A theory of everything is not a waste of time for those who are interested in such a theory. The problem I think is, if gravity is the ether that is present at the quantum vacuum level wherein components pop in and out of existence it will most likely be impossible to observe or measure it directly. Gravity would be more like a vibrating bubble of ether that a particle/graviton.
Yes. because chaos theory says that it is unlikely for one person to find exactly what is he looking for. That's why Einstein found just one system of reasoning, because he was in a right place in a right time. And then after he was just wandering in circles
Yeah,if you can't build a Time machine or write algorithm to solve every problem,its useless,its bad,it opens your mind ,youll think everyone is a fool,buy youll realize there are people who know it but few
That was a really fascinating interview. I watch Don Lincoln's YT Channel, but often wish he would get more technical in his presentations. It was enjoyable to hear him express a more subtle and nuanced explanation of how he sees things. I gained a new appreciation of his understanding, and I hope he will appear on your Channel as a regular. Thanks
I'm very happy to see Don on your show, he's one of the few educators we can trust. He is a humble human too, knowing that we don't know everything. Appreciate so much. One of my gripes with physics though, is the dogma that there was a Big Bang. How do we know for sure that the universe doesn't 'breathe' in and out, expand and contract, or is a layer upon another dimension that for instance could exist beyond Planck length or black holes? We presume SO MUCH. Thirty years ago, our view of the brain suddenly changed from being extremely inflexible, to the extreme neuro-plasticity we now know. Also up until mid 90's, scientists kept saying there's no exoplanets, and then not only did we discover them, but we also had to relook at the physics of how our own solar system formed, due to those huge gas giants orbiting their star closer than Mercury is to the sun. I could go on and on. Anyway, I really appreciate the transparency of Don Lincoln, I'm glad you have association with him. And THANK YOU for being science educatots
Don was the only leading physics ‘influencer’ to correctly explain the twin paradox from Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR). The mystery of speed related slower clocks (rather; speed induced contraction of frontal spacetime). Don was right; The Twin paradox is all about SPEED, not acceleration. This means SR is about speed relative NOT to other objects, but to the fabric of local spacetime only! As a consequence, this also means relativistic mass (inertia) is a local emergent VECTOR property of the speeding object only along the vector of motion. To be more precise it is the consequence of winding up the frontal contracted time aspect of the grid to inverse time around the object (mass is equal to inverse time or clock in the QP world as per Roger Penrose substituting E=hf into E=MC2). It wasn’t long however it seems Don had to recant his first video by making in a new video on the Twin Paradox, this time trying to align with Hossenfelder’s more accepted but erratic explanation. But regardless, I think it is crucial especially for a particle physicist to recognise spacetime as a fabric (like Einstein did in his closing words of his 1920 Leiden lecture). They must, because there are no real ‘particles’, only excitations of spacetime (a ‘quantum field’ if one prefers). And we don’t need to have plural ‘fields’ for every particle. We can easily describe all particles combining several orthogonal excitation modes. To illustrate; We commonly use a sine wave along a fieldline to depict a photon. Likewise, we can have a single loop rolling along a fieldline causing rolling local tension to represent mass. This loop may in addition toggle 180 degrees clockwise -anti clockwise to represent charge. As a third mode in addition it can rotate along its fieldline, representing spin. And as we have three know repeated scales to have an origin (universe, galaxy, solar system), this may explain why there are three families of the same elementary particle setup. Speaking of which; We are very familiar to talk about the ‘multiverse’ which is a kind of superposition QP argument on the biggest scale possible. So, why not augment that idea and also include the fabric of our galaxy as an in-between QP setup. Because if we do, then we get a simple setup of our universe; We would have an energymass singularity (our big bang) ruled by emerging spacetime (our observable universe). In this universal spacetime we would again have spatial singularities (galactic cores like Sag A*), defined by emergent energymass grid. In this energymass grid we have energy singularities (stars) defined by emergent spacetime (our wider solar system). In this spacetime we would again have spatial singularities (atoms), ruled by emergent energymass. In which again you have energy singularities (electrons) etc. etc. This interplay between energymass and spacetime seems crucial, for a ToE setup. And it should be integrated into SR as I have mentioned many times.
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 The ER=EPR question is precisely to the point. Although technically speaking we should not use terms like ‘wormhole’ as this implies a mysterious short cut inside a mono continuum setup. Our universe isn’t constructed as a mono continuum reality, it is a dual continuum reality. In our wider solar system we obviously live inside a spacetime dominated world, but the other orthogonal grid setup is still present. We see this orthogonal grid setup dominated e.g. on the scale of atoms. Here, for the past 100 years we have never witnessed anything moving in terms of space and time there. NEVER. We do observe motion in ‘quantum leaps’, i.e. we see motion between electron orbits expressed in eV’s not meters. And these are instant, meaning they do not cost time but they cost mass to transit. So the dominant grid setup at the atomic scale is: mass is the clock and energy is the grid. No wishy washy new age theory, but plain observation. We just need to say what we see. In addition to two gird setups it is important to see both are (orthogonally ) interlinked. We see it at the double slit experiment (where we have a weak energy as the grid signature around the particle piercing through both slits an interacting behind it) and the measurement problem (the infamous collapse where ‘energy as the grid’ is collapsed into its alter ego of ‘energy as potential’ function. So then, coming back to entanglement; entanglement is simply the definition of locality in the energymass grid: In a spacetime we say two particles are local and can thus influence each other, if they have they occupy same xyz spatial coordinate and are there at the same time. So likewise, in the energymass grid we say two particles are local and can influence each other if they have the same xyz ENERGY coordinate and are there at the same mass (mass is the clock remember?). So if you split a photon into two, with each having the same (opposite pointing) spin energy in XYZ direction they are by definition LOCAL in ‘energy as the grid’ terms. And they remain local no matter how far away in spatial terms you separate them. It is painfully simple to understand entanglement. We just need to accept what nature is telling us; We live in a DUAL continuum setup. All paradoxes and unknowns ultimately have their origin and solution in this duality. It really is so very obvious, one has to wonder why the community doesn’t wish to face reality.
Another great episode. How fortunate we are to have great scientists do all this work and then explain it to the general public, who would otherwise have no idea. I might not know the underlying math, but feel like I understand foundational cosmology and QM.
@@DrBrianKeatingas a experamentalist im interested if you can find a way to test weather or not a 2d existence no matter it's orientation or position would be sucked into a blackhole or is it impossible because there is absolutely no Depth... if it is impossible maybe we can have 2d blackholes for 2d existence. I propose this because if a blackhole cannot suck in a 2D existence of only length and width because there is no depth therefore it's not technically a "thing" and mathematical should have no interaction... if there is no interaction then i feel there must be 2d blackholes and 1d blackholes in every blackhole becauseotherwise 3d blackholes wouldn't mathematically function but we know they do.
I like the discussion about theory versus experiment. An electro-optical technician who worked for a theorist had this on his white board: Anything is easy for the person who doesn't actually have to make it work.
Don Lincoln is one cool dude!! Incredibly functional mind, with the bonus of having a sense of humor and humanity. I love it when Firmilab has a new video out, then I can have have Don or one of his colleagues melt my brain!
@@michael-4k4000 For sure not! Dr. Linkoln is the real deal, accredited, published, well cited, and taken seriously for his contributions to science, not some make believe wannabe Dr. of all fields who is absolutely clueless on just about everything he says, and literally just strings words, and not even valid words and terms together, assigns them all the wrong meanings and makes claims he just can't back up, and then changes their meanings to something entirely different, even contradictory and sometimes mid sentence that are absolutely meaningless the way he uses them and void of any rational thought or even the most basic logic at all! Terrence Howard is non sequitur personified: Most of what he says doesn't logically follow the thing he said only seconds ago, and he does it incessant, even additively and without end in sight other than being institutionalized. Just in case you actually believe what you said and think you are going to be taken seriously, or can convince anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
You guys should check out, if you haven't already, a great book by Douglas Stone called "Einstein and the Quantum: The Quest of the Valiant Swabian." GREAT book. I already thought very highly of Einstein before reading the book, but after that book I now understand WHY he's considered a physics "god." He was next level brilliant and I'd argue he was smarter in physics than ALL of the geniuses of that time, including Von Neumann. Einstein's the reason why gauge invariance is a "thing" in physics (although Einstein himself would argue that he got that from Maxwell, another amazing mind that doesn't get talked about enough). Max Born, for instance, doesn't get his Nobel Prize for Probability Waves without Einstein; neither does Schrodinger for the wave function; Bose would never have been discovered, or known, without Einstein. Heck, De Broglies work on matter waves was basically copy and pasted from Einstein's work on a gas of photons (either in 1909 or 1911, I forget which). His work in condensed matter physics ALONE would make him arguably a top 10 physicist all time. Heisenberg claims that Einstein was the person who inspired him to become a physicist and the underlying philosophy behind the Uncertainty Principle was a derived from Einstein's philosophical parsimony in special relativity (which, to be fair, Einstein got from Mach, but without Einstein Mach's principles would not have found a home in modern physics). He solved the tea leaf paradox, something that was staring everybody in the face for centuries, in his spare time. Even the equivalence principle was staring everybody right in the face. It took Einstein to not only make the discovery but extrapolate the logical consequences of that postulate. If you're bored and would like to read a paper by Einstein's that wasn't properly understood for DECADES and STILL has contemporary merit, Google this: "Einstein’s Unknown Insight and the Problem of Quantizing Chaos by Douglas Stone" (it was the very topic that inspired Stone, a brilliant Yale physics professor himself, to dig into other papers Einstein wrote that weren't properly understood and that eventually led him to write the aforementioned book on Einstein).
Keating and Lincoln will be remembered as the dust that messed up Keating's experiments compared to Einstein... And Keating makes a podcast title like this... my God... My bloody God.
39:48 I'm glad Don is saying Simmetry is a very difficult concept to understand, I always thought it wasn't at all as obvious as it seemed in lots of science communicators papers, scientists or journalists. I couldn't agree more about this notion of simmetry, as a non-universitary level ex-student (if we stop learning one day, imo we all stay students in our lives, or at least we should consider ourselves eternal ones but I digress), I had serious difficulties to understand and picture this notion of simmetry, which was in relation with geometry, but not as we use it in everyday life, and that was sometimes confusing.
I've always thought of matter as being bound up space. Maybe gravity is no different than acceleration because the closer move to a massive object the more space you are occupying over time relative to the amount of space you occupy further away. Acceleration is occupying an increasing(or changing) amount of space over time. When matter is converted back into energy it expands and creates space so in a sense an objects mass is equal to amount of space it would occupy if converted to energy or at least the amount of space it would have to occupy before it reaches equilibrium with the average energy density of the rest of space. So space isn't necessarily curved due to the presence of mass it's more the case that it's condensed. Like how heat spreads through a system because it want to be uniform so space want to be uniform but can't because it's been tied up in knots that we call matter.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
A Day is fundamental. The symbol and geometry of the One Force is a circle with a cross in it. The circle's cardinal points could be seen as: dawn, miday, sunset, and midnight in a single cycle. That's according to Moses. Exodus 25:40.
I've sometimes wondered if the neutrino oscillations are a hint that indeed, there are only three generations of particles. Otherwise, we would have a hint at a fourth generation neutrino.
Einstein definitely didn't waste his time searching for the "theory of everything", he saved science from going down the wrong paths he discovered. The scientists who followed Einstein were able to follow their own (wrong) paths.
Wow Thanks very much ! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
@@DrBrianKeating To put it mildly it's the honest discussion about how theorists sometime play with science credibility with non-sense. Some poeple are not so credulous. I like exploring ideas, but it's not about being fashionable, it's about understanding the universe we live in. This is doing tremendous damage to real science over time. If nobody expose this, what is the point of of denouncing the other numbnuts? Thank you, I'm not sure anyone caught the substility but with the courage to point some of it out you are doing a big favor to science.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Start with a field of -s and +s in superposition that can be split in two, bonding with 2 neighbours to form a Positron (+-+) and Electron (-+-)... There can be many combinations of +s and -s in high energy physics but they all decay down to particles that then either decay into electrons (e) and positrons (p) or annihilate, or are stable protons / neutrons. balanced=empty field has no resistance. -- These particles are Muons, (ep_e) + Antimuon(pe_p), Protons (pep) / Antiprotons (epe), Neutrons (pep_e) and Antineutrons (epe_p), Taus (epep_e) and Antitaus (pepe_p).. There may also be different mass measurements depending on the energy state of the particle and the detector... Energy Levels surround the core that the additional positron or electron orbits).... NO QUARKS!
Isn't a Theory of Everything supposed to just attempt to explain everything (as opposed to GR and QM currently having limited domains and not mixing well to explain the remaining domains), rather than an attempt to go a step further an explain everything in a singular unified way? Surely, a successful unified theory of forces and particles would also be a successful theory of everything, but wouldn't a theory that does not unify forces, but still explains everything (e.g. manages to combine GR and QM, if we assume there's no additional physics to be found well outside those two and their combination) be a theory of everything? The apparent conflation of terms here seems to create a lot of confusion when this topic is discussed, because often people will discredit or question the possibility of a theory of everything when in fact they are referring to unification. Questioning that a fundamental theory that explains all physics in all domains exists isn't something that's impossible, but it seems rather a more difficult thesis to provide credence for and more so the subject of philosophers that want to be skeptical about everything, rather than scientists who are looking for these fundamental truths.
1:15:18 - I side with Don, Dark Matter only acts gravitationally. But where my guess goes to is tiny black holes (from the big bang / early universe). As black holes become smaller radiating away its mass; if radiating another photon would take away the rest of the black holes mass, and this is not an allowed transition, they will become stable.
I correct my self: I think you were talking in reference to the Higgs boson (aka oscillatron). This process, which seems like symmetry breaking, is in fact frequency matching between dissonant and consonant periods. It is intimately linked to symetry breaking but not directly. Maybe I am too pendantic for casual conversation.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Can you do a video on the books that you have received from people with new theories Dr. Keating? With the authors' permission of course. I think that would be really interesting in the wake of the Terrence Howard phenomena.
You cannot unify gravitation with electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions because gravitation is a manifestation of space time curvature and the other interactions are not
4:37 "[...] I think this is in fact very unlikely" But what is unlikely is unlikely, not impossible. Rare is rare, common is common. It will always be harder to predict rare events than it is to predict common ones. Commonly, science is performed by millions in the community. Rarely however, science may be boosted by some unknown exception. We cannot rationally conclude on which set of events contributes most, or will appear. Only that the rare event will be rare, and the common event, common.
Btw @DrBrianKeating, would be awesome to hear a debate that you moderate between someone like Sean Carroll who supports string theory and inflation vs someone like Neil Turok who does not. In a lot of podcasts you usually hear one side and not the other at the same time. That would be a great debate!
Maybe Einstein would have pushed for a decent 2 state solution or equal rights or something, and then had a QM Eureka moment.. A wishful 'what if' but you never know. Untangle QCD and simplify by removing Quarks and using electrons and positrons instead, consider higher energy particles than Taus as useless, unimportant red herrings that complicate the Standard Model (W, Z & Higgs Bosons, probably neutrinos as currently defined too).
You know what's crazy? Google/YT removes any comment that is even mildly referential to Israel. Censorship at it's worst. My original comment just said "I really wish Einstein would have accepted the presidency of Israel because I think, given his later writing, he would have pushed for a 2-state solution." And boom. Comment erased. Oh and Einstein was the first person to predict the boson ; )
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 .. It does it both ways, believe me, as a Centrist debater. The only properly proven boson is indeed The Photon, and it carried the EM 'force', and the electric force is the base force, all other 'forces' are emergent. There is a unified field of 2 particles, + and - cells in superposition forming +- cells that can be split, bonding to neighbours to form a positron (+-+) and electron (-+-)... Next level is proton (pep) and anti-proton (epe).. Neutron (pep_e).. Beta- decay = pep_e => pep e... Beta+ 'decay' = NEW e_p pair with the electron retained (pep_e) and proton expelled.. Muon (ep_e, anti pep_p).. Tau (epep_e, anti pepe_p), Kaons / Pions as some combination of -, + and +- (non-split) free cells that turn back into balanced, +- field. Neutral, empty field has no resistance, gravity and part of the strong force is the field inwardly repelling matter= broken free field.. Mathematicians who can be bothered should be able to GUTOE it with a bit of sums.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
The idea that the only way to a solution is to have an answer and then seek the path to that answer is a limiting factor that might stand in the way. For example, reality may not exist.
Well-said. Einstein's last 30 years > The career of 99.9% of humans who have ever received a physics PhD You should check out, if you haven't already, a great book by Douglas Stone called "Einstein and the Quantum: The Quest of the Valiant Swabian." GREAT book. I already thought very highly of Einstein before reading the book, but after that book I now understand WHY he's considered a physics "god." He was next level brilliant and I'd argue he was smarter in physics than ALL of the geniuses of that time, including Von Neumann. Einstein's the reason why gauge invariance is a "thing" in physics (although Einstein himself would argue that he got that from Maxwell, another amazing mind that doesn't get talked about enough). Max Born, for instance, doesn't get his Nobel Prize for Probability Waves without Einstein; neither does Schrodinger; Bose would never have been discovered, or known, without Einstein. His work in condensed matter physics ALONE would make him arguably a top 10 physicist all time. Heisenberg claims that Einstein was the person who inspired him to become a physicist and the underlying philosophy behind the Uncertainty Principle was a derived from Einstein's philosophical parsimony in special relativity (which, to be fair, Einstein got from Mach, but without Einstein Mach's principles would not have found a home in modern physics). He solved the tea leaf paradox, something that was staring everybody in the face for centuries, in his spare time. Even the equivalence principle was staring everybody right in the face. It took Einstein to not only make the discovery but extrapolate the logical consequences of that postulate. If you're bored and would like to read a paper by Einstein's that wasn't properly understood for DECADES and STILL has contemporary merit, Google this: "Einstein’s Unknown Insight and the Problem of Quantizing Chaos by Douglas Stone" (it was the very topic that inspired Stone, a brilliant Yale physics professor himself, to dig into other papers Einstein wrote that weren't properly understood and that eventually led him to write the aforementioned book on Einstein).
Does it continually change through the ages? He did not waste his time. When doing science, even being wrong or incorrect is so important. When you can rule out different types of unclear information, that leads to a clearer picture of what the answers really are. Peace ✌️ 😎.
Iain McGilchrist touches on the perfection of asymmetry, or is it the imperfection of symmetry, in his discussions about the brain's left and right functions.
If all particles posseds MOBILITY (magnitude and direction of motion) instesd of MASS, then all 4 forces and the separation of ENERGY as different from MASS, would brcome superfluous as all properties of matter (mass, charge, spin, temperature,...... , hunger, fear, pain, etc.) would be derivable as functions of this single property of all particles. Rest could then only exist as resultant of mobilities of different particles balsncing in some manner.
1) Within Einstein’s lifetime there was a lot of very important QM understanding that was yet to be discovered. 2) What could change in QM so that Einstein wouldn’t have serious objections (within his lifetime) about the “prevailing interpretation” of QM’s way of handling things (like superposition, collapse, etc) that seem to run counter to Relativity? 3) Within Einstein’s worldview of relativity it brings up a question of what he would be willing to “rethink” to make it “fit” compatibility with Quantum Mechanics. If the answer is nothing then that answers the bigger question of if he would have been successful in developing a TOE in his lifetime.
Einstein was the pioneer behind MOST of the truly ORIGINAL ideas in quantum theory: intrinsic randomness the boson probability waves Heck, without Einstein, Schrodinger never discovers the wave function.
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 but what about the guy who defines what that randomness is? Or what the nature of field unification is? Do they still fall under his shadow or is that enough to be the giant ?
@@M-dv1yj Any person who does that will probably be considered they greatest scientific mind to ever exist. Its such a monumentally difficult problem that whoever that gal or guy is, well, they will undoubtedly be celebrated as the 2nd coming of Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and Dirac (imo, the 5 greatest physicists of all time).
@@M-dv1yj Do you mean where that “randomness” physically comes from and what the explicit “real” mechanism is ‽ Not being critical, just asking for clarification.
Great conversation...I like experimentalists. That said, symmetries don’t not need to be broken for us or anything to exist... it’s the energy conservation instead ... hahaha.
XI. DEFINITIONS MATTER: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion. While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows: SPACE: That three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter. In it's simpler form: SPACE: Unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion. That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment. CIG has redefined Matter and Space
The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *RU-vid presentation of above arguments: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sePdJ7vSQvQ.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
I think there must be a theory of everything BUT it may be so far advanced that we may be centuries from figuring it out. Why? Because it may require and fundamental change in our understanding of evetything
Once you understand that everything is Convergence and Divergence of centripetal and centrifugal you don't need gravity! You seriously should look into the research work of Ken wheeler he literally wrote the book on magnetism and what the true state of magnetism is, not what the university shows you.
Although this universe is just a skin cell of Zeus, Gaia space contains not only the Zeus universe cluster, but Gaia space also contains the Poseidon universe cluster, the Athena universe cluster, and the Titan family universe clusters...
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 hmmm... that is a clearer explanation with some parallels to what I see it as. in a deep way though the morphology of our ideas is a bit different. this is what I see. My guess is that the nature of metals, the conductors, involves some alignment of potentials (electric and magnetic) that allows for a more pronounced interaction between the surfaces (objects). This alignment of potentials causes a slight asymmetry in what pulls those objects together compared to other materials, showing a small but vital difference in the short-distance interaction of that force. I think this is related to the fact that metals will weld together in open space (oxygen-free environment) on contact, and ultimately, I believe that force is gravity on a quantum and atomic scale of interaction. The recent experiments which show the capacity to reverse that force to a push away versus a pull towards add support for that. I think this reversal changes the expression direction of those magnetic and electrical potentials and their alignment across the small gap, again aligning to direct the gravity interaction at those scales. (this is NOT anti gravity at all, but a change in the expression of gravity on a small scale. in those materials) my rational for why i can explain if you want.
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 ha my reply keeps being deleted I will try just the core of it. My guess is that the nature of metals, the conductors, involves some alignment of potentials (electric and magnetic) that allows for a more pronounced interaction between the surfaces (objects). This alignment of potentials causes a slight asymmetry in what pulls those objects together compared to other materials, showing a small but vital difference in the short-distance interaction of that force. I think this is related to the fact that metals will weld together in open space (oxygen-free environment) on contact, and ultimately, I believe that force is gravity on a quantum and atomic scale of interaction. The recent experiments which show the capacity to reverse that force to a push away versus a pull towards add support for that. I think this reversal changes the expression direction of those magnetic and electrical potentials and their alignment across the small gap, again aligning to direct the gravity interaction at those scales. (this is NOT anti gravity at all, but a change in the expression of gravity on a small scale. in those materials) my rational for why i can explain if you want.
Clear simple theory of everything exists , this one intuitively believe, but many not dare enough to rethink the nature of photon, which is link between microcosm QM and macrocosm GR. Too much influenced by Einsteins. empirical theory.
If your TOE doesn't also unify like a GUT then it's not really a very good TOE because if so this is very much a style of Terrence Howard which not seeking unification but superiority over all other proposals...
Only Einstein can answer that question. I'd wager 1905 & 1915 made up for more than a lifetime of regret. One must consider also USEFULNESS v. TRUTH. In science you will always chase truth. In life usefulness suffices.
1923, 1935. His two papers written in 1935 are GREATER than the entire careers of most physicists. ER = EPR Both written in 1935. Anybody - and I'm certainly not accusing you of this btw - who calls the last 30 years of his career doesn't know a lick about science history. It's an oft-parroted myth that, for some bizarre reason, has persisted. 1923 he discovered the Boson (incorrectly named after Bose, because Einstein was too humble to take credit for it himself when Bose had NOTHING to do with the actual prediction of the Boson, he merely stumbled upon, by accident, a new statistical derivation of Planck's Law which he didn't even realize was novel, and neither did Schrodinger, it was only Einstein who properly understood it).
The problem with the Planck length is that it assumes the smallest size but then it draws an actual conclusion of a length when we don't have the measurements to back it up so logically speaking the smallest existence possible is one-dimensional string membranes that get destroyed by a black hole Singularity and get turn into an existence between zero and one dimensional existence... this is fundamentally as small as you can go... you can call it smallest length possible or smallest scale possible instead of Planck lengths if it makes you feel better but we use Planck length as a simplifire term for the smallest scale... if I can show my scale is smaller than your scale then my definition of Planck length is better
Jesus, as a molecular biologist, i find most popular physicists really, incredibly conceited, arrogant and so stuck up in group-think its beyond imagination. Truly, real life writes stories noone would be willing to buy as realistic in cinema or books. The way you people treat enthusiasts, the way you talk about philosophy without knowing a dime about it, the... eh, i could write tons here, but what's the point. I guess i should use my time better - doing actual work.
1 galactic Coriolis acceleration = (0.33.. ℓ_Λ/(t_Λ^2)) reminds me of the time when Einstein said to the media on the Ellis Island dock, "You may have something there, Greg." Perhaps He was sending me a message to finish GR. 🐄 🐻
While I don't believe in hero worship, Einstein was brilliant yes, but he was not perfect and we still don't know for sure whether relativity will fail or not. What I also don't appreciate are attempts to derive or ascribe importance to his IQ, as if IQ is was a measure of his essential brilliance. Einstein had a wondrous imagination that brought together several different ideas floating at the time. Let's not treat him as a god and let's not say his brilliance was from some physical perfection.
1. With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. 2. Nobody who actually knows what they're talking about sees Einstein as a "god," he's a GIANT in the field for VERY good reasons (see #4) 3. "People who brag about their IQs are losers." - Stephen Hawking 4. Relativity will never "fail," we know it's true for several reasons - one of which is that your GPS wouldn't function without it's equations, we've proven frame dragging, gravitational lensing, and we discovered gravitational wave, all Einstein predictions. The best you can hope for is that Relativity doesn't capture ALL of cosmology (which is what I think you mean by "fail"). The reason he's treated like a "god" is because he produced, by many accounts, TEN NOBEL PRIZES worth of scientific work, by far the most in modern times: The Boson SR GR Photoelectric effect Quantized the radiation field Wave-particle duality The LASER (e.g. Einstein A and B Coefficients) Probability Waves (which Born won a Nobel Prize for and then subsequently gave Einstein all the credit for the idea) etc etc etc You can't even begin to discuss contemporary physics without Einstein. And many other physicists got credit for work Einstein ORIGINALLY did (such as his incredibly prescient 1919 paper on what happens when quantum theory intersects with choas theory). Heck, as we speak, the CURRENT THEORY OF EVERYTHING that has gained the most momentum since String Theory stem from two Einstein papers (both written in 1935): ER (Einstein-Rosen bridges aka Wormholes) and EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Correlations aka quantum entanglement). Both of those papers were not properly understood for ages. Einsteins's EPR paper essentially CREATED quantum information theory (something even Von Neumann didn't properly grasp, and he was a uber-smart). They treat Einstein as a "god" because his even his "throw away" papers now form the foundation for cutting edge physics (as evinced by the aforementioned ER = EPR and it's relation to the ADS/CFT correspondence and the holography principle). Guys like Feynman, Dirac, even Max Planck were in awe of him. Planck and Walter Nernst, both nobel prize winners, wrote to the Prussian and Berlin Academy of Sciences to make him the youngest ever member of those academies and in their letters they called him "the second of Galileo and Newton." And those men, compared to the average person, were bonafide geniuses in their own right. Heck, Einstein created the field of Condensed Matter Physics and his work in statistical mechanics and thermodynamics in 1903, had J.W. Gibbs not done it 3 years earlier - unbeknowst to Einstein - would have been yet more Nobel Prize worthy work. They aren't treating Einstein as a "god," his ideas are STILL a hot topic in CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS and it's remarkable that even his "throw away" ideas are seminal. Go read Douglas Stone's "Einstein and the Quantum: The Quest of the Valiant Swabian" and tell me he isn't a physics "god." Peace and love.
Please find a way to communicate with the past or the future for all human. Isn't it worth experimenting with sending radio waves or light to the past or the future rather than the tremendous things that reverse space time or people go to the past? Instead of just calculating that it is impossible with modern science, why do not you experiment and hypothesize like Edison unconditionally? Why do not you continue experimenting with accelerators to accelerate light or electromagnetic waves, or using planetary gravity, or so on? Radio telescopes and many communicators have been waiting for decades, so if you succeed in experimenting, you will be able to know experimentally whether the past is changing or the future is changing or whether communication is possible. ... How can we measure it if there is a human being trapped in a three-dimensional space that can not measure the speed of ordinary light at a faster speed than light? Modern science thinks that if we go faster than the speed of light, time will deform. It will be a later work to understand and hypothesize through experiments. ... Physics seems to rely too much on paper these days. "How would you like to send a signal to the past to prevent a sad death or to communicate with the future to find a faster answer? I think that it is the ultimate goal of human beings to communicate and live with human beings of all time for human beings who have no God or have left God. ... My father, Kim Kyu-dong, left us on April 15, 2024, after suffering for two months due to the wrong treatment of doctors at Seoul National University Hospital. I want to see my father Kim Kyu-dong live a healthy life over 100 years old. I ask you to make it possible to communicate with the past with tears.
Ronald Mallett lost his father as a child, and tried for years to find a way to talk to the past, but never had any success. I think he has retired. The ideas that have been proposed are all very difficult, such as find a wormhole,, move one end at almost the speed of light, then transmit information between the two ends.
What is the biggest problems is that we've unified electricity and magnetism without fully understanding how magnetism actually works and they have belittled the research work of Ken wheeler which actually physically proves with replicable experiments that magnetism is a toroid with opposite spinning Flows at each Pole... Terrence Howard's linchpin is the counterspace for the true magnetism which is toroidal with opposite spinning vortices... Ken Wheeler has already achieved a GUT. He's an Arrogant Bastard sometimes but he has good information and replicable experiments proving this information... search theoria apophasis proof of magnetic vortex on RU-vid.
He doesn't have a proper GUT but the geometry is interesting.. Doesn't unify gravity or deal with the quantised aspects of matter/energy or entanglement.
@@PrivateSi like i said... gravity just like objective reality doesn't exist and is not needed... Ken Wheeler has a replicable experiment showing it using a old CRT tv. And a magnet.
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler .. Yes, his EM / magnetic fields ideas are geometrically interesting but he does not have a GUT / TOE. Very fringe, very amusingly arrogant beautifully bald bloke if you're into that kind of thing. Comedian cameraman who likes his toroidal geometric maths. The collapsible double helical toroid toy is cool and he makes pretty patterns with his magnets. To me it's just circular motion, stuff/energy flowing in, colliding and flowing out continuously, forming a toroid (particle magnetic spin).
@@PrivateSi yes im unifying both together with other logical principles of other fields of everything.. i solved Terrence Howard's system problem from spiraling out of control. With a -1on the division side. I will say if we make zero truly zero and we follow what multiplication was supposed to be, which is a simplification of a addition chain 0×1=1 we have assigned value to zero... since multiplication was made to simplify chains of addition and something cannot be deleted or destroyed by nothing then its easy to understand 0×A=A under Terrence Howard's system. There is absolutely no reason why we can't have an additional multiplication table for volumetric calculation of like units... 1gallon×1gallon=2gallons. I totally agree with your sentiment about the fundamental mathematics and that's why I never claimed to get rid of our fundamental mathematical system like Terrance suggest we should and instead I suggest that everything can work together and progress in the field does not come from attacking scientists if you can't work together with the scientists and create your model to be in cooperation with everyone else then it's no surprise that the entire system goes against you like they did in this case against Terrence... cant blame them. Excluding 0 which is nothing in Terrence Howards system. volumetric multiplication of like units=(A×B)+1.... if we make the value of 0 truly nothing like it should be and acknowledge the fact that nothing cannot cancel out something and it requires a negative sum to cancel out a positive sum in volumetric calculation of like units then we don't have to exclude 0... because 0gallons×1gallons=1gallons and not 0 gallons. Nothing cannot cancel something... this is the baseline. The exact opposite goes for Division of like volumetric calculation=(A÷B)-1 and therefore $1÷$1=0. Or 1gallon÷1gallon=0gallons just as multiplication is meant to simplify chains of addition division is made to simplify chains of subtraction.
Let me give you some advice so you can come up with things like I do with your own brain treat your brain and your personality like you are two different people because you are two different hemispheres of your brain talk to yourself out loud ask yourself questions out loud ask everything that you speak out loud into the universe do not think in your head manifest outwardly and ask your own internal dialogue amongst your two hemispheres
The Planck length is very simple the smallest state of existence is one-dimensional string membranes that get destroyed by The Singularity of a black hole... now these one-dimensional string membranes are in between zero and one dimensional and this makes darkmatter or non baryonic matter.
Is knowledge of reality a waste? Certainly not. Imagination? No. Curiosity and wonderment? No. It's our very nature, and inner most state of being as intelligent entities
I disagree. Physics is like time, and time is just, "something". ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xuJaUYGydsI.html Heh. Anyhow. I imagine y'all know way more about the topic, than I.
![Don Lincoln: Did Einstein Waste The Last 30 Years of His Life? [Ep. 439]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
