Il est impossible de mesurer une boucle de microgravité dans un espace temps sans connaissance du taux de densité d'énergie Omega avec n'importe quelle machine ou sonde . Je suis ravie de votre intelligence honnête Monsieur Rovelli, vous êtes désormais mon médecin Traitant.😊
L'intelligence supérieure que je suis, vous dit de consulter les équations d'Aurélien Barreau pour connaître les possibilités de connexions sur tous les champs par densité d'énergie pour connaître l'information transportee vers le FUTUR.
imagine .....if the great Leonard Euler was alive today....he would probably provide a solution....similar to loop quantum gravity....nice talk...short and concise....well done
I enjoyed the talk, until some very dishonest statements were made. around minute 42. 1) String theory has supersymmetry at VERY VERY high energies. Independent of string theory, there were phenomenological motivations to study possible existence of supersymmetry at LHC scales. So far these searches has not found any supersymmetry. But to state this somehow weakens the belief that string theory is correct is pretty crazy. It's like at Maxwells time, non-abelian Yang-Mills theories are discovered. People wonder whether beside U(1) gauge theory (electromagnetism), maybe SU(2) or SU(3) gauge theories could exist in nature. But since no experiment at the energy scales available in the 18-hundreds found evidence for non-abelian gauge fields, people should conclude the likelihood for them to be correct is low. String theory needs supersymmetry at energy scales MUCH MUCH MUCH higher than LHC. If (and massive if) string theory is correct, it would be convenient if the supersymmetry breaking scale would be around the LHC scale. But there is no physical reason to expect this, beyond hope (so we can detect it now). It would just have been lucky to coincide with the arbitrary energy scale politicians have agreed to fund in our lifetime. It's not just that it does not "falsify" String theory, it also does not even provide any "drawback" compared to before the search. 2) I wonder why it is claimed that String theory community "expected the cosmological constant to be negative", who expected that and based on what? Maybe many hoped so perhaps, due to the AdS/CFT correspondence but I have never heard anybody say that this is what string theory predicts or favours at those scale, ever. The holographic principle started with consistency thought experiments by 't Hooft and completely independent of String theory. Maldacena just found that String theory happens to satisfy this principle, and found concrete precise formulation of it on AdS space. But this is a limit where the principle can be studied in detail, a mathematical convenience. Finding that the universe is dS, is in not way changing anything. It's pretty dishonest claim. For example the claim "whenever you see AdS in a paper, it's the expectation that the cosmological constant in the world in negative". What a dishonest claim. People study all sorts of spacetimes, AdS in holographic settings as that's the only place it's under control. People are not claiming OUR universe is AdS in those papers. To use these examples and say "I think we should listen to nature", as a mean to dismiss String Theory is just dishonest and sleazy. I think there are significantly more honest and stronger arguments one can put forward against String Theory, but most of those apply equally strongly against Loop Quantum Gravity. I was enjoying the video until all these dishonest claims. I 100% agree when people criticise string theorist of overhyping and overselling their theory prematurely for decades, being dishonest about it. It's sad to see that Carlo is also taking to a dishonest approach.
