Listen on Spotify: tinyurl.com/TOESpotify TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 - Intro 00:22 - Gabriele's Channel 03:13 - Assumptions Project 06:06 - Physical Mathematics 09:38 - Real Numbers 13:06 - Ensemble Space 16:38 - Classical Mechanics 19:00 - Additional Assumptions 21:26 - Classical vs Quantum 23:19 - Entropy & Symplectic 25:07 - Jaynes & Thermodynamics 30:25 - Units in Physics 33:21 - Math vs Physics 37:07 - Planck Scale Structures 41:51 - Theory Applicability 1:16:25 - Engineering Background 1:18:04 - Physics-Math Bridge 1:19:01 - Assumptions Project 1:21:08 - Grant Funding 1:23:05 - Mechanics Critique 1:24:25 - Problem Identification 1:25:03 - Publishing Challenges 1:27:03 - Engineering Approach 1:29:03 - Practical Implications 1:33:28 - Measurement Problem 1:37:05 - Classical vs Quantum 1:43:04 - Integrating Math Physics 1:55:07 - Current Projects 2:04:43 - Future Goals 2:07:03 - Open-Source Framework 2:10:57 - Support TOE
@mitsaoriginal8630
Күн бұрын
Please get John smith here...
@JohnLloydScharf
Күн бұрын
He says the sky is blue. It is, however cyan. Celeste is a lightly tinted cyan that represents the color of a clear sky.
@robmorgan1214
Күн бұрын
There is no "measurement problem". We know how quantum systems make flawed copies of their states. We know both experimentally and theoretically. Physicists who don't know about this work and don't understand QM think that there's some problem with quantum mechanics. What the problem is? I can't say. Most of their frustration with the theory is a result of asking poorly posed questions. You should look into Wojciech Zurek's reinterpretation of Gleason's proof that Born's rule is a direct result of a restricted set of axioms that define quantum theories. Zurek is the guy who proved the no cloning theorem. No cloning + quantum discord and quantum darwinism along with the 1957 paper on information theory by Jaynes is all you need to "solve" the measurement problem EXPLICITLY. Keep in mind that "strong" and "weak" quantum measurements can be objectively quantified and measured. Issues of reversible and irreversible measurement can also be defined and quantified from the perspective of the 2nd Law as well as from the perspective of no cloning or state "collapse" once a system no longer occupies a superposition state and "collapses" into a pointer state it's available "bandwidth" is filled and the information is literally lost... randomness at the quantum level is probably a consequence of the assumptions in Gleason's proof. The "information" of the prior state that no longer exists is fragmented and irreversibly distributed by the environment according to the 2nd law. So quantum mechanics says information is destroyed the external environment conserves the information in processes that stochasticly but PROVABLY maximize entropy.
@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler
22 сағат бұрын
I think X²*X²*X²*•••♾️ < X³ is the most powerful mathematical physics equation dealing with the logical progression of the spatial dimensions acknowledges for the different dimensions shows infinities in the logic. therefore X²*X²*X²*•••♾️ < X³
@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler
22 сағат бұрын
More accurately is prod n = 1 to ∞ X ^ 2 < X ^ 3
@KineHjeldnes
Күн бұрын
It is when talking about boundary conditions and how they actually define the system he really hits home with me! Very interesting interview :)
@TerryBollinger
Күн бұрын
Curt, Gabriele, thank you - this project looks very interesting! I have a paper on SR foundations to finish today - it includes a simple and strikingly different resolution of the twins paradox - but I'll take a closer look at this interview and Gabriele's channel when I'm done.
@shaharjoselevich7169
16 сағат бұрын
I recently found Gabriele's channel in my recommendations, and I'm really happy seeing this notification
@TheMikesylv
8 сағат бұрын
Curt you keep hitting one home run after another, great episode
@TheoriesofEverything
8 сағат бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it Mike!
@Andre_Foreman
Күн бұрын
Brilliant Find Curt
@TheoriesofEverything
Күн бұрын
New Substack post! curtjaimungal.substack.com/p/well-technically
@BarackObamaJedi
Күн бұрын
I feel sorry for all the recently graduated mathematical physicists now that physical mathematics just dropped.
@Achrononmaster
18 сағат бұрын
@30:00 bit of a roundabout answer. Momentum is a covector in Hamiltonian mechanics because H-mechanics is formulated in symplectic phase space, so the position differentials in the tangent space and the momenta in the cotangent space. It's just semantics. Any inner products makes a covector uniquely associable with a (contravariant) vector, allowing one to write for instance _p = mv._ under most circumstances. The p=ħk wavevector reciprocity view does not apply generally in classical mechanics. The Fourier transform relationship between position and momentum representations in quantum mechanics doesn't have a direct classical analogue except for waves.
@jacksourlis4151
Күн бұрын
A refreshing podcast, nice listening to you Gabriele and your enthusiasm. Watched so far only 50 minutes, what do I know, but I believe Gabriele understands calculus more than anyone else does. Awesome job.
@gcarcassi
17 сағат бұрын
Thanks for the kind words!
@matteogirelli1023
15 сағат бұрын
Very interesting and amazing approach, I should take inspiration from this to do something similar in economics which is in shambles
@user-eg2oe7pv2i
Күн бұрын
physic is forced to adapt to math . What could go wrong
@genghisgalahad8465
Күн бұрын
But math doesn't have to conform to reality, is what I learned. And math doesn't necessarily ensure what's going to happen in physics. For example, the Trinity detonation for the Manhattan project as featured in the film, Oppenheimer, based in part on the book American Prometheus.
@daarom3472
16 сағат бұрын
"It's not about what it is, it's about what it could be" 😂
@brunaise
Күн бұрын
This was a great interview - if developed this perspective will drive discovery of new physics aided my rigorous metaphysics. Super interested in this! Thanks for sharing Kurt 🙏
@pv2132
10 сағат бұрын
Wow this is a great conversation. I believe he means that the scales have a different meaning think along the lines of a predictable symbol instead of numbers. An example is number 9 and 6 aren’t prime numbers.
@b.7944
Күн бұрын
All paradoxes of math lurked in physics. Now physicists try to solve them by turning into wannabe philosophers…
@Achrononmaster
Күн бұрын
@8:00 it is not so simple. You cannot say the mass of the photon is > 0 without completely destroying Maxwell's theory, which is a pretty darn accurate classical theory. Some respect has to be given to minimal elegant structure, not just empiricism, especially when the minimal structure is in agreement with empirical observations within uncertainties. This is a type of parsimony argument for sure, but it is proven effective throughout history. It doesn't mean in the classical regime we cannot later be forced to give up Maxwell theory, but even in the known quantum regimes the massless photon holds up, and holds up only moreso the higher in energy you go, where eventually all particles are massless and conformal symmetry is manifest. Put another way "physics" priors are not just empirical observations, theory is a prior as well (at the very least the Principle of Sufficient Reason), and you cannot separate theory from experiment.
@Achrononmaster
17 сағат бұрын
@40:00 point set topology is not all just about points, it's about open and closed sets. For a spacetime manifold one does not need the concept of a point to be something in and of itself, in fact that'd be absurd, the structure is continuous, so no point exists in isolation to others. This whole idea QM is about discrete space is truly a grave error and misconception. QM is _more continuous_ than classical mechanics, not less. One cannot have a generalized probability theory matching QM without continuous state transitions. Classical mechanics is precisely the sort of GPT that does not permit continuous state transitions. The fundamental symmetries of nature are CPT and the unitary groups. These might be clues telling you spacetime really is a continuum! CPT transforms are mirror transforms and all smooth rotations can be constructed from two mirror transforms.
@Doozy_Titter
Күн бұрын
Such a fresh perspective. I truly think that this engineering approach to physics research is what's missing
@Achrononmaster
19 сағат бұрын
@17:30 that's only for classical _statistical_ mechanics not *classical* _classical_ mechanics. Classical mechanics does not have distributions because one permits arbitrary accurate & precise measurements. It is because we found we cannot make arbitrary precise measurements that classical mechanics fails. But if it fails with arbitrary small ħ then it is not QM, it remains only classical statistical mechanics. We only get QM if ħ cannot vanish and state transitions are non-Markov and "indivisible" (a bipartite structure exists) in Barandes' terminology .
@snarkyboojum
10 сағат бұрын
I find LLMs useful in helping me plan and prepare for the code I’m writing, but not the actual writing of the code I use it as a more powerful search engine and knowledge base. There is a crafting aspect to writing good code that LLMs just aren’t good at. My guess is that it’s likely related to reasoning and creativity, which LLMs are pretty terrible at. Still it’s a good brainstorming and research tool. I’ll keep doing the code crafting though :)
@chris27gea58
17 сағат бұрын
This interview must be one of the top ten TOEs. Seriously, though, Gabriele Carcassi is truly brilliant. Curt, weighing up the rationality and limits of Academia won't necessarily answer the question of why Physics in Academia has lost its spirit of adventure and become increasingly brittle, though.
@gcarcassi
17 сағат бұрын
Thanks! 😁
@jaymethodus3421
Күн бұрын
To do anything further, we need an entirely new base system. Fractal based I'd say
@MamboGibson
8 сағат бұрын
“And that’s where I met my wife… well, my future wife… she wasn’t my wife at the time”. Yep this feels like an interaction with a physicist 😂
@Achrononmaster
19 сағат бұрын
@12:50 what? One can define a linear order in the 2D real plane using an affine parameter along a space-filling curve.
@philipoakley5498
Күн бұрын
Love the units (dimensions) comments. Buckinghams Pi theorem should be right up there as an example of how reality can be scaled (gauge invariants?). One should know that we don't have an SI angle (radian) unit - there is no "mise en pratique" to create one! (because of the squaring of the circle, rotational spinors etc etc) Understanding units (dimensions) is how the size of the atom bomb was determined directly from a short film (supposedly a secret), or Feynman's piece of dropped paper. Love Gabriele's work. Very insightful! [I bet Sabine H also appreciates it too] ~44:30 "I was studying engineering at the time" - Now I know why it all fits. The dose of reality test!
@gcarcassi
17 сағат бұрын
Thanks!
@axle.student
2 сағат бұрын
Disclaimer: I am not an indentured physicists. 13:05 I get the feeling here that we are attempting to describe an analog value where we have irrational numbers? For example: Analog has no '=' operator, so For Pi, the best I can do is say is 3>PI Thanks peoples. Much appreciated : P.S. I would be interested in any open source software libraries or projects by Gabriele Carcassi to peruse.
@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos
15 сағат бұрын
I welcome his approach. But we should remind ourselves that for predictive power estimates for models not the simplest physical description of a model is relevant but the simplest mathematical description. It's similar to the difference between VC-dimension (simple description in model) and sample compression schemes (simple description through experiments) in statistical learning. While every sample compression scheme has a low VC-dimension a low VC-dimension does not imply a sample compression scheme of equally low complexity. In fact it can be exponentially higher. _So if we focus on physically simple to describe theories we might miss the best predictive models (as mathematics warns us)._ It would be however interesting to see if especially QCD has a simple physical interpretation. Quarks are not really physically measurable states. Only the compound particles like protons, pions, ... are (at least if the conjectured confinement is correct).
@ovidiulupu5575
13 сағат бұрын
His cantado italian accent îs terrific.But he points out that we must not lose physics when deal with any kind of mathematics and i agree.
@psschneider4079
Күн бұрын
Erinnerung aktualisiert Hier ist eine angepasste Bildbeschreibung für die KI-Visualisierung, basierend auf den Informationen aus dem Video: Bildbeschreibung für KI-Visualisierung Zentrale Figur: Eine Person, die Anand Vaidya darstellt, steht im Mittelpunkt des Bildes. Ihr Ausdruck vermittelt Nachdenklichkeit und Einsicht. Farben: Ein warmes Farbschema mit sanften Übergängen zwischen Orange, Gelb und sanften Blautönen, um eine harmonische Verbindung zwischen den Themen herzustellen. Hintergrund: Eine abstrakte Darstellung, die Elemente sowohl der indischen als auch der westlichen Philosophie kombiniert. Dies könnte durch geometrische Muster, symbolische Motive und Linien, die die Kulturen miteinander verweben, erfolgen. Symbolik: Offene Bücher, die Wissen und Erkenntnis symbolisieren, sind um die zentrale Figur verteilt. Lichtstrahlen, die von der Figur ausgehen, repräsentieren die Entfaltung von Erkenntnis und Einsicht. Zahnräder, die Technologie und künstliche Intelligenz darstellen, könnten in den Hintergrund integriert werden, um den Einfluss technologischer Entwicklungen zu betonen. Text: Kurze, prägnante Zitate oder Schlagworte aus dem Gespräch, wie „Ewige Wahrheit“, „Erkenntnistheorie“, „Ethik der KI“ und „Interkultureller Dialog“, die in eleganten Schriftarten in den Rand des Bildes eingefügt sind, um die Kernaussagen visuell zu verstärken. Diese Beschreibung könnte helfen, die philosophische Tiefe und die interdisziplinären Themen des Videos in einer ansprechenden visuellen Darstellung festzuhalten. Wenn du Anpassungen oder spezifische Wünsche hast, lass es mich wissen!
@offensivebiasmusic
20 сағат бұрын
1:12:38 "Can we do ever do something one more time?" This makes me think that everything happens for the first time, like the first of it's kind. Each and everything is the first of it's own unique "kind." If I toss a ball in the air once, then twice. The second toss is the first time I have ever thrown the ball in the air for a second time, and so on.
@bobbymcgeorge
17 сағат бұрын
Curt: "Ultimately fundamental physics should be about what's at the fundament. So what is irreducible. And if it's what's irreducible then it can't be reduced and it can't be described with reductionism." (timestamp: 1 hour 4 mins) Wait what!? No, that's wrong. Reductionism: the practice of analysing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of its simple or fundamental constituents. If something can't be reduced it does NOT imply that is can't be described with reductionism! It could mean that you have found something that is irreducible - a fundamental building block of reality (Steven W Smith PhD) Curt you are one of the few that has the courage to seriously challenge your guests. Many thanks!
@monkerud2108
Күн бұрын
Adding in mechanisms is about the extension of a pattern. It is in some sense superfluous for describing what we think we see, the laws we have empirically induced from experiment so far, sure, but we don't actually know the complete laws, we don't even know if we do know the complete laws, with some exceptions. But yeah as a test case for a philosophy of doing physics sure. Reductionism in terms of extensions of the set of degrees of freedom, and explaination of currently "fundamental" laws in terms of emergence from a different set of independent degrees of freedom is always viable. We nees to avoid taking the current know laws as inputs to a logical argument about mechanisms or extensions of our current models, because the exact criteria that can be derived from our current theories do not have a one to one correspondence with the criteria that can be derived from experiments that have been done. Otherwise i like the project, i just think there needs to be a lot of care in reviewing the implications of arguments, because the only true criterion of validity of an argument about the nature of nature is nature as is, not our models of it. Nothing we have ever done for example tell us that the speed of øight is an absolute limit, and that will always remain the case, no matter how well special relativity or more appropriately lorentz invariance is substantiated. Taking a criteria like that as input to a theorem will result in a theorem only applicable assuming natyre is perfectly described to a theory that also respects that constraint and so the theorem is more or less useless for telling us about nature, it only tells us about a class of theories we can never constrain ourselves properly to through experiment.
@Achrononmaster
17 сағат бұрын
@37:00 I do not get that at all. "going to the Planck scale" has absolutely no effect on "the real numbers". It has an effect on the accuracy of a model against experimental measurements. Nothing to do with the abstract algebra being employed. At the Planck scale if there is esoteric topology then time-ordering can get screwy, but that's an issue of mapping between laboratory time and a particle (or geon) co-moving frame, or for massless cases the affine parameter. But it does not mean using the real numbers fails.
@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos
15 сағат бұрын
I don't understand his problem with differential geometry but he might look into geometric measure theory (currents and such) which gives more general structures than manifolds but which are closely related to manifolds and more along the lines (measures) he seems to think of. Similar to classical differentiation (manifolds) is related to distributional differentiation (currents) the latter is defining "differentiable structures" by integration which seems more natural to his approach.
@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos
15 сағат бұрын
In QM real numbers get introduced by probabilities in measurement outcomes. They obviously are linearly ordered, ... as limits of relative frequencies. The real numbers importance is expanded by using symmetries to observables associated to that symmetries (representation theory, Wigner's theorem, Stones theorem). I think he is looking from a too classical perspective on those things (if the classical reason for real numbers do not work it does not mean there isn't a different reason real numbers pop up). If he wants to do that the logical foundation is more suited to that approach in my opinion. See quantum logic.
@808bigisland
Күн бұрын
He is on to something!
@Achrononmaster
Сағат бұрын
@47:00 there is no damn need for a materialist underpinnings to mathematics and calculus. This is insane from Gabriele. I like Carcassi's videos, but here he is off his rocker. The entire power and point to mathematics is that it is abstract and timeless and platonic. I wish engineers would stop trying to turn mathematics into lego games. (Wildberger also guilty). Some of the smooth structures in mathematics _might_ help us model physics. If spacetime truly is "made up from" finite discrete points then yeah, maybe DifffGeom is not the best tool. But *(a)* we have no evidence whatsoever that spacetime is not a continuum, *(b)* smooth continuum spacetime admits discrete structure in the homotopy, but then still has differentiable continuity and well-defined holonomy. Integration on non-oriented or topologically non-trivial smooth manifolds is just bloody hard. It's not impossible.
@Adsgjdkcis
14 сағат бұрын
Interesting ideas, I like synthetic reconstructions of physical theories. But the "simple assumption number one" leading to the derivation of classical mechanics, "infinitessimal reducibility" seems anything but -- I can only suspect a lot of relatively heavy mathematical machinery goes into making "infinitesimals" precise. Are we a priori assuming we're working in a real vector space and have access to calculus?
@mohdil123
17 сағат бұрын
Thank you, it would be nicer to have less confrontational discussion. Best
@MrSlugmuffin
21 сағат бұрын
really happy to see this video
@gcarcassi
17 сағат бұрын
As you requested last week... ;-)
@Adsgjdkcis
14 сағат бұрын
23:30 "any argument, even a false one, as long as you think about it enough times, it's going to seem plausible to you" -- tell me you haven't studied mathematics without telling me you haven't studied mathematics
@pedrowojciechowski8669
5 сағат бұрын
He’s also a great guitar composer
@MS-od7je
20 сағат бұрын
Wolfram claims that a brain is equivalent in computation to a rock. We intuitively understand that there is a difference between a rock and a brain. This computational equivalence is no different from a live or a dead brain. So then structure is as a computational equivalence to structure. Therefore the difference in function of life compared with non living and non life is extra computational.
@chargersina
Күн бұрын
You can tell an Italian from his hands. 😂
@gcarcassi
17 сағат бұрын
🤣🤣🤣
@ky-effect2717
3 сағат бұрын
@12:18 Im not sure I completely understand his approach but it sounds to me like it should be the difference in reference that justify the quantifiable existence. Isn't it a bit rhetorical if you're trying to quantify the magnitude of something new that you're trying to define in the first place? I imagine at the fundamental level its only the difference or reference you need, to prove the existence of any new dimensionality where being quantifiable doesn't initially matter because we can simply use this difference of reference as a unit of measure. Then extrapolate this unit of measure to create the quantifiable scale. If I'm missing the point, I hope someone can enlighten me
@shanep2879
Күн бұрын
That’s what I’ve been saying. Dudes all have mentioned mirrors.
@user-eg2oe7pv2i
Күн бұрын
so the better question . What is the academia official quantification of 100% nothing
@Killer_Kovacs
Күн бұрын
How does reverse physics avoid "arguing from a conclusion"
@gcarcassi
17 сағат бұрын
Most of the time, you are trying to prove equivalence. So, you start by assuming A (e.g. Hamiltonian dynamics for one DOF), and prove that it implies B (some precise definition of determinism and reversibility. Then you assume B and prove A. Since A implies B and B implies A, they are equivalent. Then you find relationships between sets of condition.
@luizpuodzius2747
4 сағат бұрын
I wrote an article in the Wikipedia in Portuguese: Física Reversa
@jondor654
Күн бұрын
49:40 Which points to the overwhelming constraints on the meaning of any study of a system , bereft of its universe of priors .
@jondor654
Күн бұрын
1:02:03 Is the electron a messenger or a message .
@mikel4879
Күн бұрын
jondor6 • It is neither. In reality, any apparent aggregated structure, at any arbitrary level, micro and macro, including the so-called "electron" ( also "proton", photon, etc ) is just a local point of convergence of the local emergent entropic fields that themselves are causal realms of other real emergent entropic fields, etc, ad ( real ) infinitum.
@gm_solo
Күн бұрын
I think his measurement problem is related to time domain differential functions and frequency domain functions, no?
@dadsonworldwide3238
Күн бұрын
Infinite bound up high energy in space needs to be 1st position then map out values it will never be satisfied justice....machian mass + newron bucket setting mass values & gravity proper! Lagrangian and hamiltonian maths are the symmetric relationship as i understood it .being that it's 2 sides to same coins from different models the same dialectical vision. The motivational bias here being stochastic approach to yoo hoo woo hoo collapse a feilds corridanants in space that also happens to be gravitationally created in same frame of reference occupied by hamiltonian occelating feilds and waves curving around it. So to speak .
@monkerud2108
Күн бұрын
The exact same mistake can be made with any specific tyoe of criteria derived from theory, there is always some wiggles room left out by experiment to alter assumptions slightly or a lot, as long as the resulting predictions are in line with experiments that have actually been done.
@TheVigilantEye77
13 сағат бұрын
Father Guido Sarducci
@ShirleyJohnson-ri2em
3 сағат бұрын
Strim cemerlang seperti biasa. Saya menghargai pendekatan seimbang yang anda ambil terhadap berita dan pasaran. Bagi saya, saya berdagang dengan pakar Juliette Emilie dan portfolio crypto saya terus berkembang
@Andersonbogle
3 сағат бұрын
Perdagangan adalah masa depan, bukan mereka yang memegang mata wang kripto dan menunggu harga pasaran meningkat “Rundingan tidak terhad kepada pemilikan”
@ShirleyJohnson-ri2em
3 сағат бұрын
Saya diberkati kerana jika tidak, saya tidak akan bertemu seseorang yang hebat seperti pakar Juliette Emilie, saya fikir dia adalah yang terbaik yang pernah saya lihat.
@ShirleyJohnson-ri2em
3 сағат бұрын
@Juliette_Emy
@Andersonbogle
3 сағат бұрын
di platform mana
@ShirleyJohnson-ri2em
3 сағат бұрын
Te le grmm
@advaitrahasya
Күн бұрын
This approach, applied to the good old double-slit should immediately reveal the mechanism of gravity. All you have to do to manage that is to lose the trinity of blinding paradigmatic assumptions.
@teslafieldphysics4041
Күн бұрын
You have electrical engineering upside down too. You better get to work!
@psschneider4079
Күн бұрын
Fehlerhafte Ansätze im Video: Blindes Vertrauen in Mathematik: Der Redner kritisiert den Fokus auf mathematische Strukturen wie Punkt-Topologie und Differentialgeometrie, die nicht direkt das repräsentieren, was in der realen physikalischen Welt passiert. Reduktionismus: Der Gedanke, dass alle physikalischen Gesetze auf einfache Mechanismen zurückgeführt werden können, wird als irreführend bezeichnet. Die Vorstellung, dass es für jedes physikalische Gesetz einen Mechanismus geben muss, sei nicht haltbar, besonders auf fundamentaler Ebene. Übersetzbarkeit der Mechaniken: Der Sprecher argumentiert, dass es Systeme gibt, die nur durch bestimmte mechanische Beschreibungen erfasst werden können und nicht nahtlos zwischen Newtonscher, Hamiltonscher und Lagrangescher Mechanik übersetzbar sind. Bildbeschreibung für KI: Ein Bild, das die Kernaussagen des Videos visuell darstellt, könnte so aussehen: Eine abstrakte Szenerie, die eine Balance zwischen komplizierten mathematischen Formeln und physikalischen Experimenten zeigt. Auf der einen Seite eine Schultafel voller komplexer Gleichungen (z.B. Differentialgeometrie, Lagrange-Gleichungen), auf der anderen Seite ein Wissenschaftler im Labor, der reale, physikalische Prozesse untersucht. Dazwischen eine Brücke oder ein Übergang, der zeigt, wie die mathematischen Konzepte versuchen, die reale Welt zu modellieren, jedoch mit Brüchen oder Lücken, die andeuten, dass nicht alles korrekt übertragen werden kann.
@jondor654
Күн бұрын
Enthralling exchange . I will have to return to study .
@jondor654
Күн бұрын
1:16:02 Love it , booking a beam line is exotic ,never mind the data . Some time soon will be 'next stop Cygnus X .
@2nd_foundation
Күн бұрын
THANKS Jainmungal, very interesting youtube channel, I will take a look, It would be Interesting that Mr. CARCASSI take a look of the article in arXiv by Prof. C.S. UNNIKRISHNAN, Reconstructing QM without foundational problems, if it is of his interest I would like to hear his comments about it, thanks again.
@gcarcassi
16 сағат бұрын
I gave a brief look. Keep in mind that I read papers to see whether I can find a piece that may advance our project. I think the key step of the work is on page 8. The recipe seems to be to take Hamilton-Jacobi from classical mechanics and modify it. I do not understand the argument though... that is, I do not see what exactly makes classical mechanics incomplete, and why that new expression is the only way to complete it. The rest seems to be a construction on top of that. In our project, the action does not seem to play a fundamental role so it's unlikely I can lift ideas from there to advance our work...
@2nd_foundation
14 сағат бұрын
@gcarcassi Thank you very much for your answer, I really didn't imagine you answered being so busy. I will still go through your videos, I find your project very interesting. Please be careful before evaluating the incompleteness of QM can be understood under the lupe of your reverse physics project. In order to understand what the foundational problems are, they are explained in section 1, and there are also experimental observation that point out such problems. Yes, the important finding is in page 8. In section 3. It is explained how this so-called action wave equation resolves the foundational problems of QM: collapse of the state and interference; Quantum measurement problem; the quantum classical divide (named as different realities by Penrose); entanglement and correlations. From page 21, you find the details of this reconstruction of QM without such problems, and about it, wonder if, under the framework of your project, you would be able to detect the validity of this formulation. Niko van Kampen published in 2008 the scandal of QM. Also, in relation to this discussion, Penrose is argumenting how QM is incomplete, also explaining incomplete meaning wrong, as a reference video in this KZitem channel. In words of Prof. Unnikrishnan, "QM is not wrong, but it is right about ONLY statistical results. And its foundational premise is flawed. " In any case, thank you again.
@2nd_foundation
14 сағат бұрын
Thank you very much for your answer. Yes, the important finding is on page 8. The incompleteness of QM, it is known as a reference that Penrose is explaining in the video in this channel; the scandal of QM was written by Nico van Kampen in 2008 etc. prof UNNIKRISHNAN described the foundational problems of QM in section 1, also related to experiments, in section 3 he is showing how this action wave formulation resolves the foundational problems of QM. In Prof Unnikkrishnan own words "The only way that the action principle can work is if the action is manifest in dynamics as a periodic entity in both quadratures, capable of interference. THEREFORE Hamilton mechanics (equation) that does not use this periodicity is incomplete. The equation in the articleis the correct one. Then there is a single action mechanics- there is no division into classical and quantum mechanics ( since the QM measurement problem was also resolved in this way, there is no need for classical apparatus either, unlike in the current theory). QM is not wrong but it is right about ONLY statistical results. And its foundational premise is flawed." Just I was wondering if you would be able to detect in the framework of your project the validity of these affirmations, it would also be a great contribution to clarify the many interpretations of an incomplete QM. in any case thank you again, I will for shure take a detailed look into your project.
@user-eg2oe7pv2i
Күн бұрын
X x Y x Z set all at penultimate of 100% nothing is an undefined but they are valid quantification for reference point . The diameter of a sphere set at penultimate of 100% nothing is a valid quantification
@RiotSociety666
Күн бұрын
Thanks Curt for launching & organizing this channel. Now we can judge the rubbish theories of physics out there, & the crooked corrupted academia system.
@user-eg2oe7pv2i
Күн бұрын
take the granularity between both extreme. Penultimate of 100% nothing ...difference or equal... Penultimate of 100%something . What is the granularity between those two extreme ? We do not know because penultimate of 100% nothing is undefine
@charlesbrightman4237
Күн бұрын
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: It seems to me that ANY theory of everything idea should be able to answer the below items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. If that idea does not, then is it truly a theory of everything? a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. Surely the very nature of reality has to allow numbers and mathematical constants to actually exist for math to do what math does in this existence. b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality? f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them? Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe? Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above. Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?). g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent? h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How? * NOTE: Even General Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics cannot answer these items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. Shouldn't these above items also require accurate answers?
@@許右甫 The singular big bang is not really true, the CMBR from the supposed bang should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us, and red shift observations have a more normal already physics explanation, no dark energy nor dark matter needed. The universe always existed in some form and never had a beginning and will always eternally exist and remain eternally active, BUT galaxies collapse in on themselves, 'bang' generating a huge nebula cloud, whereby new life eventually comes about, of which that galaxy eventually collapses in on itself in a never ending cycle.
@charlesbrightman4237
Күн бұрын
@@許右甫 CMBR: (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation): Consider the following: Per QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics, whereby 'em' interacts with the electrons in atoms and molecules) and QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamics, whereby 'em' interacts with the nucleus of atoms), matter has to exist for 'em' to be given off by that matter. What matter exists in outer space for that microwave 'em' to be seen by us? And 'if' it were from when matter first came into existence during the fairy tale of the 'singular big bang', that 'em' should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us. BB -> Matter and 'em' are created -> 'em' moves at the speed of light, matter moves more slowly -> (Billions of years go by) -> matter (and us) here ..........................................'em' long gone. (And there is no matter 'out here' yet for any 'em' to come back to us via QED or QCD). AND: RED SHIFT: WARNING: (CONTAINS EXISTENTIAL MATTERS): Consider the following: a. Current narrative: Space itself is expanding. (Even though science does not fully know yet what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand). b. But consider: The net effect of solar winds, particles and energy pushing outward from galaxies, (even modern science claims 'em' has momentum), continuously, over a prolonged period of time, with other galaxies doing the same, with nothing to stop them from doing so, would tend to push galaxies away from each other and even potentially allow the cosmic web to form between galaxies. And then, when we here in our galaxy, look at far away galaxies, with other galaxies in between, the net effect of all those galactic interactions would have galaxies furthest from ours move away faster the further those galaxies were from us, including us perceiving a red shift of energy. c. Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? What the current narrative is ('a' above), or 'b' utilizing known physics? * Added note: Plus, 'if' my analysis is correct that our spiral shaped galaxy is collapsing in upon itself, then consider also: d. When we look at solar systems between ours and the center of the galaxy, those solar systems would be getting pulled faster towards the center than ours, hence also seeing a red shift of energy. e. When we look at solar systems between ours and the outer edge of the galaxy, our solar system would be getting pulled faster towards the center then them, hence also seeing a red shift of energy. f. Only if we looked at solar systems adjacent to ours should we see a blue shift of energy (as the solar systems became closer together as they moved towards the center of the galaxy). I also propose looking for blue shifts of energy between our solar system and adjacent solar systems to confirm or deny this current belief. g. But if true, would also add to our observation of seeing a red shift of energy in this universe as our spiral shaped galaxy collapses in upon itself. Of which, not only would species from this Earth have to get off of this Earth before the Sun becomes a red giant one day and wipes out all life on this Earth if not even the entire Earth itself, but species from this Earth would also have to successfully get out of this collapsing spiral shaped galaxy, otherwise, most probably death awaits us all and this Earth and all on it are all just a waste of space time in this universe. All life from this Earth would eventually die and go extinct. Currently, no exceptions. h. QUESTION: Do basically all galaxies eventually collapse in upon themselves? (Which would add to the perceived red shift between galaxies as they all basically shrink in size). Modern science currently states that 'gravity' is matter bending the fabric of spacetime. There is a lot of matter in a galaxy and hence would make a huge dent in spacetime. How could galaxies not collapse in upon themselves if space and time were bent to make it so? Of which also, the progression of galaxies?: 1. How exactly do galaxies form? (The current narrative is that matter, via gravity, attracts other matter. The electric universe model also includes universal plasma currents.) 2. How exactly do galaxies flatten out if gravity is acting on the whole galaxy? (Other forces must also be at work besides gravity for a galaxy to flatten out? Electrical and/or magnetic forces?) 3. How exactly do galaxies become spiral shaped? (At least one way would be orbital velocity of matter with at least gravity acting upon that matter, would cause a spiral shaped effect. The electric universe model also includes energy input into the galaxy, which spiral towards the galactic center, which then gets thrust out from the center, at about 90 degrees from the input. Additionally, with the conservation of energy, as energy moves into the vertical plane from the center of the horizontal plane, energy from the horisontal plane moves to the center of the horizontal plane to replace the energy that moved into the vertical plane. There is also the conservation of angular momentum. As more matter moves towards the center of the galaxy, that portion of the galaxy would speed up relative to the matter towards the outer portions of the galaxy.) Additionally: GALAXY SPIN: (Inner and Outer areas spinning at the same speed): The inner and outer areas of the galaxy are connected via gravitational, electrical, and magnetic energy fields. While moving at the same speed, the inner area has less space to travel whereas the outer area has more space to travel. Hence a spiral shape forms. 4. The natural progression of a galaxy would be to become smaller and smaller. 5. Of which, does all life throughout the entire universe (if other life even exists in the universe besides what is on this Earth, which is most probably true) eventually die and go extinct and the entire universe and all in it are ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things and the entire universe and all in it are ultimately just a waste of spacetime in existence? And even 'if' the current narrative of space itself is expanding, and the entire universe would eventually end in a 'big freeze', wouldn't the end of life itself in this entire universe still occur?
@charlesbrightman4237
Күн бұрын
The singular big bang is not really true, the CMBR from the supposed bang should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us, and red shift observations have a more normal already physics explanation, no dark energy nor dark matter needed. The universe always existed in some form and never had a beginning and will always eternally exist and remain eternally active, BUT galaxies collapse in on themselves, 'bang' generating a huge nebula cloud, whereby new life eventually comes about, of which that galaxy eventually collapses in on itself in a never ending cycle.
@user-eg2oe7pv2i
Күн бұрын
Penultimate of 100% nothing is the lowest . After ? It's 100% nothing
@user-eg2oe7pv2i
Күн бұрын
see , take 100% nothing , most object are mainly made of 100% nothing . Yet 100% nothing is undefined academically
@wicekwickowski3798
Күн бұрын
O!!!
@user-eg2oe7pv2i
Күн бұрын
a lack or a blank is undefined .nice loop hole
@notanemoprog
Күн бұрын
319th subscriber!
@conspansion
Күн бұрын
Quantum nest theory
@3JoeLee
Күн бұрын
Non so cosa sia questa nuova fisica ma è sicuramente insopportabile ascoltarla.
@Usrnet
Күн бұрын
My iq is exceeding my imaginations of conceptional company
@onlyonetoserve9586
Күн бұрын
Scienceman get fisiks so rong. Lisen to our tong of truth. Edukate!
@user-eg2oe7pv2i
Күн бұрын
/watch?v=KQzMfMLsm18
@ulrichofficial6498
17 сағат бұрын
He is trying to solve all the problems of physics, mathematics and philosophy at the same time... Understanding the foundations of physics is doing physics... What he wants to do is what all physicists want to do in their fields. He would have to collaborate with ALL physicists for "his" project to be considered. It is too vague... It can not be considered as a project or an idea of only one person.
@ulrichofficial6498
18 сағат бұрын
A point is just an element of a topological space... So, in fact, anything can be a point (once you have a topology). Saying that particles are points just means that they are modeled as elements of a topological soace. That's it ! A particle can be anything. What he calls a "point" is not what mathematicians call "point". These are basic facts that any mathematician should know... infinitesimal doesn't means point... The reason why mathematicians got rid of infinitesimals is because they don't make any sens. All philosophers and mathematicians know that. He is trying to come back to the mathematics of the time of Euler, Newton and Leibniz... So mathematicians are stupid ??!! The reason why statistical mechanics seems weird is that the boundary (and the conditions) have considerable effects in thermodynamical systems, because WE define such systems to allow these effects. This is not the case in classical mechanics, electromagnetism, etc. We can not consider all substructures of a system and all conditions. Any true theoretical physicist knows that and does that implicitely! There is no necessety to argue on things that can be proven to be negligible. He seems to forget that mathematics is about structures and that mathematical physicists only give MODELS and not actual reality. No mathematical "entity" can represent a physical entity. Another reason why physicists should learn advanced modern mathematics, instead of just saying "Oh it is abstract, so I will create my philosophy". The word "abstract" doesn't means anything in reality...
Пікірлер: 123