ago Susskind and Mark blended QM and GR explaining, rather incompletely, using Maldacena's ADS/CFT correspondence and discovering quantum gravity. I think it s high time Unzicker gives us his take.
He keeps talking about Dirac's hypothesis. What hypothesis? It's just an observation that there are two numbers that are similar. What is the suggestion? That the strength of quantum gravity depends upon the size of the universe?
Why should the Radius of any particle be fix? They are excitation of fields? They carry fields? So, any radius depends on the kind of measurement and the used amount of energy?
The radius measurement needs to be defined for an elementary particle, but there is no problem as amatter of principle. E.G. the recent charge radius data of the proton.
Excellent video, and the most important current physical theories have put the importance of their theories giving out the right numbers in the back burner, giving more emphasis to its exoticness. Also I think with theories such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, one is at the risk of putting their 'human' notions of strings and loops in explaining what is supposedly the grand superstructure of things. What do you think? Also, do you teach at any university?
I do not think strings and SUSY etc are useful at all. First think about the standard model, that is, question it. To your question: no, I am an author and teach highschool/college level (German Gymnasium).
I don't understand the 10^39 number. The DIAMETER of the observable universe is 880x10^24 m and the proton RADIUS is 0,8414x10^-15. Either you double the radius or half the diameter to set this into relation, but anyway no 10^39 relation I can see. Can someone explain, please?
c/H0 (the hubble constant) is 1.3*10^26 m. Indeed, the number is closer to 10^41. Given the cosmological ucertainties, the coincidence is remarkable though. As Dirac pointed out in his 1937 paper, there could be also numerical factors such as 137 and /or 1836.
Dr Alexander Unzicker Thank you once again for such an interesting talk. I like yourself and Paul Dirac I've been curious about correlations between cosmological numbers "Large Numbers Hypothesis". I think they are more than suggestive of undiscovered physics and cosmology. Further more I believe they share a direct causal relationship of such a nature that not only solves the Large Numbers Hypothesis, but also resolves the universal complexity problem and the fine tuning problem. For your consideration,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Any entity that exists via exploitation of an energy, can conceivably evolve its form and functions to a highly ordered complex state optimized for exploiting that energy. This summarizes life's circumstances very nicely. And if you assume space possesses an energy content that Baryon matter "atoms" exploit, then you can test the idea that the forms and processes of matter are an evolved state optimized for harvesting that energy. Biological activity owes its origin to sunlight "a freely available energy of the environment in which plants have evolved and optimized the process of Photosynthesis to exploit. Consider the possibility that atomic activity owes its origin to an energy field that inhabits the environment of space, and that Baryons "atoms" have evolved an optimized process to exploit this energy source (we might term fieldsynthesis). Atoms exploit and convert space into atomic force. Atomic forces that are the generator of atomic activity. We do after all use atomic activity to define atomic time. So atomic force and atomic time are certainly intimately related, and therefore so is the concept of spacetime. Spacetime curvature = atomic time = atomic activity = atomic force. Because atomic forces generate the atomic activity we use to define the measure of time. Direct causal relationship.
Defer to a tried and tested means that nature has at its disposal to generate highly ordered complex systems, (Darwinian progression). Anybody who has studied the complexity problem of science, and or the fine-tuning problem will recognize the potential benefits of discovering a "natural organizational principle is responsible for generating universal physical complexity and order. So here is an avenue for inquiry. This outlines a scenario within which Darwinian mechanisms are given ample opportunity to act as an organizational principle responsible for sculpting atomic and cosmological forms and processes.
Scientist know why living cells service specialized roles within terms of forms and functions for the benefit of multicellular organisms. Because the fates of cells and the bodies they form are intertwined in a Darwinian circumstance of adaptation, optimization in the bid to persist. But what scientists dont know is why hydrogen fusion sensitivity generates just the right amount of heat within stars to balance against the force of gravity and halting gravitational collapse. But while not being overly sensitive triggering a nova event. This raises the question of finely tuned calibration? Why do processes at atomic scales service structure forming roles at cosmological scales? The hypothesis outlined above presents the same opportunity to service the question of fusions ideal sensitivity for maintaining stellar structure, as it does biologies relationship between Cells and an organisms multicellular body. Atoms fates are intertwined with stellar structures and processes within a circumstance of Darwinian progression, evolution and refined optimization. All these considerations are made posable within a cosmological model which assumes space is a habitat that possesses an energy content. And that the Baryon universe (atoms and the cosmological bodies that atoms form) exist on the basis of exploiting this naturally available energy of space. That universal complexity and order is a result of evolution and refined optimization. That life examples an extraordinary Darwinian existence which extends to a far broader universal scope. Darwinian Universal
Any Darwinian entity can be understood within terms of the energy it exploits to exist, and its evolved form and function optimized for exploiting that energy source. Take a tree for example. Its form and processes can be understood within terms of evolving (Lignin fibers) that is to say wood fibers. Which it used to good effect in the competition for sunlight. A strong truck enabled the tree to lift its bulk above competing plants and then spread its branches and leaf canopy wide, increasing its surface area and ability to collect the suns energy. So the theme of structure and process is apparent in the trees truck and branch form and photosynthesis process. Forms and functions. Structures and processes. If you begin from the standpoint that atoms exist on the basis of exploiting an energy of space habitat. That atoms evolved collective agencies that form stable cosmological bodies, presumably for the same general reason that cells eventually evolved multicellular bodies. In any case life offers precedence to be weighed as evidence that Darwinian systems are inclined to do such things. So now ill get to the point. As living things, we owe a great debt to chemical bond forming potentials of atoms and the presents of water molecules that act as a universal solvent in the expression of these chemical potentials. Life didn't invent chemical potentials, it only coopted or borrowed pre-existing potentials of matter. Question is, why and how dis atoms achieve such an incredible and complex system of chemistry? Let us look to the Earth's geochemical processes and see how geology makes use of chemical bonds, and the substance of water which just happens to be found in abundance in this universe and on Earth's surface. I see Earth's geochemical processes making use of chemical bonds while cementing eroded sandy and rocky aggregates, resolidifying rock sheets that span the width of continents. I see the Earth's surface being resolidified into ridged and therefore persistent structure by geochemical means enabled by the presents of water. Not to mention some heat and pressure within the Earth's crust. Chemical potentials of matter would lay largely dormant on Earth if not for the presents of the universal solvent of water. What are the odds that nature would create wonderous chemical potentials quite by accident, and then again by mere accident create a very particular substance requires to activate those chemical potentials? They work together with an elegance that a lock fits a key. How can we take those seriously unlikely circumstances for granted? So I see a highly energetic and kinetic universe that bombards and erodes planet surfaces, and I see repair mechanisms that act to resolidify this ware and tear. Much like your skin repairs itself, so do planetary crusts. The idea is that these extraordinary processes of nature, chemical bonds and water's means of expressing them in a meaningful useful way, evolved for natural reasons that can be fathomed by science. Reasons that we observe nature in the act of doing, like geochemical structure formation. Within context of an entity's exploitation of an energy source, and its evolved structures and processes optimized for exploiting that energy while achieving stable persistent universal structures. In this fashion, it can be fathomed how the universe achieved highly ordered complex states, structures and processes, which having achieved a high enough threshold of chemical sufistication, that only then did life became an emergent potential. We know how life generated its complexity. Darwinian progression. But science is hung up on the question of how matter came to possess the characteristics and complexity that life depends upon to exist. I'm strongly suggesting that universal complexity owes to the same general circumstances of lifes emergent complexity. Darwinian progression.
@@DarwinianUniversal so you imagine maybe the universe going thru many iterations before evolving into this? maybe our universe sputtered and failed countless times before it had the energy to keep itself stable, but that process would eventually lead to a stable universe we see? multverse theory does this in other hibbart spaces or brains or whatever so you will always get some universe that work and many others that simply recollapse. arvin ash i think is the channel did a video recently on the fine tuning idea and the notion that the tuning is precise or needs to be is overblown. you might seek it out. the tuning is range that can work before things fall apart and fields and energies tend to like to stabilize and balance out and our universe seems very much a bunch of energies and fields bound up in one another they repulse and balance each other and give us the values we see around us.
Please look into Mike McCulloch's theory of Quantised Inertia! He predicts many anomalies such as the accelerations at the edges of galaxies, and flyby anomalies. No arbitrary parameters needed!
What is your opinion on EWT's take on gravity? According to the theory, gravity is a shading effect between particles, as a tiny portion of inbound longitudinal waves are converted to transverse waves due to the particle's spin. I'm bringing this up because it correlates with Dirac's realization that the strength of gravity is related to the mass and size of the universe. Every single particle in the universe "produces" outbound longitudinal waves, which then strike an observed particle from all sides equally if you ignore shading. But because of shading, the more waves per unit volume you have, the more pronounced the shading becomes!
What is the radius of universe? Of the observable? And the mass? Does it includes dark matter or not? Do you know that the ratio of the side if my house and the proton size is approximately the same ratio between the distance from alpha centauri and the radius of Jupiter? A simple coincidence?
The size and mass of the observable universe are measurable numbers, though with huge uncertainties, thus we are talking about orders of magnitude. (DM is one order of magnitude at best). Making up shit is no counterargument.
A few comments at length. First, the variable light speed or refractive medium approach to gravity is now a done deal, from Dicke to Puthoff to Yilmaz and me, Shapiro delay being the clincher. The resulting core question "Why does light slow down near a celestial body?" almost answers itself once it is recognised that "mass" is a form of energy which propagates at the characteristic velocity: Nothing is perfect. One cannot increase indefinitely the energy density impressed upon some space region without consequences, altering its physical properties, especially the characteristic velocity itself. As the space gets busy, the energy slows down. The relation governing this emerges from the mathematics. It's just an instance of Gauss's Law: ∇^2 c(r) = κ ρ_E Where ρ_E is the field energy density. Now, once we have mass as energy moving at c, variations in c fall straight through, from angular momentum conservation to clocks that slow down as \sqrt c(r) and rulers that shrink as \sqrt c(r) (Note the result, BTW, that the locally observed value - measuring slow light with short rulers and slow clocks - always equals the constant background free space value, ~3 x 10^8 m/s,). This provides a readily intelligible physical model for the curved space in a 4D generally covariant theory like Yilmaz. Second, the equations on the slide at 13:22 in the video are to be read as field equations, representing integrals over all space of the corresponding field quantities. The "mass", m, in particular is just the space integral of the field inertia density, defined as the ratio of field momentum density over speed. Of course, the final equation should read E = h̄ ω = m c^2, so an extraneous factor of 4 has crept in there, for two main reasons. The field movements (i.e. trajectories of the wave vector) are not circular in the case of a closed 3D trajectory system, as in the case of a massive particle. See Battey-Price E.P., Racey P.J. “Geometric Model for Fundamental Particles”. International Journal of Theoretical Physics (1980), Vol. 19, No. 6, 437-475 which develops the physical picture to accompany the SU(2) understanding why the zitterbewegung undergoes 4 pi evolution per 2 pi cycle of the particle frequency (i.e. the ω we write in E= h̄ ω). Roughly speaking, the trajectories of the wave vector exist on the surfaces of spheres in the rest system, but they are not circumferential. That would give you the zitterbewegung frequency equal to ω rather than 2ω. Clearly, with the trajectories curved on the spherical surface (like the seam on a tennis ball) , this reduces the angular momentum (i.e. the space integral of the field angular momentum density) corresponding to the observed fact that the fermion angular momentum is h/2 instead of the photon's h. This modifies the second relation on the slide. Next, the proton radius may have been accurately measured, but it is less than clearly defined what the measurement corresponds to in the physical model. So, if one had a "billiard ball" atomist particle model it would be well defined as the dimension of the ball, but such models fail miserably in quantum physics. In a local realist field model, the corresponding well defined quantity is the dimension of the sphere on which the wave trajectories lie, but how that relates to the observable Pohl et al quantity shown in the preceding slide is not fully resolved. Overall, this is a good presentation, but the first half is redundant (who knows the size of the universe anyway?) once it is understood that energy propagates at c. And it remains unclear how to go from here to quantum gravity despite this being a really good place to start.
The number of field cells making up the crystal ball that is our universe can determine the average field cell gap which determines space permeability which determines the average speed of light. The total ratio of -ve 'electro gas' to +ve subspace field cells could be the main constant or this ratio could always be 1 to 1, either way, the total number of field cells can be the One Constant that binds all others. -- As we don't know the size of the universe, the !MEASURED! speed of light in a vacuum is good enough for our needs, except for the fact relating it to the G constant may be impossible without linking both to the size / total field cell count of the universe.. G may well be related to the total mass of all the matter in the universe, which may well be again, related to the size / subspace field cell count of this 'Positronic Universe'.
There are ways to obtain certain constants from others. For example the Maxwell-Heaviside equations for electromagnetism can allow us to find that the speed of an electro-magnetic wave in a vaccum is equal to c. However this requires 2 experimentally determined constants: Vacuum permeability (symbolised by mu nought) and vacuum permittivity (symbolised by epsilon nought).
@@ll-oh2gz Parth G. recently (6 July 2021) posted on RU-vid "The Biggest Clue that the Speed of Light Is Constant | Relativity and Electromagnetism" with the agrument that the speed of electromagnetic waves depends on the ease with which electric and magnetic fields move through vacuum, i.e., c^2 = 1/(ε0µ0). RU-vid won't let me post the link, unforntunately. One could ask, "How can ε0 & µ0 be computed from first principles?" Beats me. It is interesting that these two constants, which first arise in the study of static electric and magnetic fields, are intimately connected to dynamic fields and to yet another constant of Physics.
How does this hypothesis hold though given the most recent update on the Hubble constant? Variable speed of light could let it tread some water but essentially so far as we can observe, the universe is expanding not only faster than the speed of light but its rate of expansion vs the speed of light is increasing. All the while, the radius of the proton is staying the same.
There are NO straight lines in nature! Curves are essential. If you realize that, than everything makes sense. The hole universe exists out of rimples AND rotations in 3D. The perfect lens isn't shaped like part of a circle. If you want to make the perfect lens it "dies out" into a straight line. If you try to imagine this in 3D (a perfect lens is only 2D) than I think we'll find the answer. Rotation is essential! All objects rotate. So the final formula should be something like explaining the movement in fluids (or smoke (gasses)). Redshift is like the edges of a perfect lense. "Spherical Aberration" doesn't appear in nature. "Nature shapes every object or movement in the most optimal way".
In addition to not doing numerology on a wildly moving target like the universe mass, we cannot derive any of the fundamental constants in physics -- not just alpha. They are all elusive. The very first mystery to solve is the electron (like charge and mass). The proton is an incredibly complex, composite beast compared to the electron.
@@TheMachian I have seen an interesting derivation of the electron mass and charge, based on the assumption that the electron was a black hole (Kerr metric). It was not spot-on, but close enough to be interesting. But in reality, we are missing a striking amount of basic knowledge (thus the elusiveness). The first thing we should be seeking is the origin of the electron mass and charge. It should fall out of a set of field equations, quantized or not. As for the proton, it is a beast. Though we don't know it's decay time, it's harboring stuff. The standard model and particle physics and all high-energy probing suggest it is composed of 3 quarks, and if you get close enough you see evidence of something that's not purely a spinning charge. It's a composite "particle", and it probably hides some of the missing positrons in our area of the cosmos.
Glad each presentation shows the Matrix of Force in space as being curved by gravity. So, we've come to common ground since so many people do write about Quantum Gravity. I do wish software engineers design a program to allow us to navigate in curved space as either a Force or a small space craft traveling in spacetime. Does the background radiation enter the John Dalton atom system, and does it form a ripple near the graviton, as firm as the cosmic rays that strike the atom and energize it? Virtual journeys through the Matrix of Force in Spacetime will help educate people.
You bring me to a thought that explains why we can't reach the speed of light. Just like the shaking when reaching the speed of sound, this must also happen reaching the speed of light. This shaking is essential! If you want to reach the speed of light and beyond your rocket should be very sturdy. 😁 Beyond that threshold you will end in the dark. There will be no light, nothing, you will end out of this universe or in the dark matter. Reaching the sound barrier you come in complete silence, so reaching the light barrier you come in complete darkness.
Let's say that we can find a better way if electron mass /4.26 -16) squared x 6.079-41n=3.02-40 n for n=1 in hydrogen that is the g radius for our electron but like the proton in hydrogen when it's orbital radius changes it's particle radius changes so that it's g radius will decrease to 3.02-16 met at n=2
How did the physicists just assume that since G has a certain value on large scales then in the atomic scales which is totally another dimension the just apply G as it is with out any conversion or recalculating it. I think on atomic scales the gravitational constant could actually be an inverse of G on large scales . I.e when dealing with atoms the value of G is 1/G ,but it has to be recalculated in that space .These assumptions and speculation and using values and totally disregarding scale outside the three dimensions is wrong and unintelligent I think.
Several of these equations contained m & r elements, suggesting 'Density' is an important factor, also I never realised before that c was dependent upon f IE different 'colours' travel at different speeds?
This was a good video ! The quantum gravity point is the conversion where mass is converted to time placement. To understand this you must know a lot about gravity and time luckily I know what gravity and time are !,40 year of this and you get to know what this stuff is if your lucky !
The radius/mass of proton is probably not that independent from R of Universe*. Conventional image of Universe is some "scene" (spacetime) where particles are just randomly chosen bits of abstract mass and size. Yet particles are innate elements of Universe, they form space actually**. The size of ant crawling on earth cannot be arbitrary small or large - it can be somehow derived from M Earth and its radius. * What exactly it means for Open or Flat Universe - supposed to be infinity. Probably the radius of "black hole" if one takes average density of Universe and expands "sphere" up until the matter inside forms "Event Horizon" ** "Standard" LCDM model allows particles (barionic matter) to be no more than 5% of all mass but still.
@@TheMachian What I had expressed was not a passage from the holy book. String theory predicts the smallest length in universe as : x = [ hG / c^3 ]^1/2 This value can be attributed to the dimemsion of the dark matter quanta that we are trying to explain today.
@@TheMachian You go check out Wikipedia for string theory. It states that the string theory was first formulated in late 60's. 60 years after Planch. Don't fake out...
Seems if Dirac had been right about positrons having negative mass then it would mean that positrons could not exist below some (relative) kinetic energy level where some supposed negative potential energy nature of positrons can be overcome, kind of incongruous if you ask me. Inconsistent with that is the trivial notion is that there is no published minimum speed limit for positrons, as far as I know. Balancing between kinetic energy and potential energy seems problematic in itself, for what it is worth, whereas it would look nicer with both sides (to some degree independently and complementarily) quantized, but that is another gravity quantization topic.
On the other hand, suppose the jury is out on minimum-velocity anti-electrons or positrons, since electrons never want to sit still anyway. In other words Dirac's negative energy anti-electrons are conceivably positrons. With that being the case the idea of reversed-time for anti-particles seems superfluous. Positrons supposedly slow down in stages, almost like a stone skipping across multiple atomic puddles, before finally settling into one, there is nothing to suggest reversible integration over time.
But why would the size of the universe be related to anything? Do we know the size of the universe? The size of my kitchen is tightly correlated with the number of copper pots I own,
Maybe all this is no accident , and intelligent design is at play... Either way I suppose it is hinting at that science is missing something very obvious and profound , which I beleive we are. Physics has got to complicated for its own good with string and inflation theorys with 10^500 solutions ect. Thankfully alot of these ultra over the top models are now been ruled by ever more better observations , especially alot of the inflation models, string theory will be next to fall.
@@TheMachian Starting with the insulting title and continuing by not providing the numbers of calculations which in fact are so broad (ex. the radius of an EXPANDING universe, observable or not), not to comment that the specific ratios you use are likely chosen to fit your "numerology"...
@@adki231Realized this simply by reading the comments of wannabe basement geniuses who agree with him for no other reason than he stated "everyone else is wrong!"
To have a reliable, convincing theory, You need to "come up with a number..." But then you use an awful lot of approximations in your arguments... Kinda lost my interest after the first half...
If you have the patience to go to 11:35, you will find a pretty precise coincidence - despite the inaccuracy of cosmological data. And: I am not claiming this is a fully developed theory. I just give an argument that there is no other reasonable way.
Like that reasoning reiteration, because it's based around the superimposed Superspin that is Singularity pivotal-projection, inherent in all mathematical reciprocal positioning formulae such as Dirac exemplified, it's the cause-effect perspective of interference holography projected onto measurable observations.., only the sense of proportioning derived from actual circumstances of natural leaky uncertainty makes precision calculations suspect. Working with Geologists on material conglomerates tends to be instructive about relative scaling relationships and mathematical derivation of structures, and Cosmological features are mostly inferred, very cleverly, but it remains a mishmash.., e-Pi-i interference positioning of infinitely variable conglomerations in/of resonances. The sieving of Fines formed from the breakdown of Boulders that in turn have a spectrum of variables, leads to a respect for the innate difficulties involved in practical Sciencing. If the limit of physical relative size is the Planck Dimension, and the Constants are dependent variables, as they are in Principle, then quantized gravity is fractal dust and Ideal Gas. Quantum/Algebraic Calculus qualities of "departed numerical values". (By observation)
Yea i thought so too ... but then i took enough acid and ketamine to break through and came to realize why science is bonkers. Its a mindverse. A holographic multilayered representation of thought. This reality is a cross section through thinking. We are headed towards the past into the future , literally and figurative . If scientists keep pretending that mind emerges from matter and not the other way around , they will never understand. I can show what i am talking about. Its a reliable , repeatable procedure. I am as scientific as possible in my approach to psychonaut research. Come and see for yourself.
@@thephuntastics2920 in my experience, the destination you're pointing to is extremely unpleasant, and the literal dead end. The sides of the road are symmetrical and mislead the traveller who wants to go somewhere else without effort, so being on the road to nowhere is part of the everyday illusion of trying to find the objective that you have to provide. Turn around.
I don't understand how you frequently refer to the 'radius of the universe' as if it's a fixed number. Isn't the universe expanding faster than the speed of light due to dark energy? If you contend that dark energy does not exist, then explain why you believe the universe is absolutely fixed.
The radius can be determined by c/H0, H0 being the Hubble constant (this is a order of magnitude estimate which is model dependent). Given the value of H0, it is changing *relatively* VERY slowly...
@@TheMachian I think I understand. Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I look forward to your future lectures and, hopefully, some debates as well!
With this video, I think Unzicker is doing himself a disservice. The presentation is somehow rather weak and disjointed. Instead of watching this, READ HIS BOOKS entitled Einstein's Lost Key and The Higgs Fake. They are both excellent!!
I was lucky enough to attend a lecture by PAM Dirac on the large number hypothesis. He was a good speaker, but lived up to his acerbic reputation. I distinctly remember him referring to "that Wyle mathematician," (with the German pronunciation) and it was very clear the _double entendre_ was intentional - he got a laugh from the audience, smiled, and moved on.
@@TheMachian Ah. The German name Wyle, pronounced with in German, sounds like the English word "vile," meaning morally despicable or abhorent. I'm not sure he looked at Wyle in disdain, but perhaps was being playful.
I also saw Dirac give a lecture at Adelaide University in the midd seventies on this topic. The lecture theatre was packed and as a young student interested in physic I was really unable to grasp the intent of the numerology which seemed then to be speculative to the extreme. Thanks to this video I feel I finally understand the intent of these musings. Took a while…
The number of people 'explaining' a particular subject is inversely proportional to the knowledge that science has on the subject. This means that when many people write books about the subject, little is known. This is a handy tool for determining how far a subject has evolved.
Lol, in a way yes, because it means everybody is having a go at it. Just look at the huge number of Riemann hypothesis "solutions" Lol Mine is the only one correct
@PsyMan Magus X Well, there's a connection between 'Love Island' and quantum physics science popularizes - in both cases the participants actually want fame and money rather than the supposed purpose of the exercise.
While current candidates for QG like string theory and LQG are probably not the solution to the problem, and I do think a theory of everything should ultimately be quantitative, I think there is a very big issue with comparing this kind of "numerology" to what Maxwell found. The difference lies with _intensive_ versus _extensive_ properties of the universe. The properties that Maxwell related are all intensive properties (electric constant, magnetic constant, speed of light/causality) which do not correspond to any particular structure and are thus true "universal" properties of the universe that are likely directly birthed from a theory of everything (or are true free parameters birthed at the creation of the universe). The ratios that are present in this video, however, all incorporate extensive properties like the mass of the proton, radius of the proton, mass of the observable universe, and radius of the observable universe. There are two major issues with this: 1. When you allow yourself to consider extensive properties as fundamental constants, the adjustable degrees of freedom that you can use to arbitrarily make approximate equations dramatically increases. This is especially the case for properties of structures (ie protons and the entire universe) versus fundamental particles which there are relatively few of. Some questions: Why the proton specifically? Why not the neutron? Why use the rms charge radius of the proton and not another definition of its radius (since a proton is actually boundary-less)? Why not the electron? Why not any other particle? Why not some other structure of quarks, like mesons, of which there are hundreds (protons being the most common charged baryon due to them being the most stable should not make them uber-special such that their properties would relate to the ratio of the fundamental forces)? Why the ratio of the electric to the gravitational force, and not the strong or weak forces? The strong force very likely has much more influence on the proton charge radius than gravity does. Why the size/matter of the observable universe, and not the minimum size of the known universe which is at least 500 times larger than the observable one based on large-scale cosmology? This doesn't even touch the issue of using other math constants (like pi or the golden ratio or e or any of the many, many constants) to try and make the equations work as experiments get more accurate. Why pi/2, and not pi/4, or 2*pi, or pi^2, or pi^2/2, or the golden ratio, or 8, or 8*e^2, and so on... It is very easy to get agreement to 6, 8, 10 decimal places when you have so many degrees of freedom that you don't need to have real justification for. 2. The deeper issue is that the extensive properties of structures like protons and the universe likely arise from an extremely complicated mess of different aspects of physics coming together to create an essentially arbitrary extensive property with little direct, simple relation to intensive fundamental constants. The radius (and mass) of the proton, for example, likely arises from a complicated mess of primarily strong interactions. The proton is known to have a mess of quarks and virtual gluons that interact in extremely complicated ways. The probability that the radius (or mass which would also involve the Higgs and other effects) that results from this mess of interactions relates cleanly to other fundamental constants is quite low (even if you ignore the first point about many degrees of freedom). This issue is even greater for something like the size of the observable universe and its matter content. The density of baryon matter in the universe arises from several different physical aspects of the early universe (like the varying expansion rate, the ratio of matter to anti-matter, the stability of certain arrangements of quarks, ect.) coalescing into an effectively arbitrary number for density. If this density were to be predicted from a theory of everything using only fundamental constants, it would likely involve, at a minimum, a dizzying array of integrals and other expensive computations, not some simple "nice" formula in terms of fundamental constants. I have no problem with physicists playing around with constants and equations to see if something interesting comes up. I also don't have a problem with _some_ people trying their best to investigate the supposed leads that this numerology gives. However, to claim that these relations are exact or meaningful, or to claim that this way of trying to develop a theory of quantum gravity is the most likely to succeed, is completely unjustified IMO. TL;DR If your physical relation takes advantage of many degrees of freedom to adjust the numbers, and you don't have a fleshed-out physical justification for your relation, its probably shit.
@@AlicanErenKuzu You misunderstand the definition of quantitative. Quantitative in this context just means that the theory predicts a numeric value for physical constants (and other phenomena). An example of a quantitative theory would be the prediction of the number that is the fine structure constant, as opposed to a qualitative theory that would merely say that there _is_ a fine structure constant that plays a certain role in the physics.
Well written. I always challenge everyone who believes to know it all to come and take acid n ketamine with me as science experiment. Every 2weeks , 7 times , smoke dmt , and then ...THEN try n formulate a theory of how the universe works without vomiting over their own essays. Its a mindverse. Our perceptional reality is just a fraction of all that is.
I agree with this analysis. Ideally, if one would want a new numerology-based theory like this to be taken seriously, one would state all the possible degrees of freedom that you've allowed yourself, their justifications (if any) and honestly analyze: Given a random theory taken from the space of possible theories you've constructed by your choice of degrees of freedom, how likely would that random theory be your theory? Lets at least meet social science's bar of 95%
Very well put! This was exactly what I was thinking throughout this video. Why relate the radius of a proton and of the observable universe to anything, as neither of them even come close to being a fundamental property of the universe 🤷🏼♂️
You haven't read Dirac's papers on quantum gravity, from the early 1950s. His "large numbers hypothesis" is now called "The naturalness problem" and it is unsolved. There is no way to more way calculate the fine-structure constant from first principles than there is to work out the number of stars in the milky-way from first principles, they are both determined by historical accident. This is because the fine-structure constant runs with energy, and at high energy, it depends on how exactly gravity and the other forces are separated.
As a kid in the 80s I had a mini-Maxwell moment while messing around with a calculator. It had a bunch of built-in physical constants that I was randomly multiplying, dividing, squaring etc. I stumbled upon permittivity * permeability, reciprocal, square root - and out pops the speed of light. I nearly jumped out of my seat!
A pity you were not born 180 years earlier (well no calculator without electrodynamics:)). Actually Kirchhoff and Weber stumbled upon that coincidence, too, while performing their experiments.
@neil u They are basically say that there is an ether medium upon which the speed of light is based. This is the same way the speed of sound is an energy wave in air. Dirac basically states that there is an ether medium, AKA a sea of photons. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea It was the basic premise of Tesla and Steinmetz, that electrons are condensers of this medium, and condense a quantized amount of these particles, or dielectric out of the ether medium. A radio signal is the condensing and rarefying of the dielectric. In fact when you follow this model, that charged particles are condensers of the ether medium, all of the mainstream paradoxes disappear. It appears that energy is created by momentum of these particles, by condensing and rarefying this medium, like an air conditioner uses a fluid medium to transfer energy by compression and rarefaction of a freon, use particle momentum to transfer energy. In fact Ron Hatch and GPS prove that there is a medium. The speed of light varies with the density of this medium. This is the Lorentz ether gauge theory. www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdfwiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Ronald_R_Hatch Hatch has a new version of gravity that is based upon the ether medium density, which dictates the energy level, and the speed of light varies with the flux density, just as redshift, refractive index, clock speed, and back - emf do. www.deere.com/assets/pdfs/navcom/Featured%20Articles/inside_gnss_janfeb08_humaneng_ron_hatch.pdf Here is Hatch on Pound- Rebka. www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_538.pdf Gravity is basically due to the ether medium density condensed within masses, and gravity then is magnetic, or ether medium pressure mediation of the medium condensed within matter. Planck's constant is the only true constant in the Universe.
Well, if it is hard for you to do all these complex non-linear differential equations, just declare all that to be "crap" and switch to multiplication and division. :)
that's a very dumb answer. The quality of a physical theory has to be judged by its conceptual simplicity and by its predictive power, not by the math involved. Moreover, Math is just a tool, and non-linear differential equations are quite of standard use in physics.
TLDR: All the hard work done in the past 40 years is wrong because we can't generate the energy needed to test it, but some random coincidences people noticed almost a century ago is promising, even though none of it has been formulated into an actual theory, and would likely be even less testable if it were." ... I mean its fine to get inspiration from coincidences -- lots of (good) science has come from people noticing odd things and pursuing them. But you've got to actually do that "pursuing them" step before coincidences can be considered actually useful. The fact that I have 5 fingers on my hand and a starfish has 5 arms doesn't imply that starfish are in any way related to human hands by itself, even though its a coincidence.
Well I'd say pretty good evidence for evolution if many animals have 5 fingers... . For the rest, you are right. Feel free to develop a model based on Dirac. However, it's also useful to weed out the crap. Today, there is a lot....
@@TheMachian Yep there's definitely a lot of crap, but figuring out which is the crap and which is plausible is less certain. We do know one thing though, "testable" can't be our determining factor anymore. The Standard Model and General Relativity both stand up exceedingly well in experiment to the energy levels we can currently reach, and mathematically neither of them break down until we reach much, much higher energies than we're likely to see in any collider in our lifetimes (barring some revolutionary new design that comes completely out of left field.) There are some extensions to the Standard Model that predict things like supersymmetric particles that might potentially be reachable within the next generation or two of colliders, but while that would be plenty exciting in its own right it still doesn't get anywhere close to the energies we'd need to conclusively prove (or disprove) any realistic "theory of everything," (again barring something revolutionary that comes completely out of left field.) The scale difference between the SM and gravity is just too large to reasonably expect testability any time soon. So where does that leave science? Well from what I've seen, the consensus seems to fall on "testable in principle." That's certainly a much, much looser constraint than actual testability but its still better than completely throwing our hands up and allowing any random theory that manages to not put an infinity in a weird place.
It still gets better founding by the panels. And why is it any worse science then VSL? Sounds like laymen preference to me. I believe MTheory has mathematically much to offer and that all hypotheses and theories should be pursued.
I studied some of Dirac's personal manuscripts and yes, he did think about some very interesting “coincidences", but let us think about it: the radius of the universe is a consequence of the passage of time, related both to its expansion and to the fact that light hasn't had enough time to reach us from a more distanced point. Since the proton's radius seems to be constant, what does this tell us? That dinosaur-Dirac and future-alien-Dirac wouldn't find this to be a remarkable coincidence at all. It is probably just numerology.
Which papers did you study? Take the 1937 nature paper or the 1938 PRS paper, and you'll find the answers. The intriguing idea is that those numbers coincide also in what you call teh dinosaur and the alien case.
@@TheMachian I had a singular chance to read some personal letters exchanged between Dirac and a former student, nowadays a professor here in Brazil, Prof. Daniel Wisnivesky. Prof. Daniel kept these letters (written around 1962) and actually published some of the ideas Dirac shared with him about unification of quantum mechanics and gravity. The works itself are nothing revolutionary but you should take a look. Unfortunately these do not cover all the material included on the letter, which I'm afraid the world won't see since Prof. Daniel keeps them very close to his heart. It is worth mentioning that Prof. Daniel did study under some notable figures, including Yakir Aharonov. doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X01004396 doi.org/10.1016/S0217-751X(00)00218-2
@@TheMachian That is truly amazing. Is there an intuitively obvious explanation for this coinciding? It seems logically unlikely to pedestrian logic. Unless the non-constant nature of the speed of light in flat space must be Necessary?
Everywhere c^2 appears, one can substitute 1/e0u0 (from Maxwell). That makes sense if e0 and u0 are the determining factors not only of EM but as properties of the vacuum they may have something to do with determining gravity too. E = mc^2 for example, can be written as E = m/e0u0.
Einstein's "variable speed of light" isn't a variable speed of light theory, it is the truncation of GR to g_00 only. This means clocks tick at different rates at different positions. You shouldn't interpret it as a 'variable speed of light' because the local speed of light as measured by any experiment would still be roughly constant in the proper theory. I say "roughly", because you are ignoring the small effects of the off-diagonal parts of the metric tensor. The proper solution includes the whole metric tensor, Einstein realized that the scalar theory wasn't complete very quickly, he never expected it to be more than a heuristic guide to a full theory. A full scalar theory is Nordstrom gravity, which has no light deflection, unlike the original Einstein 1907 theory you reference, which has half the correct deflection. The full deflection is due to the space-space components of the metric, which contribute equal amount of deflection for a particle moving at the speed of light, and do not contribute at all to a particle moving slowly, for which Einstein's 1907 theory is sufficiently accurate.
This seems *completely* speculative - I don't see how we take this seriously without some sort of theory behind. Where exactly does that pi/2 come from, etc.?
Although interesting, using dimensional analysis (numerology if you will) to relate concepts isn’t always an effective method of hypothesis or proof. Just because the orders of magnitude of the ratios (F_e)/(F_g) and (R_u)/(r_p) are the same doesn’t mean they are in any way related by the same physical phenomena. The first ratio is related to classical mechanics, which is dependent on the inverse square law, while the second one invokes scales that relate to GTR and QM. With that comparison, you’re relating a classical physics ratio to a modern physics ratio. Not to mention that the orders of magnitude you’re showing are so massive (10^39) that the values of each ratio can be that much more massively different from each other than those approximations elude to. The difference between 1 (10^0) and 2 (2*10^0), numerically, is much smaller than the difference between 100 (10^2) and 200 (2*10^2) so those compared ratio values, at those magnitudes, matter if you’re invoking them in your hypothesis/argument.
I didn't say *always*, and certainly these hints are no proof. The need something else the same way eps0 mue0=1/c2 needs Maxwell's theory. The fact that the numbers involved are so huge justifies to consider orders of magnitude. And don't forget tehre are 2 coincidences, not one. I can also recommend reading Dirac's original 1938.
Unzicker's Real Physics By *always*, I wasn’t referring to you specifically, only in general, through dimensional analysis, that it isn’t always an effective methodology of hypothesis and/or proof pertaining to Physical Arguments. To begin, Maxwell’s theory predicted that the speed of an electromagnetic wave was the same as the speed of light and he argued, theoretically, that light was a propagating electromagnetic wave. The speed of light was first measured by Roemer in 1676 and it was remarkable that Maxwell’s theory had that value spill out with mu_0*eps_0=1/(c^2) as it was the speed coefficient of his derived wave equations, solutions from his 4 proposed field equations. That speed doesn’t *need* Maxwell’s theory and Maxwell’s theory didn’t *need* that speed; it was a remarkable result of his theory. I made the comment about orders of magnitude because I have read Dirac’s paper where he clearly states that these values may be dependent on which Epoch we exist in. His theory was a first approximation based on that these ratios are constants. Dirac even cites that his theory may need to be amended as it ignores factors that *may vary slowly with their arguments.* He even states that the *general formulation of the principle does not enable one to draw exact conclusions with certainty* where he then asserts with Eq. 1 that *a* does not equal *kb* (where a and b are of the orders of magnitude 10^39, and k is a constant of order unity). In that same section, he concedes that these *numerical coincidences* are off by a few orders of magnitude and that these coincidences need to be ignored *for the sake of getting a definite theory*. By in large, these orders of magnitude are massive enough to toss out their coefficients but are tiny compared to the size and structure of our observable Universe where all observable physics works. Additionally, these approximations are also based off of Spiral Galaxies (Nebulae) and their structures, not the radius of the Universe. These are not even the most common type of galaxy, Elliptical Galaxies are. Elliptical Galaxies are also the largest galaxy structures (Giant Ellipticals) in the observable Universe. Furthermore, using the ratio of the mass of the Universe and the mass of a proton ignores a major conservation law in Physics as mass, strictly speaking, is not a conserved quantity; energy is, a result of STR.
Did you understand what I meant? There are some people critisizing Dirac's large Numbers as 'numerology'. However, without that kind of 'numerology', applied by Kirchhoff and Weber in 1856, w'd still sit around with candlelight.
@@TheMachian Actually you can get the speed of light from maxwells equations as homogeneous wave equations. Numerology, how about we actually do math with a tested theory in focus.
@@TheMachian Sorry for being so passive aggressive in my previous comment, but what in physics then isn't numerology? Theories predict numbers only from other constants that are measurable and deemed fundamental. I do agree with you that h = pi/2 r_p m_p is a fantastic coincidence - perhaps there is something deeper to be learned, or perhaps it's really just a coincidence... Quickly looking up the numbers I came up with a 0.07% error
The problem with the Large Number Hypothesis is that the known universe is two or three orders of magnitude larger than it was in Dirac's day. So one of his dimensionless numbers has changed so much that it no longer matches the other in any spooky way. Also the proton is not an elementary particle like an electron or a quark, so why should we care about its radius or its mass? The number of particles used by Dirac is also suspect. We know about lots more particles today, e.g. neutrinos. So that number is also not spooky anymore. This whole approach to physics seems more like astrology or numerology -- or as the quote on one of the slides puts it: "a remarkable coincidence." But since the numbers no longer *coincide* you can't even call it that.
I was gonna put up the analogy of solar eclipses which are a coincidence of our time as the moon moves away. Also rings of Saturn, and many other things.
Not quite. There is no experiment that would indicate a finite size of the electron; on the other hand, the phenomenology is dominated by Compton's wavelength lam=h/mc. The proton is very different. It has a well-measurable size (known since Rutherford) of 0.84 fm, and that size coincides with the Compton wavelength. This is a remarkable property and, as I show equivalent to Dirac's hypotheses.
The size of the visible universe increases with time. Does the radius of the proton increase with time? If not, why is this ratio important? Interestingly, the video is titled “way to quantum gravity” yet you say nothing about how one might get to a theory of quantum gravity. Why is that?
No, I don't believe the proton radius in increasing, if one tries an encompassinc picture of variable scales as outlined in my book "Einstein's Lost Key", it appears to even decrease. Thus the Dirac numbers would be (slowly) variable, yes. I did not claim to have a theory of QG, nobody has. I just said Dirac's work is the only reasonable ide in this direction.
The radius of the universe is ever increasing due to the expansion of the universe. So where is a constant here. And the speed of light in vacuum is variable ?
NO! The universe isn't that size - it is far larger; you are using the observable universe. So that 10^78 is not significant. Worse, the observable universe is changing (getting bigger) but the proton is not getting smaller. That is not meaningful relationship! Please, you do, sometimes, make some good points but this one is just silly and wrong. This undermines your credibility - if Dirac really thought this was significant (I don't believe he did and you don't show that he did) then he was being foolish.
So many theoretical physicists spending their time making videos for youtube. The compensation must be much better than the universities are paying these distinguished people. If you are a professional, you should look into dropping your professionsl activities and, instead, becoming a youtube producer.
Well, cosmologic relation gives that universe mass (M) into (r) radius (aprox) :M = (c*4/G).r , In accord to relativistic theory of gravitation. Is a fractal universe
Is these estimations of Dirac’s era at all accurate? I mean there has been since a LOT of tweaking in the numbers: stars in our own galaxy has roughly ten-folded in the past four decades. Also all kind of discoveries about the universe; all the dark stuff, middle sized black holes, just to give few examples..
Numerology is great for approximation's but I disagree. As we know the fine structure constant is bound to change by renomalization. I don't think picking a single value of a running coupling at the lowest energy scales can tell you much about a theory of QG which is meant to be a UV completion for GR at the most extreme energy scales. An analogy would be saying that taking the ratio of two non-relativistic values will tell me something about a theory that describes the ratio of two relativistic quantities, which makes no sense. They don't live in the same regime.
the "running" of alpha is just one of the absurdities of the current particle physics fashion. It is defined by e2/2 h c eps0, there is no change, period. (unless maybe cosmological). On my take on particle physics, see www.amazon.com/gp/product/1492176249
@@TheMachian Your statement is erroneous as it is a reproducible and verifiable aspect of QED. I kindly ask you to formally learn QFT before stating such outlandish and opinionated remarks. It seems that you also do not have any formal education in Physics besides at an undergraduate level, so I implore you to truely understand the inner workings of the Standard Model before becoming a source of misinformation.
@@iDrinkJuice Wasn't the point already made by Dirac that "renomalization" (sic) is unsatisfactory fudging? The intention of the rest of your comment failed to demonstrate your superior grasp, so please let go of the opinionated tone and add something of benefit. This attitude exemplifies much of what is wrong in modern Physics post about 1982 at least.
@@sawlindholme5232 I think you fail to realize that this is a man who responded by trying to sell his books, unpeer reviewed, clearly false, and opinionated. Rarely, do we see someone responding in such manner to be correct. My tone comes from the fact that he is disrespecting the thousands of real and hard working scientists around the world, who in thousands of peer reviewed papers have shown data which is directly conflicting with his false opinions. He is not a physicist, nor does he have a formal education in physics which tells me that he does not have a rigorous understanding of the mathematical process that he outright denies. In order to prove his point, he must show that the two concepts are incompatible and that everyone else is wrong and why they are wrong. He cannot do this without a rigorous understanding of QFT and did not demonstrate said ability. Instead of doing the latter, he doubles down with a single statement and tries to sell me his book. That is the real absurdity here.
@@sawlindholme5232Saying this on a video where a guy with a very opinionated tone tells all of science for the last 40 years that it is wrong despite having no actual physics education is the peak of having zero self-awareness lol
Always funny to see people talkig/hating about string theory how do not understand the theory...First he hates about string theory and then he comes up with some early undergraduate maths/physics, lol. Maybe he is not the person who should judge about the strings.
@@TheMachian Well, fair point ;) I am not a string lover but string critism has more fundament if the origin are experts like Penrose not from some high school teachers who would like to sell their biased books.
@@archi124 It's no shame to have experience in a profession like Johann Jakob Balmer or Karl Weierstraß (if you happen to know them). If you have students, there are two possibilities: either to teach them to parrot or you teach them to think. You seem to have grown up in the former environment.
@@TheMachian If you go this path, you will end with followers of conspiracy theorists and pseudo-scientist who think they are able to disprove Einstein...If you want a scientific discussion with "real" physicists here, you shouldn't argue this way...I observed many times, the only way you're handling critics is trying to denounce your counterpart on a personal level. I've the strong feeling this is not about science here, but its a personal thing for you.
Very interesting presentation! I burst out in laughter at "numerology is something successful in physics" :P I think Arthur Koestler's message in The Sleepwalkers is very pertinent today. Western science can only get out of its current crisis and avoid another "dark age" by coming to terms with its own history.
there is also a female scientist from germany making videos and the remarks about false claims in physics. She is also a great singer and has some cool videos of her creation.
I keep on watching your videos. Initially I was like "Hmm, interesting", then I was like "Oh, it's even hopeful". Now I'm like "That's the way forward." Be proud or embarrassed, but you changed me.
Einstein's idea about gravity as being the "bended spacetime" instead of a "force" is probably the biggest illusion of physicists in history of physics ever! ... BUT ... GR is based on SR ... and ... ... SR (with a flat "spacetime"!) is based on the following: 1) Lorentz transformations for two abstract ideas called "time dilation" and "length contraction" ... 2) the premise that all so "inertial systems" are equal ... ! ... 3) that the speed of light is a "natural" constant ... ! ... NOW ... Lorentz transformation do say the following: => If the observed object is moving with the speed of light it becomes a length of ZERO ... ! ... ... which is the effect of the Lorentz transformation called "length contraction" ... => and the observed object's time base gets to a "halt" ... ... the effect of the Lorentz transformation called "time dilation" ... NOW ... ! ... IMAGINE the following scene (thought "experiment"!): => sunlight photon(s) move with the speed-of-light towards earth ... => for these photon(s) earth is coming near them with a relative speed of the speed-of-light ... => therefore the OBSERVED (!) object "earth" is getting a length of ZERO (!) for these "observing" photon(s) ... But that means that any matter of length ZERO (!) has disappeared ... ! ... So how can any photon moving at the speed-of-light get ever absorbed? ... because ... ... for these "observing" photon(s) there is no absorbing matter (object) ... ! ... in the whole universe ... BUT ... ! ... because the matter of your eyes DO absorb photon(s) giving you sight ... ! ... or your skin gets burned in summer time ... and most important the earth gets warmed by sunlight ... these are so called "facts" of reality ... ;-) The critical rationalist is calling such a counter-example for the theory of "Special Relativity" according to the philosopher Sir Karl R. Popper a FALSIFICATION (in this case of SR)! Actually ... if a scientist is doing any experiment he/she gets some results in the form of measurements, don't he/she?!? ... but so far I have'nt heart of any so called "thought experiment" resulting in any measurement figures, did you? ... for average scientists measurements are usually called "evidence" ... ! ...
Prof Unzicker, I started watching your channel because you made arguments about simplicity. In other words that the fundamental structure of reality is knowable by humans - it's not a random mess of latter-day epicycles and fudge factors. But I'm becoming disillusioned. I agree that the forefathers of physics were deep and serious thinkers. I don't agree that those attempting to build on their work are all chancers and charlatans. If I'm wrong about your intension great! But it seems to me you are being unnecessarily negative while not providing any pointer to a positive alternative. Perhaps your schtick is trolling. Fine. But if you are genuine then you need to do more than just debunk the gaps field. I'm old tired and sick of the division deliberately created within modernity. Please provide a more positive case - please provide an alternative. Destruction is easy - building is much harder.
I am not prof. I was not born as a critic. My goal is to understand in first place. Lookup the VSL videos for sth constructive. Yet, you cannot build on sandy grounds. And unfortunately, most modern models are bunk. What should I do?
@@TheMachian thanks for the reply. What should you do about the sandy foundations of modern physics? Please keep pointing them out - but please dial back the attacks on individuals. "This is crap" "not a genius" etc sounds like clickbait to me. Even castles built on sand can be a huge achievement and where research leads may be positive in unforseen ways. As someone said "physics advances one death at a time" - it was ever thus.
Machs Principle ist only another interpretation of the fact, that the radius of the universe is equal to the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole with the mass of the universe (R=2MG/c²). Also the density (mass devided by 4/3 pi R³) of a black hole is simply derived from its Schwarzschild radius because itself is proportional to its mass: M=c²R/2G, D=3M/4piR³=3c²/8GMpiR². This leads to the observed number of protons (ca. 2 / m³) in the universe.
Excellent presentation Sir. Ru/rp is 10^39. But we know that the universe is expanding, which means Ru is keeping on changing. So in order to maintain the ratio constant at 10^39 then rp radius of proton must also be changing. Mu/mp is 10^78 and if mp mass of proton changes then mass of the universe must also be changing. So is rp only changing or both rp, mp is also changing or else is the number of paticles in the universe changing. But protons are not the only particles in the universe there some others like mesons, kaons, electrons also then we have to consider their masses also for finding number of paticles in the universe.
You hit the point. Actually, 10^39 is what Dirach called the epoch, and of course, it is increasing. He suggested a variation of G, which is not ruled ot completely. The interesting thing is the particle number. A solution going back to Rober Dicke is presented in www.amazon.com/dp/B01FKTI4A8
Don't be so quick to say stuff like :' we know the universe is expanding'.. sure redshifts and Hubble and suchlike. By being so 'sure' you have ruled out all other possible options. i'm not at all advocating that anything goes. in any way. Just that fresh eyes need to re-look at all these redshifts to see if this is truly expansion and nothing else. I could be wholly wrong but being too dogmatic is perilous.
@@mauricegold9377 this is an extremely important point. If we start with "we know..." then we created everything we need to deliver the perfect ground for falsification of everything that comes after.
@@TheMachian Along that line, it is easily derived that if the mass (aka number of particles) is increasing, it should be at a rate proportionate to sqrt(t). This implies an expanding universe. There's reason to believe that this does not hold close to t = 0, but observeables at low t are scarce. Possible inflationary early universe via large mase in small spare => more space. Per latest standard gravity theory, as one approached the event horizon, the light from the outside narrows down to a single point, away from the 'center' of the black hole. Non-standard (but calculable, and per standard theory not observable from the outside). Inside, 'down' in polar coordinates becomes 'future' in time, and the former time dimension becomes spatial. The entire event horizon becomes 'the beginning' of time, and is a horizon, not a singularity. But mathematically, the entire universe outside the event horizon diminished to a point at the event horizon. Using one set of equations of the metric (metric from calculations of the inside, but not accounting for z to t axis rotation) , gravity pulls us to the future. Locally, we would observe the arrow of time. Thus the observed speed of light is dependent on gravity. Since the gravitation curvature in that metric increases monotonically, time should slow. At this point, I run out of skill to calculate, but first estimate is Lorenz contraction, and thus in this metric it appears to slow time, which is isomorphic to hyperinflation of distance. I can get to ... Dirac's large numbers. Also equates to watching the area just above the event horizon,
It seems normal to me? If you take the formula E= mc2 The speed of light is a measure of distance in modern physics. So that F ~ c would make sense? Now you put into proportion F, so you get the radius of the universe over the radius of the smallest thing with mass, the proton and you get that number. I would say it's the same force, but one is very condensed, while the other is very diluted. Take all the gravitation in the universe and put it in a proton, you get the electro-magnetic force. It's why the proportions are reversed. For the mass, it's the same, but now you use the original formula. So you multiply by c and get this new ratio. Probably because those fields are in two dimensions instead of force and distance? In this case we are talking about energy of both really. It does suggest something like what Mach was trying to say. It's like the whole Universe puts pressure on things from all sides and this create the electro-magnetic forces and nuclear forces, which makes sense (to me at least). It's like if an electron has to get away from another charge, it has to fight the whole Universe type of thing. What we consider gravity like the Earth's is more of a local thing, but there should be a universal gravity. If that's true, and if it's true that the Universe is in expansion, that force should change as well. c should change, but the ration might be the same. I don't know if it has an actual causal reality though, it could be just math.
Gravity? Isn’t an intrinsic force. It is an extrinsic force, meaning it reside outside of matter in space pull and drag matter together, instead of attracting matter together. At the end of pursuing gravity and if you are successful so, you’ll see me standing in front of a blackboard with these written on it - Aether, e0*u0, 9.18m/s/s. It is the substrate of our universe responsible for gravity and electromagnetic, and c reduced into a variable. If we are looking for one thing/theory responsible for all - motion and matter, Aether is it.
I've been thinking...call it a hypothesis. It comes before the theory, correct? Anyways, I think that we're unable to see the forest for the trees. They have one particle, the proton. They have one force, electricity. Everything else (electrons, magnetism, etc) is either a manifestation of the aether or of electricity. How's that for simplification? Just toss all the other crapola and get to work on making it work with one particle, one force. If you find more on your way...for heaven's sake! Do not call them quarks or strings! Yikes.
I tought those exact same things but not even close of such an elaborated and well established way. Loved every second of this video, looking forward to read those books in the future.
Those numbers are as ridiculous as the US economy. No but I think what is being proposed here is that the scale of something, say the primary element, or the Planck length is to something else as another significant number. So for example the ratio of size of a human vs a proton is the near the number of particles in the universe. I mean maybe but I would not assume that, and we know the universe is always getting larger in our knowledge. To my understanding gravity has been made popular by Einstein as a supposed non-euclidean deformation to space that causes motion of objects. This would be a distinction vs forces such as electric repulsion. I would not expect gravity to be any kind of binding mechanism at the atomic scale. The effect to gravity by atomic particles could only effect incredibly slow orbits that are not usually considered orbits.
Reliance on the proton mass (and proton radius) in dimensionless cosmological ratios, if not considered mere coincidence, would seem to indicate that the geometry of gravitation is dominated by the geometry of particles that are geometrically similar to protons (eg nucleons, ie protons and neutrons). If so, and if dark matter dominates gravitational matter, this would imply that dark matter is predominately baryonic (eg nucleons, ie protons and neutrons). AFAIK, this is inconsistent with the lambdaCDM model of cosmogony.
