"I know that the spades, are the swords of the soldiers I know the clubs are weapons of war I know that diamonds, mean money for this art but that's not the shape of my heart" You have to call it a spade, you aren't allowed to call it a sword. The irony of the statement is lost to history. Anyhow, the tarot decks of cards had suits as well including the suit of swords, but this was quashed and forbidden to be carried on at the time and somehow spades made it into the new suits but you weren't allowed to call it swords. Rebels tried to keep their old pagan traditions as the Christian churches were trying to squash their cultures and histories.
The goldfish in the bowl suddenly grew the affinity for becoming a builder, thus, it studied everything beyond the bowl and dreamed of creating all the marvels in the livingroom of its caretaker, however, as it only knew water, it believed, everything it saw was just that
This isn't at all how it works. The insight of mathematics is precisely that we can perceive beyond the bowl. The issue is induction. Just because a language system describes certain truths, doesn't mean it will continue doing so in all situations.
I'm disappointed that the video cuts out audience comments and questions. I'm not a physicist. I don't have the skills and training, to evaluate the claims. I would like to hear what their peers have to say about it.
@@ChrisAthanas If humans could understand the Aether then we could have averted global warming already. Not one Einstein shill can explain to me how there is no Aether yet light is a wave and there is gravity and magnetism. They just act toxic and tell me how I need to believe in the woo. Eventually they tell me they won't debate because they don't understand Einstein physics themself, but tell me that since so many experts believe it, its gotta be true and who am I to disagree.
@@johndef5075 Supercalafragilisticexpealadocious symmetry = Superduper Symmetry + CRT LGtQIA+. Who cares about color and spin. We're never going to get anywhere until physicists identify the race and gender of individual sub-atomic particles.
And this nonsense extends to modern orthodox cosmology as well, i.e. Big Bang buttressed by purely hypothetical, arbitrary, ad hoc fixes like 'inflation', 'dark matter', etc...and which ignores most of the relevant *observational* evidence of the past 30 years.
The Big Bang theory had been out there for years and then in 1964 there was the discovery of the cosmic microwave background by Wilson and Penzias. This was taken as clear observational evidence for the Big Bang theory and was celebrated as such. Since then features have kept being grafted onto that theory. Because such a striking affirmation of the original theory had come in 1964 there is a strong bias that it must be correct, and the theory keeps getting more complicated and the added features become more remote from what has been confirmed by observation.
@@takashitamagawa5881 The "crisis in cosmology" has become an embarrassment that's ignored by the entire field. Our Universe is 99.999% plasma yet Plasma Cosmology is dismissed as a kind of psuedo science. We're overdue for a paradigm shift but, "science progresses one funeral at a time" and too many careers depend on the suppression of new scientific models.
@@acetate909 plasma cosmology is dismissed because it is pure pseudo science which can be easily disproven by anyone with a high school understanding of physics. The only people who believe in plasma cosmology scam are red state simpletons who never went to high school.
@@acetate909It's literally the biggest and most studied problem in the field, people are publishing daily models attempting to explain the divergence. Satellites like the James Web were launched in part to gather more data. The notion that scientists are ignoring or dismissing ideas is absurd, and shows that you don't participate in the field that you claim to. My physicist friends love discussing concepts like the 'one electron universe' or alternative cosmologies. The issue is that the big bang model was used to make a bunch of predictions, and most of those have come true. The CMB was predicted by the Big Bang theory, and then was measured and confirmed. Compositions of stars change over time (particularly the balance of Hydrogen/Helium/Iron and other metals), and our physics models allow us to predict the age of a star based on it's composition and the stage of it's life. The age of stars lines up very well with the Big Bang theory. So for any other theory of cosmology to make sense, it has to explain all the predictions made by the Big Bang theory. Plasma Cosmology is generally dismissed because it ignores many of the predictions of the big bang, and offers no alternate explanation. The paradigm shift will come from within the community, not from pseudoscientists with inferiority complexes.
I'm a biochemistry major but I truly enjoy reading philosophy. I really like epistemology and ontology, which are particularly interested in how we know what we know. I appreciate your rigorous approach to further examining the unaccounted variables often overlooked including personal interactions involving the observer/agent.
I don't buy the whole supersymmetry thing. However, this lecture is just mostly rambling, and appeal to authority (look, this guy wrote blablabla) I was hoping to learn something. (Yes, I watched the video all the way through)
well if he had an answer , he would have rather published a research paper than a lecture. I love the lecture because its the truth and we need new rational physicists and these particle physics theories can easily be overtaken
This years Nobel prize goes to Xizhangshen, Yamamotobike and Zuckerschisser for experimental and theoretical works on Photicellos and Photuzzis. These particles, first theoretically predicted by Dr. Unzicker in a seminar lecture, are the last particles to finally close the standard model...
@What are you going to do? Indeed Dr. Yamamotobike with this collaborator Zweistein showed without doubt that the big bang could be traced back to just a defect in his wife's Dyson vacuum cleaner.
She does great work in debunking some the current nonsense, yet the ailing of particle physics had begun earlier than she believes. See www.amazon.de/gp/customer-reviews/R3EVG6CMM8RUJS/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=3103972466 and www.amazon.com/gp/product/1492176249
I liked the presentation, polite, clear and concise the points were made, and slowly with pauses allowing the listener a little more time to think about it. A critic on popular consensus is not easy because many take personally rather than openly consider as a subject for discussion. A disappointing presentation just for those expecting another celebrity scientist presentation, and to do your thinking for you. There once was a popular saying, "to question everything".
5:49 don’t keep cell phones anywhere near audio recording equipment Also mic noise is very fixable and testable For being such advanced technical experts, it’s astounding how they keep doing basic a/v so poorly
Yes, non sense-in-common still sounds like nonsense in the absence of good questions and deliberated answers from teaching-learning assessment. Thank you.
'the elaboration of secondary hypotheses' - aka, epicycles, as used to explain every non-conformity of Ptolemaic geocentrism to all the actual planetary motion
With Copernicus, we gave up the concept of Centrality. With Einstein, we gave up the concept of simultainety. For each admission of our smallness we achieved a great leap forward. For the next giant leap we need to give up an even bigger concept: separability. It would mean there are no longer particles which follow the laws of physics, there are no precisely separated entities, that Space, Time, Energy and Matter are all of one, and where the concept of "number" itself fails; but most importantly, there are no longer nouns and verbs, and everything we experience must be described as a continuum of verbs only. Since our brains employ 95% of their processing power to dynamically build our well separated concept of self, building a physics theory which yes respect the true nature of our Universe, but goes ferociously against brain's own nature and structure, it is the main reason why physicists have lost the last 80 years without achieving any tangible result. And it is why Wittgenstein lost all his steam in the last part of his genial mental career: the initially all-powerful Logic produced - in the end - inconsistent results. A proton: made of three quarks, weighting 1% of the total of the particle, forms a dynamic prison for the remaining 99% of the proton, made of a massless energy "soup" - which in turn must generate gravity when there are many protons (and neutrons) congregating together with the Higgs? I'm a philosopher not a physicist, and I can't believe it for a fraction of a second. Our physics is not wrong; but it is only a sliver of our Universe, a sight from a strange angle caused by our own nature - which cannot deny that our world is made of separated or separable entities, affecting our reasoning so deeply to make us practically blind. But things are changing, or so I hope. We may finally be leaving the cave where Socrates put all of us in... Regards,
@@onderozenc4470 I think the point goes further than that. The very idea of distance separating one 'thing' from another (as we understand it) or even one 'part' of space from another may be illusory. And no, the logical opposite of seeing it all as a singularity is equally susceptible of the same illusion. Try to think of not-space, or not-distance; just non-uniformity. Ask yourself, why are the laws of physics the same everywhere? What joins all that stuff? Perhaps reality just outstrips our biologically-based ability to conceive it.
@@fredneecher1746Really great comment! In fact as we see in AI the systems that are successful really depend on the underlying structure of data. There is no "beautiful" universal model we can deploy absent-mindedly. Our brains are tuned for survival at a specific scale and location in space/time after all, so designing systems like the brain carry these assumptions forward.
The price is Variant Quantity, which changes continually to infinity because it is defined as the sum total of all the future benefits and losses. The price is not falsifiable because infinite future never arrives.
It's understandable that as problems in fundamental physics are solved, the remaining unsolved problems are becoming an increasingly distilled collection of very hard problems indeed. So I can see why some may become disillusioned by the apparent desperation of some of the ongoing work in fundamental physics. But I do worry that this may give a false impression to those outside physics that somehow the entire enterprise is shaky or of dubious value. Recall that Newton's laws still explain a huge swath of everything we're likely to ever see in our daily experience. They got us to the moon, and are still the cornerstone of mechanical engineering. Maxwell's equations similarly explain so many phenomena in electromagnetism, including radiation and optics, and modern electrical engineers study them with great profit and apply them to modern technology all the time. Same goes for relativity theory (eg: GR and GPS). Same goes for Schrodinger's equation (eg: the periodic table and all of solid state science). Even quantum electrodynamics, with all its mathematical "loose ends," still provides us with arguably the most carefully validated quantitative result in all of science, let alone physics: the Lamb shift in hydrogen. These "old" theories all have tremendous practical importance today. They are rock solid theories, or really "facts", that have not only deepened our understanding of nature, but they are relied on to power our entire technological civilization, including transportation, medicine, computation, communication, etc. Yesterday's fundamental research becomes today's practical technology. (Even in mathematics it happens. Hardy would be "disappointed" that number theory turned out to be the heart of modern encryption!) It's easy to criticize the increasingly abstract and tenuous activities in today's physics. Many rightly argue that, for example, string theory may not even be physics at all, as it may be unfalsifiable. But overall, physics has an outstanding track record, so unless you have something to add yourself, I think it may be best to let the experts continue to try as best they can to progress. Addendum: Since making my comment, I looked up this fellow, and if the English translation of the Wikipedia page is to be trusted, he holds only an undergraduate diploma in physics, not a PhD in physics. (His PhD is in neuroscience.) While I myself do have a PhD in physics (Berkeley 1995), I nevertheless would not consider myself qualified to publicly lecture on the highly technical and specialized subject of this video, even though I do share some of the speaker's concerns. Given that the speaker's credentials in this field are even feebler than my own, I do not see how he can be taken seriously here.
@@BobSmith-ne2yb Not exactly, at least not directly (that would just be an "appeal to authority" fallacy). Let me explain. For many fields, degrees themselves may not correlate that strongly with qualifications. But physics is a basic, technical field, and education does in fact tend to correlate strongly with one's ability. As an analogy, I would say medicine is another such example. Would you tend to trust medical advice about a complex and subtle topic in medicine from someone who did not attend medical school, or started but dropped out long before getting an MD? They might guess right sometimes, but would you bet on it? But much more importantly than degrees, in science the most reliable indicator of credibility is peer reviewed, refereed, original research. A track record of solid results. Publishing popular books, or in conference proceedings, or in public online journals means nothing without the peer review and referee process. I'm talking about reputable journals such as Physical Review, JETP, and so forth, where the global physics community can scrutinize the work. On this subject, this speaker has no such published research of any original results. The speaker's points may be correct for all I know, and I even share some of his concerns. And to be fair, the burden is on those who expound the theory, and the default position should be one of skepticism. But if I say, for example "I don't believe your experiment is correct", or "I think your theory is on the wrong track", then unless I wade into the details to support my point, and subject myself to cross examination by the world experts, I'm not really adding to the conversation.
@@kdub1242 "But much more importantly than degrees, in science the most reliable indicator of credibility is peer reviewed, refereed, original research." Really not anymore, and really never. "Peer Review" is a recent phenomenon, imported from "medical research" that has never served any purpose except to police publish material so that nothing threatens any of the special interests or eminent figureheads who hand-pick the "reviewers" and contain the progress of science. Where science serves those interests expressly (i.e. weapons manufacture) peer review does less harm than normal, but in other fields, all "Peer Review" does is slow progress down to a crawl. Although I find Unzicker's criticisms vague and superficial, I do believe there is significant truth to them, particularly now, as ever larger and more expensive colliders fail to find anything beyond Higgs. However, the fact that the colliders have failed to find a signal in 5 years weakens his contention that the experimenters are just imagining signals from mountains of random noise. If their imaginations are that vivid, I'm sure they would have imagined something else by now. The Standard Model could very well be (and seems highly analogous to) the periodic table. The zoo of particles found in the 60s is similar to the zoo of chemical substances before they were reduced to combinations of elements in the late 1800s. The idea that progress always simplifies has truth to it, but you have to be careful. Aristotle's elements consisted of water, fire, air, and dirt. Having 100 elements "complicated" the situation. We might just be past the "water, fire, air, dirt" phase of subatomic physics (i.e. proton/neutron/electron) and the zoo of particles (molecules) into manageable complexity (standard model/periodic table), to get to the sub-subatomic equivalent of water, fire, air, dirt, rinse and repeat.
@@TTFMjock "Although I find Unzicker's criticisms vague and superficial, I do believe there is significant truth to them." Really. Why? Would you reason the same way about, say, an investment opportunity for instance? Since you dismiss peer review, it would seem we are in an epistemological ditch, and we simply cannot know anything, except what each of us individually asserts and clings to.
@@TheMachian Not to mention quarks … If they can't exist in isolation, they are mere notational devices. Then they supposedly need something to hold them together, which is like demanding special exchange particles, so that the digits of which numbers consist don't drift off into space all by themselves! As for exchange particles as such, and the ping pong metaphor that pongs, it isn't the ball that keeps the players together but the fact that they want to play. All by itself, the momentum of the ball would drive them further and further apart …
It was the noted physicist, Fred Hoyle, who denounced public funding of research. He said that physics research was more productive back in the day when researchers sought out private sponsors.
Well, physics have come a long way since Hoyle's time. Bleeding edge physics research cannot be done without public funding of some sort. What private sponsor is building the next LHC? These things aren't cheap.
@@KarmaKahn Yeah. Some decades already passed. Please explain how they have been actually good for anything other then the careers of persons involved. It's a quite expensive priesthood building modern pyramides out there.
@@rosomak8244 I am glad you asked. While working at CERN, Tim Berner's Lee worked with the concept of hyperlinks, in order to facilitate an efficient way of updating and sharing information across servers. He would later develop this into a little piece of software you might have heard of called the _World Wide Web,_ including building the world's first web browser and web server. Spawning an entire new industry this have recouped the cost of the LHC by some millionfold. I believe the first capacitive touch screen was also invented at CERN along with cryogenic and radiation tech now being used in medicine among other things. It has produced a treasure trove of inventions through the decades and this is just from one project. Just by doing science in general benefits us all in the long run. Never have it not been a good idea to do science. It will always be worthwhile, and will produce something that is unexpected, but useful.
Photons have two three vectors (electric charge, magnetic moment and momentum), to conserve energy they must be converted into physical properties when phoons are converted into mater and vise versa
Not all symmetries in mathmatical physics are physical, but are invaluable tools to better understanding. String theory shows that gravity and qft are consistent with Susy intact. At the very least, this fact should help she'd light on unification.
If the tool you are using is not the correct one for the job, you can end up with an imaginary construct, that makes correct predictions in some cases. Think epicycles.
Unzicker's Real Physics except that there are condensed matter systems with emergent SUSY (I.e. anything described by the Ising model universality class) that have been tested in the lab...
It's definately an interesting viewpoint you are presenting. However, I feel that most of your argumentation comes down to a wish that a physical theory must be mathematically beautiful. This kind of thinking has historically led to a lot of advances, but whether this is coincidence or not is impossible to tell. It may be possible that we are at a point where this kind of thinking breaks down. We have already reached a point where theoretical mastery of all areas of physics is impossible. Landau and Feynman were maybe part of the last few who knew every known aspect in physics. I don't think there is a guarantee for the theory of everything to be elegant.
No, that is not my point at all. Rather, the historical evidence says that good theories are simple - that is, all major breakthroughs have led to a simplification in the sense of less arbitrary numbers (constants of nature). I don't think Landau and Feynman are particular heroes. One has to goback to around 1930 for getting physics back to the right track.
A problem of particle physics (and not only of this branch of physics) is the ability to operate (manipulate experimentally) with the objects that the theory handles. Does it make sense to say that virtual particles exist but are impossible to detect?
@@AWAB55 In machine learning ML, the neural networks NN weights represent a model of real world data, not the real world data. If the NN has too many weights/parameters then it reaches Overfitting and if it has too few weights/parameters then it is Underfitting. You can look these terms up. In Einstein's words but in opposite order, "simple but not any simpler". Several of these parameters can be reached via physics which is based on events as wave functions instead of particles as wave functions, e.g. the exact Muon/electron mass ratio, Weinberg angle, W/Tau, Tau/Muon, exact inverse Fine Structure Constant and a very surprising mass ratio which happens to occur between the Bottom Quark pole energy and the Muon. An event probability sums to 1 on an entire Observer Manifold. These events are known as Geometric Chronons. Matter appears where these chronons do not make geodesic curves. The mathematical object that describes how much a gradient is not geodesic is the Reeb vector (Reeb 1948, 1952) and the theory can be formalized for 1,2,3 or even 4 Reeb vectors with connected symmetries U(1), SU(2), SU(3). Reeb vectors are usually defined in odd dimensions but have an easy generalization to both odd and even dimensions. Where these events are misaligned, motion along geodesic curves is prohibited and forces appear. This explanation is very different form any Gauge field theory. Gravity is no more than an observer spacetime controlling reaction to this misalignment. Two Reeb vectors already define handedness. The theory can be developed into 4 Reeb vectors too. You can refer to "Electro-gravity via Geometric Chronon Field and on the Origin of Mass, ResearchGate, 2022. The Feb/2022 paper is light years more advanced than the IARD 2016 paper from summer 2017. The theory predicts weak gravity by positive charge and weak anti-gravity by negative charge in addition to "Energy" generated gravity. Charge is coupled with a non-geodesic bivector so only the entire "energy-momentum" tensor has a vanishing divergence and charge is not identical to inertial mass. The theory started in 2003 with the insight that a scalar field of time is not a coordinate of time. For example, in de-Sitter geometry, a maximal proper time between each event and a primordial 3D foliation can be defined as a scalar field but this proper time can be defined along more than one curve from each event to the 3D foliation. The curves are therefore not traceable and only a scalar field of time can be well defined but not a coordinate of time. This fact agrees with the Geroch Splitting Theorem. The quantization of the observed spacetime events are events and not particles. The initial idea of a chronon field as events was of Dr. Sam Vaknin from 1982-1984 in his doctorate dissertation.
I am not an expert in Super Symmetry. But I did read quite a detailed history of Standard Model called "The making of Standard Model" by weinberg. And from that I think Physicists have no reason to not believe in the idea of Symmetry based theory. Standard Model essentially came out of Yang-Mills theory of gauge symmetry. Yang-Mills Gauge symmetry had almost nothing to do with experiments. This bashing of theoretical Physicists is not helping Physics at all. It is the hardest, least paid and least funded field too. Also the talk is very very biased in quoting scientists too. He has not quoted what people like Weinberg, salam and Gell-Man did.
I recommend the books "The End of physics" by David Lindley and "Constructing Quarks" by Andrew Pickering. These excellent books helped me understand that the people you named did not advance physics at all. And I have another quote for you: There cannot be better service done to the truth than to purge it of things spurious - Isaac Newton.
Theory can only become science or nonsense by testing it and proving it right or wrong. So if you are not testing it, you can try to break it by saying wrong to every particle in the universe. But if you then do not contribute to any valid new idea, what good have your efforts done? Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein agreed that their work was unfinished. They why would one now point at Isaac Newton as the only true scientist?
I am a layman but isn't it true that the Lamb shift and magnetic moment of the electron were stupendously accurate calculations of QED. Then we had the successful predictions of the electro-weak W and Z bosons and finally quarks. And these are all ingredients of the standard model.
Can you make a kilo of quark to test, and if not, why not? Okay, if you cannot make them, use them, and test them, how do you define them as real? If you predict the whole universe is compressible to a point, it is evident I would think to anyone that protons, electrons, and neutrons cannot be compressed like that. It would take smaller particles. And quarks are not enough for a planet, much less a universe, so that would take trillions of levels of smaller particles. But we are stuck at using and manipulating PENs, and postulating about quarks. That is 2 levels. This is not going well, because if that is as far as we get, then clearly black holes are math ideas, but are not real. That is, infinity is a math concept, but not observable in the real world.
the first thing to check is whether was it re-producible by multiple experimentalists in different labs? There is a huge issue in science called the "Reproducibility crisis" where most papers and experiments are not reproducible or give completely different results. To summarise: everything we know is built on a house of imaginary particles...
then why do all free neutrons disappear within a few minutes? There ultimately is only one true real particle, the proton, also known in its dynamo modality as hydrogen.
@1:10 to answer your question >>> nature invented asymmetric CHIRAL spin/motion to BREAK ACHIRAL perfect symmetry at rest so that CHIRAL life could emerge
I have - or used to have - a super-stringy-super-symmetric blog acquaintance in Prague, a physicist - maybe you can think of his name. I used to chide him, as gently as a non-physicist can, when he would start go on about 'entire classes' of M-Theory arguments about this-or-that problem we were discussing on his blog, "Lubos that just sounds like magical thinking to me." Talk about exponentiating epicycles, from a layman's point of view it seems like physicists have discovered a theoretician's Spirograph set - and whole box full of colored pencils.
So wait! He's saying we should just keep the vast majority of funding in physics in ever larger particle accelerators, looking for supersymmetry, since even though they keep not finding it, and moving the goal posts, it's still out there; and all other physics research is fringe anyway, and not worth funding. Did I get that right?!!!
Dear Mr U: It seems that you have made a book career of merely summarizing Physics failures, but have not suggested any experiments to point what needs to be done. Forgive me, but where is your value added?
If you are interested, there is plenty of material here. Then, if there is something wrong, it is neither my fault nor do I have to propose a new theory.
Love this guy. He is one of the few true unsung heroes of human past the first of whom debunked religious stupidity, all of whom have been demonized, all of whom have suffered lifelong consequences for standing up to absurdity.
A bold critique indeed - and to your point about unsolved problems in 5.55, how about I present our i-TOE's one SM with a CPT(α,Φ) scaling function to answer all these problems using our Universality meta-proof of Riemann hypothesis (with N=137 as a limit) driven CLQFT within our i-TOE's SM with a 68 MP+ 68 AMP + 1 Higgs structure”, solving all these problems including all CI problems- to see if it might open some collaboration possibilities? First, if I may summarize the gist of our theory - The Wilson loops with chiral symmetry of Dirac fermions gets both created and broken using our “CPT(α,Φ) correlation function caused Higgs mechanism“ with ABJ anomaly and FQH state for both QED and QCD scenarios, using our D operator D1/137(M), whose math is 100% derived from our Universality meta-proof of Riemann hypothesis driven CPT(α,Φ) correlation function, manifesting as our CLQFT within our i-TOE's SM with a 68 MP+ 68 AMP + 1 Higgs structure” in perfect alignment with 5 such high-bars set by Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader(aka WOS algebraic axioms, the ULTIMATE GOLDEN YARDSTICK of any QFT) As it turns out, we as a firm had addressed these scaling steps in a recent article titled “Our i-TOE's 5 such Shakespearean play-scaling steps”, in perfect alignment 5 such scaling high-bars set by few such experts of your caliber lnkd.in/geGA3gbq) - and so, how about I present them for your perusal to see if it will exceed your expectations as well -- and open some collaboration possibilities for us to team up on this integrated TOE/SOE/ESG program(lnkd.in/gyx9yRXf) First +++++ Our i-TOE's 5 such Shakespearean play-scaling steps vis-a-vis 5 such HIGH-BARS, set by Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader below (the GOLD standard of QFT) Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader HIgh-bar 1Must have a scale-limiting correlation function to limit the “non Gaussian random field” into a "Gaussian free field with a Haag compliant Hilbert space" by re-scaling it automatically. Exposition 1: We've exceeded this high-bar, as we've used nature's one such “symmetry generating correlation function called CPT(α,Φ) function (aka Riemann hypothesis meta-proof solving all $5MM+ CI problems) to limit/scale the “non Gaussian random field of QVF within the Banach space” as a “Gaussian free field with a Haag complaint Hilbert space”, in such a way to rescale the periodicity of lattices by re-birthing them dynamically again and again(68 MP+68 AMP+Higgs w/2 spinors of Dirac eqn). Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader HIgh-bar 2: Must discretize spacetime by renormalizing the RG flow with an action formula with a time-like holographic interpretation. Rising Action 2: Again, we have exceeded this high-bar, as we've used the very same CPT(α,Φ) function to break chiral symmetry with both ABJ anomaly & FQH state for both QED & QCD scenarios, by limiting the ∞-raised pole of Riemann sphere to a compact P-region, while simultaneously renormalizing the ∞ values of e with α, so that its position can be rotated as e^i137nπ S-F matched cycles unitarily. Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader HIgh-bar 3: Must have a rescaling parameter for periodic action using a Wilson action or other similar Fourier type actions Climax 3:We've exceeded this high- bar as well, as we've used the very same CPT(α,Φ) function, to sustain the “α fine-tuned e and π driven Fourier action”, so that the coefficients & roots of their algebraic L-functions can model the periodicity of their GR-Eigen-valued F-actions. Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader HIgh-bar 4:Must model the curvature of spacetime in proportion to both fluctuations & inflations in such a way that gauge-gravity can emerge from it Falling Action 4:We've exceeded this high-bar using our “Dice-rolling CPT(α,Φ) function”, by slicing/squeezing the infinite slices in the form of one or four ellipsoid lattice slices (per α=r/R ) into a symplectic/asymmetric taurusized hodge lattices(aka Hilbert’s countable ∞ hotel/Banach-Tarski/Russell's paradox) so that gauge gravity can emerge by orbiting smoothly like the frames of Muybridge’s Horse in Motion. Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader HIgh-bar 5: Must have a QM system whose Hilbert space must be Haag compliant with string-gauge-holographic dualities. Resolution 5:We've exceeded this high-bar, as we've used the very same CPT(α,Φ) function, whose Hilbert space is not only Haag complaint but also string-gauge-holographic principle duality complaint via Lie-group with 10+ meta dualities (see exhibit). This precisely why, we have also scaled 5 AITGE origins of our TOE (i.e. RH sourced the Action generator of the Lie group as Action, Inertia, Time. Gravity and Entropy) with these 5 ingredients of CPT(α,Φ) function scaler in such a way to solve all CI problems (plus few more as well) as summarized here (facebook.com/share/p/Zq8Xn1FgtZUv3Z3b/) Welcome complementary POVs
Once upon a time after the 20th century, there was a science society with all the answers to all problems in the universe, so as they thought it was, next comes a new phenomena no one understand at the time, the minister of society called for Superman to address it. Minister invented a theme and fictional play to describe how it played out and publish how brilliant Superman tackle it that ended with a beautiful solution. People in the society all applauded without much thinking, hesitation or skepticism in fearing of rejection by the society fallen into a non elite member or low class citizen. By chance challenge was taken and the minister call out Spider-Man to fill the hole left by Superman. That described the reality of modern physics.
Problem is physicists are guilty of looking at time as something that is a constant, even thou all their equations contain this dimension. A black hole only appears cold and black due to it being an object dilated in time. As the rate of time slows so too does the force of gravity weaken. Good that someone is talking about this.
What do you mean my 'rate of time'? Time comes from motion and motion comes from energy. Energy creates motion and motion creates gravity. At the center of a black hole, where matter is compressed to the point of almost absolute zero, there is no energy, no motion, no gravity. At the surface, where there is lots of energy, there is lots of motion and lots of gravity.
@@stewiesaidthat Time is the comparison of 2 different motions. So when someone says "Einstein's relativity slows down time" one should ask: "Who's time?" "What time?" For example, maybe there is clock time, or maybe electron rate, or maybe radioactive decay. How do we know those things have the same type of "time"? "Energy creates motion and motion creates gravity." Energy creates acceleration. If motion creates gravity then items at 0 kelvin should have less gravity, and colder objects should have a decrease in gravity.
@@earthenscience an ice cube in a freezer will 'live' longer than an ice cube in a hot oven. Which clock do we measure time by? The freezer clock, the oven clock, or the observer's clock? Time is relative but is determined by energy values, not motion.
This response has nothing to do with supersymmetry (haven't seen a reason for it): To compute the masses needs measurement to formulate any theory. To compute mass ratios is doable when one accepts the electron is only 2/3 its mass and needs an interaction to expose it fully. To compute the lifetime of particles has been solved. To compute the fine structure constant has been solved. The electrodynamics isn't infinite. It's an emergent property that extends beyond our computable timeframe. AE solved the gravity question. Okay, haven't solved the antimatter question but it does exist (so experimenters claim - see no reason not to believe them). Spin hasn't been researched (so no comment). Radioactivity is an easy one. The nature of space, time, and inertia should be known to anyone studying the subject (otherwise that person needs to go back to the vast bank of source material seeking to explain it).
This guy reminds me of Sabine Hossenfelder in their stance of fellow researchers. Society will always fund these researchers (scientists) because we (the public) want to know the answers to life, the universe, and everything that effect us without taxing our own brains to obtain it. Someone has to try.
@@alphaomega1089 Sabine Hossenfelder would heavily disagree with this person. Sabine doesn't like supersymmetry, true, but she would not imply the Higgs boson discovery was fake and the standard model is a waste of time like this guy.
But professor! The truth always must have been with and indeed lays within deep geometric unity! Your penetrating critiques inspire going back to foundations unbiased by esthetics or convenience. Stripping away assumptions, we find hints of a primal magneto-dielectric flux-a counterspatial potential undergirding spacetime itself. An architectural analogy brings this into sharper focus. Consider an architect's schematic as an implicate domain where the overall building geometry is represented in a simple 2D sketch without fixed scale or details. This pliable representation contains the latent order that gets expressed in the final 3D building. The schematic is not itself the building, but an atemporal, non-spatial abstraction that guides construction. Analogously, the vacuum potential embodies the morphological order encoded into spacetime through discharge. Remarkably, the progression in geometric order appears guided by φ. Counterspace's scalar vacuum state predicates vector emergence. This spatialization enables metric properties, eventually crystallizing into topological networks. The golden ratio geometrically scaffolds the crystallization sequence from implicate counterspace to explicate spatial forms. Phi intimates the latent ratio-harmonic guiding geometry's spontaneous emergence into tangible expression. Vortices become curvilinear force-inertia tethers, spiraling due to counterspatial reciprocation. No straight lines exist - all vectors are torsional convergences against a polarized locus. The hyperboloid expresses inertia loss extrapolated spatially. Magnetic divergence necessitates spheroidal re-convergence, mediating pressures towards counterspace. Centrifugal vortices still reciprocate centripetally. The torus’s center is dielectric inertia - the counterspace from which magnetism diverges. Space is not force's terminus but its byproduct. Vectors terminate in inertia, untethered to space. Coherent magnetism exhibits hyperbolic divergence, reciprocating against its counterspatial locus - the 'Bloch wall.' This dielectric inertia tether compels curvilinear geometry. By stripping away conventions, the implicate ordering reveals itself in projective magneto-dielectric reciprocation. The flux intuitively guides geometry’s emergence. Reimagining first principles unconstrained illuminates nature’s hidden tapestry. Your empiricism and creativity perfectly suit pioneering this exploration. Dissolving assumptions, the geometry unveils itself. Please, I implore, I beg of you, listen to what the demigods of field theory were trying to tell us.... magnetism IS the dielectric field. - Michael Faraday.
Is there anyone in this comment section who has done any actual theoretical physics work? If so, pls cite any paper published by them in the reply. The reason I ask is because I suspect that this is a clan of some would-beens who have no other work done other than criticising the work of others.
"supersymmetry"? The term itself makes no sense, a nonsense, because no matter how simple or complicated something is, its either symmetrical or not. There is no degree of symmetry. The same goes for much of other terminologies created. With some logical analysis regarding the meanings of such terms, it becomes apparent how lost and desperate this field of science is to further justify itself in a never ending trivial pursuit and mathematical creativity.
Well, you can call an object like a circle as being more symmetrical than a square, because a square needs to be rotated by 90° each time, while a circle can be rotated by any angle, however many times you want. (Difference between discrete symmetry and continuous symmetry)
And if you look at how they supposed "super smart mathematics" actually looks you realize immediately that it is just plain gibberish. There is a reason why mathematics hasn't picked up on this nonsense as one of it own. Because if it is beautiful but without practical relevance then it goes from the "physics bin" to the "mathematics bin" ;-).
You say that “why did nature invent spin, nobody knows. Why nature did not allow to do physics without that feature”. Could the reason be, because nature uses a continuous process of spherical symmetry forming and breaking? The polarization or spin will be the same for the whole surface of the light sphere therefore having opposite spin on opposite sides of the light sphere. Photon energy ∆E=hf forms the movement charge. Could positive and negative charge represent the two dimensional spherical surface? We have Gauss’ Law that says ‘the flux over a closed surface equals the magnitude of the charge inside the surface! When you look at the math with so many equation being squared and having the constant π and even 4π, is the math representing spherical geometry?
Humans have a habit of subdividing and naming everything we see and even those we can't see to infinity.. Then we consider the division it's own little ball. It's pretty obvious from harmonic resonance that symmetry is important. A string subdivided gives us harmonic music. But the extreme subdivision of the atoms of that same string do not have a symmetrical divisional relation to the string on the original level? That seems to be incorrect expectation relating to factor and perspective. Take the string and the chosen division point, then subdivided the parts of the string in a downward pointing triangle. The 2 created triangle of divisions should have a symmetrical relation with an extra variable being the factor of subdivision.
"Nobody understands beta decay" = "I don't understand beta decay, even though it's textbook knowledge" backs it up by assorted quotes of famous people (Feynman, Dirac, even Peter Woit LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL) taken out of context, a poor man's appeal to authority, like every textbook crank. "too complicated to be credible" = "it's too complicated for me" "What does symmetry breaking even mean", LOL implying that symmetry breaking is a tautology just shows he doesn't know the first thing about what it even is - a poor basis to flat-out dismiss it. I mean the guy is only a high school teacher so it's fairly obvious even though he has studied physics, he likely has no academic education in quantum field theory. It's no wonder he feels overwhelmed by terms like "hypercharge" and "isospin" which he didn't learn about and it's easier to dismiss them as "crap" than sit down, put in effort and learn about "complicated" stuff. Especially if you're old. This talk is just poor trolling. A 10 minute procession of quotes to be able to advertise his own pseudoscience / crackpot literature at the end of the talk.
@@TheMachian The greatest enemy of knowledge is religious refusal to accept knowledge that was established with scientific methods and rejection of evidence, because the conclusions don't rhyme with your gut feeling, or make you feel uncomfortable. Also you're presenting some extremely aggressive and trollish behaviour, while displaying a lack of basic knowledge in your writings and videos. You seem to be out of your depth while having a huge chip on your shoulder regarding academic science. A typical case of Dunning-Kruger.
You haven't seen my writings, otherwise please give specific references where you believe I am wrong. For the rest, let's take this discussion as evidence who is the agressive troll here.
Well, the video above shows that you have no notable understanding of super symmetry to begin with. To use a nice German word, your attempts to attack it are "unbeholfen". Which is no wonder, given this blog post you don't even have basic understanding of quantum mechanics. blog.alexander-unzicker.com/?p=47 a blog post that would be embarrassing to write even for an undergraduate. You don't answer to the concrete criticism you got there either, just evade it with random quotes. Not much has changed in 6 years it seems.
@@Lukexxxxxx You sound like a bipolar troll, luke. I suggest upping the lithium and a few weeks vacation. So what if he's a high school teacher? How does that in any way detract from his claims?
Dr. Unzicker, you both scare me and enlighten me as a 24 year old Physicist in training. HEP touts their studies as the coolest, most fundamental, yet I believe everything you say about their scientific 'scheming'-especially after you evoked the ridiculousness of symmetry breaking that would discredit a mind such as Dirac. What a time to come of academic age in. You either are a part of the Particle cult or doing research that should be in the domain of engineering. I just want to do real Physics 😢
The truth is that the more we learn, the more we learn we dont know shit, and that we were wrong. But they do a really good job of rarely saying they are wrong, and they do a really good job of saying there right !. Fact is we have a lot to learn, but we always premote we know it all.
It never made sense to me that the spin of an electron should have a direction in the universe (to what?). Do you then believe in consciousness; further do you believe that human "evolution" is intelligence?
So-called "spin" is just a quantum number - it has nothing to do with any rotation. As such, the "direction" of the spin ("up" or "down") is simply a measure of the positivity or negativity of that number. It isn't a "direction in the universe".
@@gary.h.turner Spin 100% is a direction, and also refers to angular momentum, even if not a physical rotation.. It's a direction relative to the direction of the external magnetic field.
Yes but why are we discussing 'why' in observational physics. There are many things we don't know if you ask the why question. So I don't even like how this starts.
I´m not a scientist or a physicist, but in my own ignorance, I suspected what you put on the table. To me, science, especially Physics, was turning on a kind of magical story, where anything was possible and any kind of inventions was valid.
"Yes, I know that most of you can't read and almost none of you are fluent in Latin or Greek, but trust me...this is what the Scriptures say and mean." ~some priest to the townspeople in 1582. Edit: On re-reading my comment after post, I realized that what I was trying to convey is not obvious. My comment supports Alexander Unzicker's critique of particle physics.
Imagine if they tried to find supersymmetry at the level of the elements. The reason that the periodic table is not symmetric is because the elements are not fundamental and are made of smaller constituent particles. The same with current fermions and bosons, you won't find supersymmetry here because these are not primary particles either, some are made up of smaller particles called quarks, while others are single particles, so its like making a periodic table consisting of electrons, protons, ions with the elements. It's all hodgepodge and arbitrary. If you want to find supersymmetry, then you need to first of all get your cats in a row. Don't mix quark like particles with composite particles. Supersymmetry consists only of 10 quark like particles and they are the following: 1. up quark 2. down quark 3. up antiquark 4. down antiquark 5. electrons 6. positrons 7. W+ boson 8. W- boson 9. queer quark 10. photonic quark
"quark like with composite like" atomism is the sheer doom of alllll mankind. Faraday was BEYOND right when he said Magnetism is the dielectric field... much like saying, ice is the cold attribute of the h20 field, If you will, to loosely drape an analogy over what Faraday was saying ;) but what i've discovered is so much more elegant, and also allows quarks to exist. For what can quarks be but the boundary excitations of the two fundamental manifolds of the universe, the dielectric and the magnetic ;) one spatial, one counterspatial.
Yes, and terms like that to clarify the true status of many other aspects in the standard model are conveniently left out. If not, it might be obvious how deep in nonsense this has become. The seven deadly sins of poor scientific method and principle, nails it.
Danke, es hat mir schon Spaß gemacht, die Zitate (per Hand) abzuschreiben. Ich möchte, dass Sie wissen: Sie sind nicht allein in Ihre Skepsis im Bezug auf diesen Ideen der Elementarteilchen Physik.
People are innocent until proven guilty in court because only a positive can be proven. Negatives can never be disproven no matter how ridiculous they become. On the other hand when you talk about the universe math and theory are never actually correct.
so physicists are no different from politicians. The facts MUST conform to theory, going back to Galileo's trial = "e pur, si muove". Or like any politician does, change the facts until they do.
The first question, why did nature invent spin? I know the answer to this it's because it's the natural tendency of a vacuum (which is the inverse function of the real pressure within any real substantial body) to also seek equilibrium and because there is no equilibrium outside of being it has a tendency to spin around itself in circles indefinitely falling in to the next center of gravity only to realize there is no center and no stable position and therefore it has to keep going and this creates the spin.
Fine Structure Constant (e*/q)^2=(e/q)^2/2 =(e/25e/3)^2/2=(3/25)^2/2 =(9/625)/2=9/1250=7.2m Alpha=7.2m~1/139 q=Quantum Electric Constant M=Quantum Magnetic Wb/2P Planck's Constant h=qM Free Space z=M/q=375 Ohm
The audio problems are so distracting it difficult to concentrate on what he is saying. Some of that is cell phone interference which could be handled with shielded cables and/or balanced connections.
Fundamental physics is a realm where the more we find out the further we seem to drift from the ultimate goal of truly _understanding._ Yes, we find some encouraging and pretty results along the way. But, like religion, it all rests on and is driven by _faith_ - a belief that reality at its most fundamental level should in principle be _comprehensible to human minds._ Could that belief be a delusion?
I would put it the other way: the fact that we seem to drift away from understanding should make us more humble and let us consider the possibility that we are on the wrong path.
Beta decay attributed to the weak force is consistent with fantasy as most weak force interactions are not weak at all but quantum fluctuations of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal in space/time point source. Also the decay of the neutron in free space is attributed to a supposed weak force particle but has to do instead with state relaxation to mean after a space/time interval without interactions between quarks. The anti-particle of the neutron being no different than it's matter particle is proof of why the universe is composed of matter instead of anti-matter. So trying to invent a loop-string model of gravity will always fail because it is just the construction of warped space-time and not any graviton. It also is the factor in the inflation of the universe after 10^32nd time after inception because of space warpage due to so much gravity in such a tiny area space & time finally separates to become space/time.
I think I know why we have discovered multiple fermions and bosons, they are the previous versions of quarks and leptons in an expanding universe, I think this because of the mass and energy levels of these "generations" of "particles" in an "expanding universe", can an up quark and a top quark exist in the same ambient energy environment? No. If I get an uninflated balloon, tie a knot in the inlet pipe and put it in a vacuum chamber what happens, as the pressure decreases it inflates. If I put 1 fully inflated balloon and 1 uninflated balloon with a knot in it in the chamber what happens? The uninflated balloon inflates and the fully inflated balloon explodes, they can't both exist in the same vacuum chamber. The uninflated balloon represents an up quark and the inflated balloon represents a top quark. Of course as the universe expands top quarks don't explode (or do they?) They just change size and convert from top quarks 171.2 GeV/c² gradually into up quarks 2.4 MeV/c² with charm quarks 1.27 GeV/c² somewhere in between. I think of it like a single balloon in the chamber, at standard room pressure the balloon is an up quark, as the pressure decreases it becomes a charm quark then as we approach maximum vacuum it becomes a top quark. a balloon is a balloon regardless of its size, it's size is determined by environmental pressure, small, bigger, big. A quark is a quark regardless of its mass, its mass is determined by environmental energy levels, up, charm, top. One major difference between quarks and balloons is, as we reduce pressure on the outside of the balloon it expands whereas, as energy dissipates as the universe expands the quark loses mass and shrinks. It's all quite simple! Don't thank me, I'm British. CERN you can turn the machine off now.
Well I didn’t see any scientific arguments you had in you talk to refuse it . It is easy to make these kinda of videos and talks . Why don’t you spend your time to find out the right theory to explain nature then .
May I ask prof.Unzicker... Why the research is continuosly going "forward"(sarcasticaly),new math invented(not discovered),new theories published,and so on,and on. But the very real and foundational problems stand still,barely researched,barely funded,barely interesting! We have'nt move forward a bit for over a century when it comes to:measurement problem,QM interpretation,singularities in GR,gravity weakness,and so on,and on... How is this even possible? I can understand if these problems were put aside for a period,but most of these are centurie old now... Where do you find the main problem,and is it even possible to going forward without sorting at least a part of these before? Thank you! Your presentations are refreshing insight against mainstream flow!
Good question. One needs to took at history, it's also a matter of scientific culture. Something has changed profoundly from the natural philosophy approach around 1900 to the technology-oriented physics, especially after WWII.
One problem is money. There is a lot of money for certain problems and not for others. There is more money if there is any technological benefit. That happens now with quantum computing. There is money in the computing part, much less in the quantum part.
So interesting Im not a physicist but have loved it all my life and read about it a ton. This is very interesting to me. Ill never forget reading about String Theory and thinking it sounded like non sense . Especially since it cant ever be tested. I think people even if they arent experts have a intuitive sense if something is legit and logical. some of these theory's dont sound right
If you model a quantum gravity information carrier as a mixture of equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy, a gravity information dipole or quadrupole, a fundamental gravity field vector, then adding quantum mechanical spin as kinetic rotation gives a quantum of inertia to a particle that is otherwise massless. The interaction cross section does not need to be coupled to the wavelength expressed by the rotation rate, it need not interact like an ultralow energy photon with low frequency and needing an ultra-big antenna to detect, it can potentially run between baryons like long trains of gravity-information packet streams.
Dyson claimed that an accelerator the size of a solar system would be needed to detect Einstein's gravitons, he made the mistake of treating massless quantum gravity carriers like massless quantum E/M carriers, I think. Heisenberg led him astray, and gravity needs negative energy more than e.g. it needs reversed time. Small-sized field particles need not be high-energy outside of for making a light-based (E/M) field. He was invested in, and selling, a cosmological reach for general relativity a bit too hard for the long run, I suppose.
@@TheMachian These are my ideas relevant to replacing wormholes for explaining all entanglements, and eliminating much need for exotic dark matter particles. It's about allowing the effects of quanta of gravitational information flow to couple between individual baryons, whether they are almost touching or separated like at the center and edges of a galaxy, while maintaining constant interaction size in the process. An ultra-tiny amount of rotational inertia carried with an attractive mass-cancelling aspect of negative energy can explain why certain nice-looking largely circular bisymmetric galaxies can be considered to outline "quantum gravity wavelets." It can explain why modified gravity DM fans try to focus DM at the edges, with only limited success, while particle physics DM fans say DM is focused (denser) at the center. Micro-lensing algorithms can be very good at decoupling a central source from a concentric effect of such field rotation, micro-lensing-effects for gravity all essentially appear concentric, regardless if it is for a single point, a ring, or for a point surrounded by rings. Such quantum waves can be generated by light-speed quanta with phases frozen stationary as a function of radiated distance from their sources, unlike light where phases move as if frozen at light-speed. I can get as detailed about it as you want.
@@TheMachian Theories based on general relativity, where gravity's negative potential energy field (a pulling effect that can be abstracted algorithmically into streams of six tensors (six field vectors) momentarily collapsing/spreading-out over six points of contact) is essentially collapsing on a particle, or on a particle sub-volume, can lose a lot of non-uniformly-radiated gravitational information vector field information at ultra-low energies and at ultra-long distances. Not only a DM halo, but DM filaments supposedly exist, these can be seen as aspects of quanta that can be focused on a source's equatorial plane evenly but differently from the poles. "Gravito-magnetism" (surprisingly strong Lense-Thirring modification, I suppose) or some kind of "gravito-electromagnetism" I am not familiar with yet, are lately getting the credit for replacing DM with gravity enhancements added to GR, but adding to GR to eliminate DM effects is misguided - for reasons already noted.
@@TheMachian Not that light can't be curved, but I prefer to replace curved spacetime consistently at the quantum level and beyond with a vector field in Euclidean space and with a variable light-speed where light is faster in higher gravity while blue-shift there of course happens, but nonetheless wavelength effectively stays frozen in the moving frame of the light energy. I am suggesting sacrificing constant "c" in order to create fewer variables in the realistically-dispersed non-point-like overall factors of interest, believing the simplest mappings based on these ideas can be fully isomorphic with GR.
@@onderozenc4470 You made an assertion. So I wanted to know if you understood what you were talking bout. Also can u explain what vectoral entities are?
@@curiosityzero2151 Vectoral entities involved in symmetry mainly are : mirror frame, trnslation, angular momentum, spin and rotation . Non-vectoral(scaler)entity is : charge and maybe "time" in the Fourier transform. But, for energy, I doubt that we can have a symmetry unless we know about what "negative energy"is such as "negative kinetic energy", ain't it ?. Nonetheless, for entropy, "negative entropy "might be possible , so might the symmetry.
@@onderozenc4470 WHAT?? Please explain to me what Noether's theorem really is and how it is related to symmetry. Also, "Emmy Noether"s definition of symmetry should not include energy. Symmetry is pertinent only to vectoral entities. " this sentence makes no sense to me. Why do you think so?
Have any of the efforts behind collider physics contributed to society? Does any of this science bring us closer to a functioning fusion reactor? It doesn’t appear to have helped because fusion is still 10 years away. A lot of precious resources have been wasted. Unfortunately, civilization is still largely run on fossil fuels. Of which, production has peaked. We can’t be wasting any more of these precious non renewable resources on this.
The minimalistic standard model is too complicated to be credible? You lost me right there. You know any model that does the same job with more simplicity? It is hard to imagine.
