As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist and all it has to offer. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe
I've successfully factorised Shor algorithm. Factoring a 1,048,512-bit number in just over 17 seconds with efficient memory usage (387.88 MB). Reach out to me... import numpy as np from scipy.linalg import expm from math import gcd, isqrt import sympy import random import psutil import os import time import pyopencl as cl import sys # Setting the maximum number of digits for integer string conversion sys.set_int_max_str_digits(1000000) # Constants for Quantum Mechanics hbar = 1.0545718e-34 # Planck's constant over 2π in J·s class OwensQuantumPotentialFramework: @staticmethod def transition_to_definite_state(potential_state): """Transition from potential state to definite state based on Owens' Quantum Potential Framework.""" definite_state = np.round(potential_state).astype(int) return definite_state class QuantumMechanics: @staticmethod def simulate_particle_behavior(initial_state, hamiltonian, time): """Simulates the behavior of a particle in a quantum system.""" final_state = expm(-1j * hamiltonian * time / hbar) @ initial_state return final_state @staticmethod def simulate_neutrino_oscillations(potential_neutrino_states): """Simulates neutrino oscillations.""" definite_flavor_states = [OwensQuantumPotentialFramework.transition_to_definite_state(state) for state in potential_neutrino_states] return definite_flavor_states @staticmethod def handle_dimensions(state): """Correct dimension handling in quantum computations.""" return np.array(state, dtype=complex) class QuantumComputing: @staticmethod def run_quantum_error_correction(state): """Simulate encoding and decoding steps for error correction.""" encoded_state = state # Placeholder: Implement actual encoding logic decoded_state = state # Placeholder: Implement actual decoding logic return encoded_state, decoded_state def split_large_int(n, chunk_size=64): """Splits a large integer into chunks of given size.""" n = int(n) chunks = [] while n: chunks.append(n & ((1 >= chunk_size return np.array(chunks, dtype=np.uint64) def combine_chunks(chunks, chunk_size=64): """Combines chunks into a single large integer.""" n = 0 for chunk in reversed(chunks): n = (n
I will say one thing if your theory does not have the logical progression of the spatial dimensions incorporated into it like string theory does then you have no chance of ever competing with string theory... This is single-handedly the most important part of string theory that makes it so powerful. I use to think the best candidate for dark matter and dark energy was one-dimensional string membranes that get destroyed by The Singularity of a black hole. which recently we learned that black holes emit non-baryonic matter. If it is emitting this non-baryonic matter that means it must be in a state in between 0 and 1 dimensional unless there are no two-dimensional black holes and there are no one-dimensional black holes... If so it could be three dimensional string membranes that get destroyed by The Singularity of a black hole and therefore there in a state in between two dimensional and three-dimensional which would mean they still have mass and this is dark matter, while dark energy would be one dimensional string membranes that get destroyed by The Singularity of a black hole... This allows for all systems. I think the increased energy state may be because of the existence of two-dimensional black holes and one-dimensional black holes that exists in every 3d black hole... This type of existence increases its energy but has absolutely no Mass because they are not 3d... I just came up with this tweak to my system. You heard it here first.
1:13:18 yes adding up all the potential time and dividing by the total amount of potential will get you a middle value that is more accurate... This is exactly what I'm doing with creating additional mathematical systems because we think our math is linear but it actually has a curve in it at high scaling. This curve creates a disconnect between general relativity and quantum mechanics... So even if we create a perfect system it will never be perfect due to the imperfect nature of mathematics in our three-dimensional realm... If we do not apply to fixing the mathematics at the core then we can never fix all the other disconnects... We must address the core of the problem first... Math is the core of everything.
Well that's because we live in a imperfect world and we can never have a perfect mathematical system... The best we can do is come up with multiple systems and calculate the average curves and flaws of those systems. When it comes to mathematical systems it's not this or that it's this and that and this is a discovery me and Robert Edward Grant recently made working together I solved the square root of two functions for the Terrence Howard system of multiplication and division of like units... $1×$1=$1²=$2 basically =(A×B)+1 for multiplication of like units. For division of like units=(A÷B)-1 these two functions exclude any multiplication or division including 0... If 0 is included like $1×$0 then we use the function X*0=X same for division. X÷0=X... 0 represents actual zero under this system. Because we do this √2=1.41. 2÷1.41=1.41 now we -1 to make it 0.41 which maintains the Fibonacci spiral at the same rate as our current system. Our current mathematical system is more accurate when approaching towards zero and instead they pushed the inaccuracy out towards the higher end... This other system becomes more accurate the more it goes up and less accurate the more it approaches zero... We will use these two mathematical systems to solve the disconnect between quantum mechanics and general relativity because it is a mathematical problem. We can calculate how the curve starts to fall apart when approaching zero and overlay this on our other mathematical system to counter the imperfect curve and make it more linear....
Curt, this has been by far one of the best podcasts I have seen. Ivette was interesting and bursting with new ideas from beginning to end. I would not be surprised if she gets a Nobel for the Quantum Frequency Interferometer. These ideas a simply revolutionary to unifying GR and QM. Loved every minute of it and I had to come back to my computer to let you know.
Ivette Fuentes seems like a grounded scientist. So refreshing! Her insights and approach to these fundamental issues are clear eyed and exciting! Great talk! Thank you!
This is what science really needs to advance. There's been way too much theoretical work that has no experimental foundation. Proposing experiments that reveal otherwise untested ideas is surely going to be much more productive than the purely theoretical approach.
Completely agreed, even flawed experiments would at least offer lessons for the next one. Although price and budget come at play, it's sadly not considered seriously by others.
Why not both? The problem is the stranglehold of mere theory over the funding. Let’s fund both, do both. They’re not mutually exclusive. Let’s not be bipolar. 💙
It's pseudo-science. 12:15 What a load of rubbish. The double slit experiment is done on single particles. Also this person switches up their terminology. Atoms =/= particles.
12:15 What a load of rubbish. The double slit experiment is done on single particles. Also this person switches up their terminology. Atoms =/= particles.
Dr. Fuentes' comparison of string theory to epicycles, IS EXACTLY what I felt string theory was doing - simply adding dimensions to cover the bits the math couldn't explain.
I find Professor Ivette Fuentes amazing. She is a truly exemplary figure in the physical sciences, in my view. I said that in longer form in a comment that the content scanners knocked on the head. It was a truly great comment but you're going to just have to trust me on that.
Roger's arguments are not necessarily simple? No kidding. The man is stretching the limits of his informed intuition to leave us the final gifts of his genius, which will keep the rest of us busy understanding them for a century and win him 2 additional Nobel prizes (physics for OR and physiology for Orch-OR) if he lives long enough to see them experimentally validated. That would make him the undisputed GOAT... Too bad not enough experimentalists are moving fast enough to make that likely, but I salute Ivette for trying to design and push for these experiments to be done 🙏
Curt is providing a place where anyone can come and talk freely without the fear of being attacked by a herd of sheep, all screaming the same thing while congratulating themselves for being a courageous defender of science
first rule of Theories of Everything Curt Jaimungal club is tell everyone who understands the scientific process about the Theories of Everything Curt Jaimungal club.
Yes, he is! I believe this is how we will actually unlock the secrets of the universe. The sharing of ideas is unburdened by the strict dogma of academia. A true freemarket of thought. Let the cream rise to the top!
Or he’s just a RU-vidr compromising the discipline of science in order to get views from ignorant mentally lazy people, prioritizing his RU-vid career over scientific discipline and rigor…. Using the amazingly powerful philosophical arguments such as “could it be…”, “it’s entirely possible”, and “you can’t prove it’s not true”….
9:11 IF ”This reminds me of epicycles. It can’t be right.” Impressive. I almost skipped this episode, but I look forward to watching it fully tomorrow. Professor Fuentes, the extraneous assumption currently limiting theory progress is the deep belief that the metrics we call “distance” and “time” are fundamental givens that exist independently of the matter and energy used to define and measure them. They are neither fundamental nor exist in the absence of mass and energy used to define and measure them. Even when they do apply, they remain finite and local in scope. As Einstein described in detail in his 1911 twins (more like germs) paradox paper, it takes much work and preparation to create experimentally meaningful definitions of space and time. Even then, the resulting complicated physical and information algorithms apply only within a narrow range of calm situations. Einstein figured that out, but I’m not sure he fully believed it himself. The deeper problem is that nothing works exactly right as long as theoretical maths begin with quantities like x, y, z, and t. That’s because folks are treating poorly specified approximation algorithms as if they are fundamental and exact. Folks need to dig deeper.
@@casteretpollux thanks! I think I may give videos a try, perhaps interactively with others. Right now, alas, I am in the hospital for a while and can't do much. This may be my only RU-vid reply for a few days.
Curt, thank you so much! Finally a place where people can really talk their mind out and develop their ideas fully in a public forum. Excellent and interesting people and ideas. Good questions asked! Nice. Thank you, Man!
Curt Jaimungal and Ivette Fuentes, thank you for this fascinating and eye-opening quantum gravity research update! I've not tracked this area for many years, since about the time Dave Wineland was doing his experiments, in fact. I was unaware of the remarkable progress since then, especially in this intriguing idea of compact gravity wave sensors. Wow! I need help understanding this issue: While the free-fall spatial entanglement idea makes perfect sense, I do not understand why you would expect any variations involving non-free-fall interactions of either delocalized state to do anything other than collapse instantly. The instant one of these regions comes into contact with rigid fermionic matter, it is no longer a gravity problem but a fermionic acceleration problem. Since acceleration always causes wave collapse down to the scale of the (not necessarily atomic or particle) interacting entity -- e.g., to light scale size when a photon reflects and transfers momentum -- this means you no longer have a quantum system. What am I missing? Yes, Bose condensates stay coherent while suspended in gravity, but that's symmetric versus selective acceleration. This is RU-vid, so I don't seriously expect an answer. Still, it seems that acceleration collapse due to Pauli exclusion may be more of a problem than gravitational acceleration. (This is one of the rare points where I'm afraid I have to disagree with Roger Penrose. He thinks quantum collapse is rare, while I think it is the most common event in classical physics and the foundation of the classical approximation.)
Hmm! No, not “any acceleration causes collapse,” but “any non-homogeneous acceleration causes collapse." Perhaps? The Bose condensate experiences homogeneous acceleration and is stable, but the two spatially separated locations might not. The slight difference in acceleration between the top and the bottom might cause the collapse, though adding motion might compensate. Interesting, but these are only random thoughts. I'll look more closely into the topic if I have time.
Have no fear, the Age of the Contrarian is here. Awesome presentation, thank you both. Questions: 1. Are there not communication instruments on our Mars rovers that allow more precision clock measurements/experiments? 2. Is the “mirror clock” on the space time curve something that will be necessary to have a space based “gps” for interstellar navigation? Not just targeting points from Earth and doing the orbital calculations, but actually flying around space with purpose. Amazing to know that there are still mainstream scientific endeavors concerned with a tangible reality. Have a great weekend all!🤙🏼✌🏼😊
Amazing work. Just what physics seems to need: Relativity-based and extremely well-grounded on both maths and experiment. This is what we all needed almost certainly. Thank you Prof. Fuentes (and Curt).
Getting stuck is just getting stuck. There is no way this little ape species that just got started in science has reached any sort of pleateau. Thinking it is collective arrogance.
In only three days here, I met two great women who really do science from their hearts, and who said that women can't do great science? I subscribed this channel immediately in order to see more to come in future.
@@johnpearcey Many said it. Might even be true (on average). But these two are fearlessly in the frontiers that so few dare go to and I couldn't be more impressed by what they're doing and I hope they achieve exactly what they're attempting, for the good of us all.
36:07 I feel like this is such a lovely interview for both of them and it makes me so happy. I wish I could see Curt’s reaction to her mirroring his perspective and building off of it at the time stamp! ❤️
I really enjoyed this, thank you. From beginning to end, Dr Fuentes had me thinking. I have renewed respect for focus on ideas that can be experimentally confirmed.
I'm not a physicist but can grasp Quantum Theory. Ivette, I am intrigued as was your professor, so your reference letter was well earned. Moving forward in this field out of the box thinking is needed and should be pursued by so many others.
I love these videos without any unnecessary interruptions (commercial, "comical" content etc). Just interesting subjects presented in a clear way by knowledgeable people.
I feel that is important for science communicators to properly use the terms hypothesis and theory. In interview theory was used colloquially in which case it takes on the meaning of hypothesis. I’ve heard “evolution is just a theory” and “gravity is just a theory” so many times. It’s important for the term theory to not be watered down when in a scientific context.
How exciting! Experiments at the interface of quantum phyiscs and gravity. What a proper scientist she is, in the footsteps of Einstein, Bohr, Mach, Dirac, Penrose et al. I look forward, with bated breath, to hearing about any results, in my life-time.
Ivette was showing presentation slides -- are they available? Many thanks in advance. PS: Prof. Fuentes interview is the best science topic I have seen in the entire 2024 so far !! Thank you and congratulations...
Fascinating intellectual journey. I appreciate the love of science and discovery. I would have done this myself if I felt I had the brilliance needed to be good at it. I did great in my profession but have always been a fan/ spectator of these people.
Prof. Ivette Fuentes slides are of high quality and very thoughtful and concise, including Penrose's drawing -- thank you in advance for trying to obtain them !!
I think we can apply the concept that "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to humans" to "Just because a Theory or equation is beautiful, isn't evidence that it is also reality" but nevertheless it does seem to drive us to check. Thank you TOE, this was quite literally a wonderful interview. Also thank you Ms/Dr Fuentes, your mind is inspiring.
This may be a stupid comment, especially in contrast to the many intelligent and highly educated people in here. I'm a gamer and game developer, with an amateur interest in physics, astrophysics and these fundamental systems of the Universe. Because of this, I'm aware of various simulation theories. I don't believe (or disbelieve) those theories, but I do find our process for understanding our environment, very very similar to a new player's process of learning their game environment. We test, see results and derive the underlining mechanics. This process in most games is pretty simple for players (and we work hard in some cases to make it so), so much so that most games with opaque underlying mechanics have wiki pages that describe those mechanics in detail. What often doesn't exist are wikis that describe the source code. I find it fascinating that while most of our fundamental learnings of the universe, in our pre-technic history, was done with just our senses, or moderate extensions of them. We seemed to have hit soft barriers with both of those approaches in the macro and micro realms. Then we cracked the atom, and spaceflight, allowing the opportunity to extend our senses deeper in, and farther out. Compiled code makes little sense to an observer (without a decompiler). I suspect the next great frontier of science will be when we can start leveraging quantum computing (as a decompiler), and fusion energy to punch deeper and look farther. I can't wait to know what's next - existential shivers notwithstanding. :)
Game theory is dominated by often-misunderstood Nash Equilibrium. To me, the lesson to be learned is that when playing a zero-sum game, like Monopoly, where the winner unwittingly becomes the loser, too, by not having any more customers, the only way out of losing is for all parties to unilaterally quit playing the game (witness the growing national debt, now at $35 trillion, and a dying planet from global warming). When the game is growth through a growing population, that is a unsustainable zero-sum game. In finding Nash Equilibrium, the longer the zero-sum game is played, the greater the catastrophic fall.
Enjoyed very much! One of her last slides listed a number of items under the subtitle:”Quantum sensors underpinned by QFTCS” The last one was very intriguing New results: modification of gravity Are there publications that anyone can share that discuss what she is doing in this
This is a wonderful presentation and so exciting! Finally someone is moving the light clock in a direction other than the horizontal direction of motion. 🎉
Another great interview Kurt and Ivette Fuentes. She does think alot like you Kurt and that's some very good thinking. Thanks a lot. I believe that In order to come up with a TOE, you still need to understand what's going on with the double slit and with the "spooky action at a distance" issue. I think you should devote a whole podcast to those two problems. I am also interested in the idea that you have to rotate an electron twice to make it get back to its original state. How do they really do that and prove that they've rotated it twice? Here are some questions that I think should be answered before any TOE could be developed. When they say that they have detected that two particles or photons are entangled at large distances, are they just verifying that one is up and one is down or do they do the full EPRB experiment where they vary the polarization of at least one of the detectors and compare the results to the other detector? When they do the EPR experiment, and the two detectors are widely separated, how do they define the relative orientation of the detectors. Is it with respect to the plane that is tangent to the local gravitational field or the local magnetic field or do they align the two detectors until the correlation is at 100%, and then rotate one of the detectors with respect to that setup or ...? Also, how do they determine that the two wave packets are entangled to begin with? Are there "no trial" cases where they determine their entangled packet generator didn't create entangled packets? When they say that they've detected the orientation of one particle and the other particle immediately (spookily) switches to the opposite orientation, how close in time are the two measurements? Are they within a wavelength of the particle or exactly at the same point in the waveform of the two particles? Is the double slit experiment interference pattern result with a single packet of information the only reason they believe that a particle can be in two places at once and and therefore interfere with itself after going through two slits? If so, they shouldn't state that what they call "superposition" is absolutely true because there are other explanations for the interference pattern without assuming that the particle interferes with itself. When a w boson supposedly decays into an electron and anti-neutrino, are their directions of travel correlated? - for example 180, 90, 45 or 0 degrees relative to each other? I'm betting on 90, but would be happy with 180.
The National Physical Laboratory experiment brought home to me that the time referenced in the single derivative in Schroedinger's equation is the personal time of the observer, while the proper time in GR (curved space) is that of the object under study. In other words, as Bohm figured, QM gives amplitudes that are a warrant for the observer's belief about a particle's behaviour, which of course collapses when certainty occurs, at the (personal) instant of the measurement (as in resolving entanglement). So QM is actually an epistemic mechanics, while GR is an ontological mechanics.
If RU-vid had to go and I could only save a channel, it would be yours. What a gift. I've been watching for a long time (2k subs if I remember correctly). I love it. I love this project. If I lived in the use I'd love to work for you and help you in any way with this. When I've got more money, I'll support you on patron for sure.
@30:00 that is critical! Needs a deeper dive. Because the whole reason Many Worlds gains a foothold upon imaginations is this dopey inference from "taking Schrödinger seriously". But Ivette succinctly captured just there why we cannot take Schrödinger seriously. We cannot have a Hamiltonian time evolution - except as a low energy approximation. If there is *_any_* non-trivial topology in spacetime, and qubit info/energy can traverse the wormholes (which really has been proven in the quantum teleportation experiments) then we cannot have a Hamiltonian time evolution (except as an indivisible non-Markovian statistical model), and that means (or can be seen as a consequence of) data on a future Cauchy boundary is non-redundant. In other words, GR proper (with nontrivial topology) is _already_ nonclassical, and is in fact (imho) already a quantum theory. No need to re-quantize a quantum theory, that just needlessly invites pathologies.
Intriguing when I watched "Does Gravity collapse the Superposition". See 1:14:01 As per the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's Elevator thought experiment, acceleration cannot be distinguished between it and gravity. So, as we all know, in CIG Theory, it is the measurement, the stopping of the motion of the field in Superposition, that collapses and decoheres that Superposition to a point particle, the dot on the screen. And that stopping of the motion of the field, after it having left the aperture but before it hits the screen, relied on the screen to offer up that classical (not truly but substantially) material that acts to stop the moving particle (field). It is the MTS Equation and rate of motion that determines the spatial field. And, in this environment of our Double Slit Experiment (forgot to say that but that's what we are talking about), we can look at the screen as a highly curved highly dense spacetime curvature as opposed to the field in Superposition transit. And, this tight curvature, this classical screen that stopped the field and turned it into a particle again, is what?? GRAVITY! - the highly spacetime curved screen. Recall that CIG redefines Matter as the curvature of Spacetime. The point I am making is that Roger Penrose is, by way of making the statement "Does Gravity collapse the Superposition" , one step away from introducing rates of motion as the cause, per CIG Theory, and this because of the Equivalency Principle. Acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. So the statement "Gravity does collapse the Superposition" is correct when one applies CIG Theory and views it through the eyes of CIG Theory. But, due to the Equivalency Principle, we can view it in the manner in which Roger Penrose does per his "Does Gravity collapse the Superposition". But it is actually rate of motion and the desire to reach "Time Equilibrium" that makes CIG special. That, and the free Apple Pie. I feel a little better about CIG Theory now. Thank you Roger Penrose.
Gravity cannot be quantized because gravity is not a force, and there is no such thing as a singularity. Nobody has physically demonstrated singularities to exist. There is no reason to believe that singularities exist, not even in black holes, because curvature of space is caused by the non-zero presence of matter. Gravity is merely and ONLY curvature of space; gravity is not a force but merely redirection or reflection of kinetic energy. NOTHING is inside a black hole, not even existence of space or spatial dimensions; all of its matter that cause curvature of space is contained in its event horizon surface. Time effectively stops at the event horizon surface, so nothing can "fall" inside the black hole. As matter gets nearer to the event horizon surface, it decelerates extremely requiring trillions of years to move a few centimeters. The curvature of space is concentrated at the event horizon surface. The outside of the black hole is a sphere, and the inside is an inverted sphere that pushes outwards the incoming matter. There is no loss of information, because all of the matter that causes curvature of space is contained in the event horizon surface. The event horizon surface of the black hole is an "edge" of the universe reality. Gravity is merely the curvature of space as it is "pushed out of the way" by matter. Gravity is not a force, but only the reflection or redirection of kinetic energy that is already in the matter. That's why objects of unequal mass will accelerate at the same rate under the influence of gravity. If gravity was a force that was imparting its energy into objects, then the objects of differing mass would not accelerate at the same rate. For objects of differing masses to fall at the same acceleration rate, they must be invested with differing kinetic energy relative to their masses by lifting the objects. Where did the original "lift" of kinetic energy come from? Cosmic inflation (also known as the "Big Bang") provided the original "lift" to invest the kinetic energy that is now in all matter in the universe. The question is whether cosmic inflation, which happened faster than the speed of light, was sufficient for the "escape velocity" to prevent future gravitational collapse of the universe? It seems to me that cosmic inflation was not an inertial frame of reference, so "escape velocity" has not happened, because it only applies to inertial frames of reference. The universe will ultimately collapse, causing an unending series of births and deaths. The universe is finite, unbounded, and eternal.
Most of that is very incorrect, eg. time does not stop at the event horizon. That is only an observation from a distant location, not locally at or near the event horizon.
Every time I think about black holes I end up imagining a Tardis.... The Tardis' walls are like the volume of the black hole... and the inside of the Tardis is an infinite amount of space. The further you fall into the black hole, the farther you drill into this infinite space which would appear as if you were disappearing into a single point. So matter warps space time, until space has a "knee point" which blows a bubble of space out into an adjacent dimension... which ends up representing itself as a Tardis (larger on the inside than the outside).... These things I'm saying are complete horse shit....but I think its interesting to think about it and share my bullshit.
I believe singularities are impossible but... If the formula for gravity is based on mass,and mass IS quantized, how can gravity NOT be quantized?! You may really like my 2 min video , "the physical reason time slows at the speed of light".
That's incredibly interesting! New perspectives that can be explored experimentally. Quantum theory and gravitation so closely intertwined and observable. This is a great opportunity to develop new knowledge. Thank you for the great contribution!
A beautiful mind, with incredible fluid dexterity. I’m in awe. At the same time I don’t see why this is so difficult. There is only one component to the Universe, and that is energy, which because it moves at less than infinite speed creates space and time. I believe energy exists in 2 forms, open loop energy, or dynamic energy, and closed loop energy, or static energy. Static energy reacts with dynamic energy to limits its speed to that of the speed of light generally, but specifically Static Energy or the Higgs Field energy serves to confine Quanta of Dynamic energy creating matter, and it is the confinement of matter energy that drives the Universe. The Higgs Field confines Quarks in the most intense reaction in the Universe. Higgs Field and Quark energy do not co exist in the same space, they do not overlap and Quark energy could well operate at above light speed. The Higgs Field being loop energy strings cannot dissi[pate their energy, and can only be energised by their reaction with matter energy which also creates the effect of Gravity, a scalar reaction of matter to the Higgs field energy intensity at any point in space. The more matter in any one region in space the higher the Higgs Field energy intensity gradient. How to demonstrate this experimentally? Where a Proton is accreted to near the speed of light the kinetic energy of that particle is stored in the Higgs Field as Phantom Matter, and should be detectable with a LIGO type device customized for use with the LHC. Normally such a device will not see normally matter, but where matter is being ‘created’ in the form of phantom matter, that change should be detectable. And there is the first part of seeing how the Higgs Field is the invisible silent partner to matter that makes the Universe possible. Higgs Field = Dark Energy?
@32:00 I'd say unwarranted assumption. The "gravitational field" means _the metric_ or _the tetrad._ But why on earth does anyone think they have to be in superposition? All we know from QM is that matter and gauge fields can be in superposition. No one has ever produced any evidence to show or infer the whole of spacetime is ever in a superposition, indeed the idea makes no sense... especially if you realize the topology of (non-superposed) spacetime can account for matter in superposition, without spacetime itself being in superposition. What do I mean? I mean that fermions and bosons are only ever in _effective_ superposition, and yes, this deforms the metric, but the deformation is classical, although "Block Universe" in character for a cobordism region. So a gravity wave detector should be able to detect "which way" a neutron or large atom goes through a double slit and thus destroy interference. But if the gravity detector cannot provide unambiguous data then the whole spacetime cobordism between preparation and detection is not time-oriented deterministic, so interference can still occur, even if spacetime itself is not in a superposition. Thus it is not because the metric or tetrad is in a superposition, rather just because the fermions and bosons are entangled, and the gravity detector did not sufficiently unetangle them.
One of my questions for an upcoming episode would be, in the dynamical Casimir clocks under study, how does one account for a change in ground-state frequency under GR (or even SR) time dilation? Is it simply a red shift, or with length contraction is there some nonlinear effect with raised ground levels pushed up by smaller spatial volume constraint?
The problem for me with calendars, Todo list, productivity system, bringing future into the present, having clocks and alarms, breaking big tasks into small ones... is that those tricks are all extra tasks to do on top of the already neverending and always growing list of tasks I have to do, don't feel like to do and procrastinate. So sure it works but after a day or a week or even 6 months I stop doing them or rather I totally forget to continue doing them because now I'm on something else/new.
the first ttime i smoked DMT, some weird entities told me that "movement" of mass doesn't exist, what happens is space-time contracts and extends, shortening and increasing percieved space between large objects and that is why localized time dilation happens as a consequence, which in turn explained as well the problem with the relation between the speed of light and frames of reference. but I don't understand a word of what this means
Hi! Fan from Sweden here. Wow, what an incredible woman! Never heard of her before but will now follow her work closely. Thank you for your incredible channel and please have ger on again.
Time is the 'shadow' of Motion, Thoughts is Motion. Contrast-Princip and Perspective-Princip, make Feeling into Sensing. All experiences is Feeling-Experience, first hand.
Ahh, but you said it yourself! How do we PERCEIVE time? If you ask it that way, the answer is always "BY PERCEPTION". However! That is not the correct question! What is perception? Perception requires a moment of no interaction with an external stimuli from one object to a moment of an interaction with an external stimuli from an object. So perception requires a change in time so that the nerve cells can move chemicals around. You cannot perceive without time.
Imagine the universe beginning with a primordial roar-a vast, continuous sound symbolizing the raw, dynamic energy of creation. This roar represents the ongoing, transformative process of cosmic evolution. When slowed down, this roar can be perceived as a series of distinct bangs-key moments that punctuate the grand process of change, such as the formation of galaxies or the birth and death of stars. Being woken up by a roar symbolizes a profound realization or awakening-an intense experience that jolts us from our usual state of being. This awakening is not merely about facing conflict or disruption but about recognizing and embracing transformative opportunities for growth and self-improvement. This cosmic process mirrors our personal journeys in significant ways. Just as the universe evolves through continuous change and significant events, our lives are characterized by ongoing efforts and struggles, interspersed with pivotal moments of insight and transformation. In the context of dharma-duty, righteousness, and moral responsibility-the struggle we face is not just a battle but a nurturing process. It involves enduring challenges and overcoming obstacles to refine and better ourselves, much like sculpting granite into a masterpiece. Moreover, this cosmic evolution can be likened to the nurturing role of a mother in the process of birth and growth. Just as a mother provides the environment and care necessary for a child's development, the universe, through its cosmic roar, supports and guides the growth of stars, galaxies, and life itself. This nurturing aspect underscores that growth and transformation are natural and inevitable processes. Embracing the challenges and transformative moments in our lives aligns us with the cosmic process. Like a mother nurturing growth, the universe fosters inevitable and positive development, guiding us towards revealing our true potential and purpose. This nurturing force ensures that, through struggle and effort, we achieve meaningful growth and become our best selves.
14 million years ago, 15 Solar like stars near the Sun, ended their lives as spectacular supernovae. These ongoing blasts have driven shockwaves that have swept up intervening plasma and gas, which created nurseries for stellar newborns along the edges of our expanding, 1,000-light-year-wide shell the Local SuperBubble. The Sun, which was about 1,000 light-years away from the supernovae when all this began, entered the shell 5 million years ago and today is sitting right near the centre. Type 1a supernovae measures, not being aligned with the CMB "The Hubble Tension", has now resolved itself accordingly as our position, relative to our projected path of motion at 600 Km/sec... which if this is correct, means the same will occur soon enough. The figures will again rise, continuing our unending drive toward "The Great Attractor".
I lost, at the end, how the fundamental physics was being tested using the proposed BEC interference experiments. It seems that Penrose has ideas about quantum gravity wave fields collapsing, so gravitational superposition is not seen in normal life, but if normal quantum interference can be produced with masses of 10^9,rather than the current 10^3 atoms, then there might also be some quantum gravity effects detectable that showed evidence of the separate quantum gravity energy states, that would show that some of Penrose theories have made a prediction that is verifiable. Is that correct? Also, I would want to clarify that those experiments are different from the ones testing quantum field theory in curved space, which are interesting but less about fundamental physics. The difficulty was that Ivette has many ideas spinning at the same time in her mind, and it’s hard to see what end points, from a theoretical point of view, she is aiming at. Though it is incredibly commendable, as others have pointed out, that everything she is doing is testable for a few thousand quid in a couple of years time, rather than for billions of dollars with a 15 year wait, that makes her a true scientist, rather than someone who’s just milking the system.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson once said, "all the experiments we can do on a table top have already been done" It's time to unleash our heart's dark, trapped clock, and make everything bigger! That's how science works; no teleology.
I'm applying to graduate schools and I've been thinking for a while one of the areas I might want to work in is the intersection between quantum information and Astrophysics/Cosmology. So I got really excited when the topic of quantum optics came up. I don't know too much about it yet, but I think it's the future of observational astronomy. I think with new technology and some advancements in theory, it's going to eventually be as big of a deal as spectroscopy was to early astronomers. I would love to be apart of that.
this was the most interesting and inspiring conversation i have viewed for a long time and is pertinent to my recent study of Zeilinger's "the dance of the photons" Thank you for alerting me to Fuentes work!
We are at the same time where they were trying to make orbits work with circles.. Ben Rich (CEO of Skunkworks) said “we found an error in the equations, after we did a lot was possible” Hmmm what equations?
We are used to thinking either or rather than both; there being both nondeterminacy and determinacy. Both are needed and the forces are the connecting link. Once the forces determine it gravity prevails. It was the same with the aether thinking that it was defunct later with dimensions it had to be brought back as what separated them.
Must be one of the smartest scientists I've listened to in years. Shame we had a really fast fly-by of the most intresting ideas at the end. More details about these ideas would be fascinating.
Dr Fuentes a pleasure to listen to. Great to see insights into these researchers. i also like Roger Penrose. im no scientist and engineer but what i notice is how much egos in the mainstream plays. battle for getting research grants, or making a name for yourself to collect the big bucks. i suppose if you have a theory you need to experiment rather than abstract maths and talking your way out of it. i noticed this in qm where terminology always bloody changing from particles, atoms electrons interchangeably. Get to the point 😂
I'm not sure what she means when she talks about trying to explain why we can't see superpositions on classical scales. A superposition of states is just a complex-valued probability distribution, it's not something "to see." Maybe she means why we don't see the _consequences_ of it, which would be interference effects, but it seems to me decoherence already explains why we don't see interference effects on large scales. Anyways, besides that, very fascinating talk, hearing actual attempts to measure QM and GR effects simultaneously, building sensors for actual experiments, etc. It is a breath of fresh air as most videos on this topic just talk about abstract math in like ten dimensions or whatever.
Superpositioned indexes are equal in reverse. Inverse Superposition This technique is utilised to selectively subtract specific signal(s), examining the out of phase, or any signal(s) of interest.
Galileo didn't invent the telescope. He was however the first to use the optical instrument to make astronomical measurements and record observations. "The first person to apply for a patent for a telescope was Dutch eyeglass maker Hans Lippershey in 1608." Galileo, after hearing about Lippershey's invention decided to construct his own optical tube and eye pieces so that he can view the night sky. Both were brilliant and creative thinkers.
We do not refuse to look through the telescope. It is just that we are tired of people telling us we cannot eat eggs because "look through the microscope" and then 10 years later they admit to be wrong. We will be back when you have all the proof, not just parts of it.
