THE HARDEST Problem in Physics Explained Intuitively: Quantum Gravity

[@ArvinAsh]

Gravity is a Force. Let me explain. It's very popular to say, "gravity is not a force, it is the warping of spacetime." But hold on a minute. While gravity can be thought of as geometry in the context of Einstein’s theory. Does this mean that gravity really IS geometry? Einstein himself, the architect of this geometric interpretation (General Relativity), in his writings, always referred to gravity as a force, and even specifically warned against its “geometric interpretation,” considering it a mental aid, rather than the true nature of gravity. He called it a "crutch" in German. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219813000695 Einstein: “It is wrong to think that 'geometrization' is something essential. It is only a kind of crutch [Eselsbrücke] for the finding of numerical laws. Whether one links 'geometrical' intuitions with a theory is a ... private matter.” (Letter to Reichenbach, April 8, 1926, as quoted by Lehmkuhl in 10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.08.002 .) While it is true that gravity can be modeled using a geometric theory, i.e., general relativity, the other forces can also be represented using geometry. The only difference is that since gravity applies to anything with mass or energy. It applies to EVERYTHING, so the geometrization is universal. But the geometrization of other forces, for example, electromagnetism, only applies to electrically charged particles. The path towards a possible quantum theory of gravity is through viewing the gravitational field like other quantum fields, not geometry. And most physicists think that such a theory exists. We just haven't found it yet. But the bottom line is this: Hold something heavy. (Please don't drop it on your foot!) Do you feel a force? How does hydropower work. Water goes from high potential energy at the top of a dam to lower potential energy near the bottom of the dam. Gravitational potential energy is converted to electrical energy. Isn't this just like any other force - a gradient of potential energy?

[@MyFeed-dm3dc]

what? it's just a mental aid but you can literally see the effects of how space curves around massive objects?

[@robertjenkins6132]

It is semantics, no?

[@matthewcory4733]

Differential geometry is THE PROBLEM with physics. QFT is background dependent but differential geometers interpret the forces as curvature. Gauge theories can dispense with this redundant metaphysics. GR still assumes a fixed spacetime manifold topology and dimensionality. It can join QFT with dependence! No big deal. Self-interacting spin-2 field equations, summed to all orders, are equal to Einstein's field equations. Gauge symmetry of the spin-2 field becomes full diffeomorphism invariance in the non-linear theory. Emergent curved spacetime geometry arises naturally. We needn't reify nor deify geometry. Kerr dispensed with singularities. QFT is CONTINUOUS and described by continuous differential equations. Measurement involves boundary conditions and renormalization. QM states are an abstraction from fields. By the way, cutoffs are in REALITY.

[@neilb4me7]

@@matthewcory4733…what?

[@gxfprtorius4815]

Forces are probably mental aids in just the same way though. I loved reading Max Jammer's books on the concepts of force and concepts of mass. It is not clear cut what is meant by those concepts. Physics seems to be juggling poorly defined concepts in the equations.

[@NomenNescio99]

I did not know about this channel before, but youtube has been recommending it to me for the last two days. Today I finally caved in and watched it. Turns out youtube has me figured out pretty well well, this was an awesome video. Subscribed.

[@bendybruce]

When I first learned the basics of general relativity I was like "Aha! Gravity is not a force!" Then I found most physicists and scientists were unwilling to state this as a fact outside of describing the model of GR. It's at this point when you realize science is not about describing reality. It is about creating models that resemble the behavior of reality in such a way that we can gain predictive power. We must resign ourselves to the fact we will never know the ultimate truth relating to our existence but what science does give us is an ability to understand what that reality is not as we constantly seek to disprove our own models and look for something better.

[@simesaid]

Physics is a model. The world we "see" around us, and that we assume to be reality, is in fact nothing more than a coarse-grained _representation_ of whatever it is that's truly out there. Our reality is "ours", it is personal, and it will not be the same as anyone else's. Reality is something that's entirely constructed within, by, and for, ourselves. The world is a model. Now, it may well be that our brains render for us a very faithful picture of the world out there. It may be that evolution has granted us a veridical representation of reality - and that the things we see are, by and large, the things that are truly out there... but then it's equally likely that our brains don't do this, and that we perceive the world in a very different manner to the way it actually is. For example, color doesn't exist out "there" in the universe. Our brains simply designate specific wavelengths within the electromagnetic spectrum to certain colors. The sky isn't blue, tree's aren't green, and the sun isn't yellow. there's no reason whatsoever to believe that a visiting alien creature would see the same colors as we do. In fact, there's no reason to believe an alien would see in _color_ at all! It's even worse that that, however, because there's simply no good reason to believe that an alien would even _see light at all!_ We assign a certain frequency of light to the colour green, but it could equally have been the case that this same frequency had come to be the taste of garlic, the sound of a violin concerto, or for it to have the texture of sandpaper. Our senses were arbitrarily determined by evolution, there's no overarching reason for us to see light and hear sound, rather than to see sound and hear light. There's no reason at all. It's not even strange, this is, after all, exactly what bats do - how they model the world. What's it like, then, to be a bat? What's it like to be another human? We can guess, but we don't ultimately know. That we perceive the shape and colour of tree's through the interpretation of electromagnetic waves is an arbitrary fluke of history, it didn't have to be that way. We intuitively believe that when we open our eyes the world out there simply pours into our brains, unfiltered, through our retina's. Vision is such an incredibly immediate, visceral sensation that it's all but impossible to make yourself realise that the picture that the vision of the room your in right now is no more real than the vision being generated when you play a computer game. Look to the left, and your brain renders an image of that space for you. Look to the left in a video game and this task is performed by a GPU, but otherwise there's no inherent differences here. Both are representations of the world out there, both your brain and a GPU build models - ours brains might render a particularly convincing picture of reality, but it isn't any more real than a picture contained within a JPEG file on your desktop computer. We _think_ it is. But it's not. In fact, we don't even see in three dimensions, but only two. The 3D world we think we see out there is wholly and entirely, and at all times past, present, or future, a construct of our minds. Nothing more, nothing less. Our brains take 2D visual inputs and then use 17 different "hacks" in order to recreate in our minds the environment we inhabit. It's all done with smoke and mirrors. It's a parlour trick. An illusion. As Kant observed, we have no way to ever gain immediate access to those things that _are_ truly out there, and so we build models. You have a model of the world, I have a model of the world, even a newborn baby has a model of the world - and because we are all from the same species, _homo sapiens sapiens,_ our models of the world will naturally share much in common with one another. But they most certainly _won't_ be exactly the same. The world you see is tailored to you and your needs, and the world that I see is tailored to mine. The height that we perceive a hill to be, for example, is dependent upon one's age, fitness, and whether or not we are carrying a heavy backpack. The world you see is not the same as the world I see. And this poses a concern when it comes to our epistemological understanding of the world, how can we come to know true things when we cannot even agree on the height of a simple hill? Physics is a way to determine which parts of your world are the same as mine, and we can do this by conducting experiments and representing physical phenomena within an abstract formalism - math. Physics is a model, yes. But then this must be the case as there's simply no alternative. The vast reaches of the cosmos comprise a grand vision indeed. But it is a vision that was built for us, by us. We model the world and everything in it, and we must do this because we can have no access to the world, or to the things in themselves that exist within it... and that includes, of course, ourselves.

[@Exen88]

We humans being able to predict nature when nature was the one that created us is like an AI becomes humanly aware of itself and us.

[@jonathansmith5561]

@@simesaid reality is the same for everyone, the perception can change but facts can not.

[@amihartz]

I agree that there are limits to what we can know, but I also do not think we should abandon the project of using the physical sciences as a way to interpret and describe reality. People who believed reality is Newtonian prior to Einstein were wrong, but it were still better than either (1) people's views of reality pre-Newton, and (2) not saying anything about the nature of reality at all. Personally, I am not a fan of the cold utilitarianism that a lot of physicists have adopted in simply abandoning the project of natural philosophy and refusing to state anything at all about the real world. Yes, we will never find the "ultimate truth," yes, our understanding of reality is constantly evolving, but I do not see that as a bad thing.

[@amihartz]

@@simesaid Kant's views were heavily inspired by Newtonian physics, citing him in the modern era is very questionable. You claim the reality we experience is a "representation," how do you justify that? Yes, I experience reality different than you do, but that is only because I occupy a different point-of-view. Reality depends upon context, i.e. point-of-view, and our contexts are different, but that does not prove the reality we experience is some sort of false illusion that is a "representation" of some true reality. The idea that the brain "renders a picture" does not even make sense, because a picture is something people have to look at. If experiential reality is akin to a person looking at a "rendered picture," then what about the experiential reality inside of the person's head looking at the picture? Is it also like a person looking at a rendered picture? What about inside of that person's head? It's an infinite regress. Your views are basically of the Cartesian theater which has been shown over and over again to not make any sense. You then shift to talking about "interpretation of electromagnetic waves," but this is an entirely separate topic, speaking of _interpretation_ of perception is not the same thing as talking about _perception itself._

[@TheMarrethiel]

I really liked your description of the cube. thanks. I would like to see something on the Penrose idea of turning quantum physics into a classical interpretation. Something about randomness in space time causing what appears to be randomness in QM.

[@LeopoldoGhielmetti]

"In this book we will describe the General Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics, those two theories can be fused together to a simple Theory of Everything, but because it's not the purpose of this book, the unification is left as an exercise for the reader."

[@wizardzombie1545]

Name of the book? Thanks

[@BB-gr9hq]

It is like inserting "a miracle happens here" into an equation. The symbol for miracle could be "M" in some real fancy font.

[@bipolarbear9917]

Ed Witten would be happy you’re using the symbol ‘M’ for miracle, aligning itself with his M-Theory. I mean, Ed Witten is considered by some to be the ‘God of String Theory’, isn’t he. Eric Weinstein calls him Voldemort. Lol! 😊

[@Mikey-mike]

Nonsense

[@svachalek]

@@wizardzombie1545it’s a joke about how academic books often leave a simple “exercise for the reader” when they don’t want to explain something

[@vedsorbit]

Arvin almost reaching 1 million good luck my friend

[@wmpx34]

He deserves it, one of the best channels on here

[@thingsiplay]

You definitely don't want miss this. So stay tuned, because that's coming up RIGHT NOW!

[@nothing-jl2dz]

🎉🎉🎉

[@Exen88]

This was beautifully narrated, my friend.

[@StephenJohnson-jb7xe]

Considering how weak gravity is in comparison to other forces, it's truly astonishing to look around the universe and see the beauty of it's influence everywhere, on a massive scale.

[@thedubdude]

It’s videos like this that make me glad I support you on Patreon. Great job. Thank you.

[@ArvinAsh]

Much appreciated!

[@nowinnablewars4480]

Great video! Neil Turok and Latham Boyle's Minimal SM/LCDM Cosmology deserves a mention. They found a way to add gravity to the standard model that is incredibly minimalist, and yet overcomes the problems with quantum gravity infinities, deals with the big bang singularity and more, and most importantly - makes testable predictions. It sounds incredibly promising.

[@crazieeez]

I love your video because you are clear in explaining problems

[@msclrhd]

One way to look at the problem is to take Quantum Field Theory (SR + QM) and extend it to an accelerating frame of reference, just like Einstein did when moving from SR to GR, instead of trying to directly quantize GR. That is, Quantum Field Theory is already a quantized model of SR (non-accelerating frames of reference), so it is unlikely it would need requantizing when including GR (accelerating frames of reference). The effect of GR is spacetime curvature in the presence of energy-momentum, so that should also be true in a combined theory (possibly with some deviations at quantum scales, or accounting for observed dark matter and/or dark energy effects). One possible domain for this would be black hole mergers where the two black holes are accelerating toward each other.

[@sizzle1836]

OH MY GOODNESS GRACIOUS I’ve never been so excited to be early. I’ve been on a quantum physics edutainment kick lately and I’ve thought every time that loop quantum gravity feels like an intuitive explanation (at least to my non physics brain lol). Just now starting the video so I’m super curious what you’ve got to say!! Thank you so much for all the work you do here on KZbin to make these crazy complex concepts digestible - my inner 8 year old who loved gravity and black holes but had to have math tutoring is so happy rn!!

[@kindlin]

6:22 I really like this cube idea. It tugs at all your basic understandings and immediately splays it all out for you on a nice and neat graph.

[@ibizenco]

When we find the solution (to this problem), we will probably all say, "Gee, why didn't we think of that sooner???" 🙂

[@larryhaverkamp6031]

Great! The best explanation of Quantum Gravity Theory ever!

[@NoThankYouToo]

This is excellent content. Thank you.

[@kallebendtsen7253]

Well, the problem seems to stem from the fact that people are trying to quantize an effect rather than the force causing the effect. Gravity only affects spacetime causing spacetime to warp/curve which moves objects closer together. Gravity doesn't interact with the objects themselves, only the spacetime containing the objects. At least that's what I'm getting from your explanation

[@dr.michaellittle5611]

…except that Einstein said that gravity is not a force..

[@hupekyser]

Einstein explained what the outcome of gravity is mathematically. But not the physical underlying mechanic of why. How does gravity propagate at the atomic level? Noone knows.

[@kallebendtsen7253]

@@dr.michaellittle5611 That was my point. What we refer to as gravity is not a force, but the effect of a force that only interacts with spacetime, curving/warping it. I just called that force gravity too, which was probably a mistake.

[@kallebendtsen7253]

@@hupekyser Exactly. The actual force causing the warping of spacetime, the effect that we call gravity, has no explanation right now. They can't quantize what they don't know.

Gravity doesn't interact with spacetime, because it's not a force in general relativity. The distortion of spacetime creates gravity, not the opposite. Gravity is just a description of the natural movement objets take in a curved spacetime.

[@Mentaculus42]

Great video! Gravity is repeatedly presented as “not a force” by GR, which then follows that there are no “Gravitons”. Is this not part of the “rub”? I always look at it as; WHOSE “SACRED OXEN” WILL BE GORED! AND “EINSTEIN’S OLD ONE” doesn’t divide by ZERO or have “process” occur infinitely fast. A lot of big RUBS.

[@ArvinAsh]

Gravity is force. Don't let people who read an article about General Relativity tell you otherwise. It simply isn’t true to say, “according to general relativity gravity isn’t a force”. Einstein himself, in his writing, always referred to gravity as a force, and even specifically downplayed the significance “geometric interpretation”, considering it not much more than a mental aid, not the true nature of gravity.

[@Mentaculus42]

@@ArvinAsh Thank you for commenting. We are on the same page. All the “forces” have a corresponding “field” is a great equalizer and “smooths out (sorta)” a little bit of the “issues”.

[@elman2012]

Great video as always! So glad the channel has blown up so much, congrats you deserve it!

[@BlueGiant69202]

For me, jumping from GTR to String Theory or Loop Theory is too great a leap and lacks guiding physical principles. It also leaves an empty neo-classical gap that doesn't mention Stochastic Electrodynamics, the Rotating Lepton Model or the idea of gravity as a fourth order effect of electromagnetism. A point made by Mendel Sachs in "QM from GR" was that quaternions and spinors could be used in both QM and GR so he wrote GTR in terms of spinors rather than tensors. I would prefer to use spinors within Real Quantum Mechanics and the Spacetime Algebra of the Geometric Algebra notation of David Hestenes et al. Now, Weyl had some ideas that eventually became central to the standard model but Einstein had dismissed them on physical grounds but kept trying to find ways to work with them and the ideas of Kaluza and Klein. Several times Einstein made mistakes trying to interpret the mathematical models into physical reality so he may have overlooked something such as the need to account for the inclusion of Dirac's eqn and "charge" without redundantly modeling "attraction" so there would be no second clock effect in a world with real masses. Perhaps the metric is not rhe fundamental object ro be gauged as pointed out by Lasenby, Hobson and Doran.

[@ominollo]

In my opinion this is one of your best videos 👍

[@radupaulalecu4119]

4:15 "Einstein didn't know that matter needs a quantum description". How come? In 1905 he explained the photoelectric effect exactly by quantum nature of light!

[@zacwarnest-knowles9139]

I did wonder about this too

[@mateigeorgescu8594]

You should write book for the rest of the people ....

[@radupaulalecu4119]

@@mateigeorgescu8594 I did it! It's called "Ceva ne scapă". You can find it in online libraries. It offers insights about AI, consciousness and shake the scaffolding of today LambdaCDM model.The fact that Hawking describe erroneus the radiation wich bears his name is only a footnote.

[@radupaulalecu4119]

@@mateigeorgescu8594 I did it! It's called "Ceva ne scapă". You can find it in online libraries. It offers insights about AI, consciousness and shake the scaffolding of today LambdaCDM model.The fact that Hawking describe erroneus the radiation wich bears his name is only a footnote.

[@radupaulalecu4119]

@@mateigeorgescu8594 I did it! It's called "Ceva ne scapă". It offers insights about AI, consciousness and shake the scaffolding of today LambdaCDM model.The fact that Hawking describe erroneus the radiation wich bears his name is only a footnote.

[@adibmohareri1223]

Thanks alot Arvin, it was so inspiring!

[@MrJoaopaulosb]

This is my favorite science yt channel… Love from Brasil!!

[@ArvinAsh]

Love you back brother!

[@everythingisalllies2141]

But these science experts BS you all the time! Before they insisted that there was no gravity, it was curved spacetime, you can find their claims everywhere. Also they said that gravity doesn't attract you to the earth, no it that the earth is constantly accelerating UP! They are all just BS.

[@Bultish]

I love how the beginning statements gave me alot of followup questions that then got answered, perfect structure sir, Thanks ❤

[@ProducerX21]

In school I turned in a half-finished assignment on Einstein's theory of gravity If his theory can be incomplete, then so can my homework

[@ArvinAsh]

lol. Well, I'd love to hear your professor's response to that excuse!

[@MaxAbramson3]

And so can your grade.

[@mycrazylife1111]

In high school I promptly turned in a completed assignment on the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle. I failed - the teacher said it couldn't be on time and correct concurrently. Another teacher told me that's preposterous, but the when he viewed the paper and deemed its content accurate, it was now late, not on time. The highschool uncertainty principle? Yup... :)

[@ProducerX21]

@@MaxAbramson3yup lol

[@pinocleen]

lolz

[@salamander554]

Arvin, we may come from believing everything is a miracle to almost knowing all there is to know. Every curtain we open explains why somethings acts the way it does. But if we ever get to the last curtain, we will find a wizard. He's been waiting a long time for this😊

[@picksalot1]

There are two problems with understanding Space-Time. One is Space, and the other is Time. I think Time should be replaced with Entropy, as it is always the Present everywhere in the Universe, all change takes place in the Present, and Past and Future are just Entropic descriptions. That may help get rid of "Observer" related biases and anomalies based on describing temporal events. Also, Observers should not be Agents. Regarding Space, a "smallest size" implies that Space could be quantized, but what would separate two of the smallest units of Space from one another? Certainly not Space.

[@ishouldhavebeencareful]

But time is more than just "the direction of the change of entropy" isn't it? There is no objective present of the entire Universe, because simultaneity is relative according to special relativity. On the other hand, your remark on the problem of a "space-quantum" sounds like a really excellent point to my uninitiated ears. I give you a like for that.

[@picksalot1]

@@ishouldhavebeencareful The way that I look at the data, there is an "Objective Present" for the entire Universe, and it is confirmed by the speed of light. It takes the same amount of time for the laser beam in the experiment described below, to go from the Earth to the Moon or from the Moon to Earth because they actually exist in the same Present, and the light must always exist during the journey in the Present. The same is true for for light from a distant Star or Galaxy. I see the Present as a "duration," not a moment, as the Present always endures, and that is where all change takes place. "There are five reflecting panels on the Moon. Two were delivered by Apollo 11 and 14 crews in 1969 and 1971, respectively. They are each made of 100 mirrors that scientists call “corner cubes,” as they are corners of a glass cube; the benefit of these mirrors is that they can reflect light back to any direction it comes from." .... "By measuring how long it takes laser light to bounce back - about 2.5 seconds on average - researchers can calculate the distance between Earth laser stations and Moon reflectors down to less than a few millimeters. This is about the thickness of an orange peel." NASA

[@KeithCooper-Albuquerque]

@@ishouldhavebeencareful Both of you have excellent points!

[@gwenandersen6803]

it really is amazing that how much we know and how deep we know

[@jmcsquared18]

I don't believe that we must quantize gravity. This is certainly the traditional view, of course. But recent developments in black hole thermodynamics have strongly suggested that quantum theory and gravity are not incompatible after all. In fact, they might actually be in some sense two sides of the same coin, the same theory in different languages, if you will. For those interested, look up work by Raamsdonk, Maldacena, and Susskind. The conjectures that have arisen recently hint at the possibility that quantum mechanical principles are encoded in geometry within general relativity in unexpected ways. Which means, quantum gravity is not simply about quantizing gravity.

[@NathanHarrison7]

Excellent video. Thank you. The only pushback I would give is regarding the conclusion essentially, you stated that if we were able to discover this solution, then we would be able to discover the answers to all of the universes mysteries. Discoveries have showed quite the opposite… The more we understand the more these theories break apart and the more questions we have. One example, of course being the impossibility of a singularity (Big Bang Theory).

[@ArvinAsh]

Your point is valid!

[@UnexpectedBooks]

The theory must explain how a black hole’s gravitational effect can influence beyond the event horizon… without traveling faster than the speed of light.

[@ArvinAsh]

That's a great question. There is no definitive answer currently, but that's because we don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet. If the theory fits into the fold of quantum field theory, one can imagine that virtual graviton particles could be created outside of the event horizon which could then propagate and cause effects.

[@FLPhotoCatcher]

@@ArvinAsh I had an idea several years ago. Could gravity be caused by interactions with matter in parallel universes? Light, even single particles of light sent one at a time, interacts with itself in the double slit experiment. Even atoms have been shown to interact as waves. There does seem to be a multiverse. Basically, gravity could be matter refracting with matter and energy from the multiverse. A key thought is that maybe vacuum decay (or changing constants) is dispersing all matter in those other universes. My idea could explain dark matter and dark energy also. And there could be ways to test my idea. I have to go, so I could explain my idea in more detail later.

[@jellyfrancis]

​​@@FLPhotoCatcheryou need to publish your derivations so that to say "test my predictions"

[@fosatech]

Wouldn't that break equivalence?

[@kiefermattern917]

@@ArvinAsh You don't even know your own subject. This is ridiculous, I found these by putting the question "how does gravity escape a black hole" in youtube search. I found these in less than 5 minutes, you have no excuse. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mXW0i4uspdGLgaM kzbin.info/www/bejne/p6jYZmt6hN1_mqM

[@peglor]

That was a great video - using the cube to show the idea space of the current methods is a great visual aid. As a science fiction fan, I'm always hoping that this problem will be solved in such as way as to make anti-gravity flight/propulsion, impermeable force fields to use as shields or to manipulate matter at a distance and low energy faster than light travel suddenly become feasible 🙂.

[@stevedixon9734]

16:06 you say 10^-48 but are shown 10^-43

[@DonnaQuh]

this video was a breath of fresh air, can’t wait for more! ️

[@saelesbonsazse9919]

"Why should we care?" is as an unanswered question as "how to solve quantum gravity?"! If someone doesn't care about these topics, out of curiosity alone, there's little hope one could convince them otherwise!

[@ArvinAsh]

Sure, your point is valid. My rhetorical question was really aimed at the general public, some of whom have no interest in furthering theoretical scientific pursuits, and dare I say, sometimes view this as money spent to support the extracurricular pursuits of elites.

[@saelesbonsazse9919]

@@ArvinAsh There's (I) the beauty of discovery itself and (II) that spark of hope that a time machine or hyperspace drive are just one quantum gravity theory away of becoming reality! Both are enough for me! Keep science going!

[@TimeLapseRich]

@@ArvinAsh I think the general public does not understand that there are real life products and benefits of these endeavors. Maybe explanations on how relativity led to GPS, or how solving the hard problems has led to modern ceramics.

[@youteubakount4449]

we shouldn't care because it's not a real problem, not because it's not interesting. We could care about billions of fake issues, like "how do we make bacteria speak our language, since all humans speak and we should be able to talk to bacteria in case we ever meet giant bacteria or we ever get squeezed to the size of bacteria". See, it's an interesting question. But don't blame people for asking why you care if you do.

[@youteubakount4449]

And to make it clear, we cannot witness or measure any of these potential "singularities" with infinite mass at a single point. In fact these are outside of the realm of existence, which contains all sorts of paradoxes and inventions. It's like saying: "we have to invent new wheel brakes that work for cars that have no wheels, because regular wheel brakes don't work on wheel-less cars". Once you step out of the realm of existence, anything goes and whatever issues happen are not relevant.

[@Starchface]

Here is a video that even I could understand. Your videos are absolutely magnificent and I always look forward to them. Your conclusion is brilliant. We want to understand, to know-not to throw up our hands and say "It's a miracle" or "The problem is unsolvable! It's been fun but we give up." Here it seems we're on a collision course between mathematics and basic science. It's going to take someone far smarter than me to resolve, but I have a hard time believing that we're going to fall on our faces right before the finish line.

[@jasonnchuleft894]

The very fact that mathematically we desperately need a special kind of matter to exist that can neither be observed, nor measured, nor created, yet apparently exists everywhere kind of hints at there being some fundamental problem with our current models 🤔

[@lairbox]

I love these videos, because Your approach to the argument is very open. I am building a little theory that could explain this all. What if the spatial universe has an Euclidean because it's the outcome of the sum or better the contrast of spherical and hyperbolic geometry? This is very wild I know, and could help string theory to cope with a single universe instead of many. The implications of this view are many, and I believe this is the first step we must do to understand that we're living into a paradox, with the primary task to handle it.

[@joshrichards608]

Gravity is the collapse quantum wavefunctions. The closer two objects are to each other, the greater the amount of collapsed wavefunctions, and there is a continual cycling of collapse and restoration randomly in and out of phase which ensures gravity doesn't just stop when the wavefunction has collapsed across all atoms and energies comprising both massive objects.

[@removechan10298]

there's no such thing as wavefunctions, they're just mathematical tools we use to describe state.

[@aravindshenoy9103]

Awesome, keep these videos coming, brilliant stuff

[@msigurko]

Trying to find a theory of everything while being oblivious of 95% of the stuff in the universe. We're truly a fish in a pond.

[@lorekisarkar2421]

Even knowing 5% is still a achievement for humanity when people still believe in God the creator of all 😂

[@Chazulu2]

​@@lorekisarkar2421 Not a smart quip when modern particle physics has all but devolved fully into adhering steadfast to principles and dogma over original theorizing that simply naming a new particle, phenomenon, or observation now qualifies as understanding as opposed to just the naming of ignorance. The line between both cosmology and particle physics with a name for ever unknown and the polytheists strategy of a named God for every unknown has never been blurrier.

[@Chazulu2]

If you're referencing dark matter+ dark energy the % is only that high because of a runaway use of the Texas sharpshooter logical fallacy to fit the model/theory to the data/observations. The big bang theory is obviously wrong, but the dogmatic adherence to the cosmological principle(s)/uniformity along the space dimensions from the perspective of the comoving reference frame while completely disrespecting it along the time like dimensions in every reference frame has been causing main stream establishment science to prefer bloated ignorance or "obliviousness" over ever having to yield as an authority, even if it takes us all down with it. Fool me once shame on you... Fool me... Fool me and from now on I'll fool myself way more often and faster than anyone else can so no one else can ever beat me to fooling myself again. Who cares if it costs my largest skyscrapers, the security and privacy of my citizens, my ability to earn taxes from citizens, and the profitability of any company that's not a foreign lender and arms purchaser destroying and over consuming everything as fast as possible. Wait, were we talking about a theory of everything, or how everything here is all screwed up?

[@brenlee9325]

​@@Chazulu2interesting

[@FVLMEN]

The universe isn’t an incapsulated volume of which we take up a fraction of. Reality is projective geometry and phase displacement of an otherwise complete substrate. It’s plebs and whirlpools emanating in and out not balls rolling around on sheets called space with an explosion as their origins. You aren’t fish in a pond. You’re fish blind of the water.

[@QuestionMarc316]

2:24 - 2:31 EXACTLY! it's a huge money sink! the gravity concept is NOT reliant on something like a graviton ... It is an emergent _force_ dictated by the structure of space itself

[@haushofer100]

@@QuestionMarc316 Gravitons describe an effective field theory up to a certain energy scale (it's not renormalizable). As such they can be seen as quasi-particles.

[@QuestionMarc316]

@@haushofer100 & this is a perfect example of the indoctrinated science community *_trying_* to *_create_* a field or particle further confusing a *very simple* concept! The classic rubber sheet model is still the best visualization. The density of matter contracts the space accordingly. ONCE PHYSICISTS STOP TRYING TO INCLUDE GRAVITY INTO THE MIX & CONCENTRATE ON THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE OF 3D+1 SPACE-TIME THEN THE SCIENCE WILL ADVANCE!

[@prasadreddy1458]

What happened if we microwave uranium/Plutonium?

[@Metalhammer1993]

They are metals. They heat up. It won't really measurably affect the decay. You very classically blow up your microwave

[@TeriMack-d7d]

OK LISTEN UP, I been struggling for two years with finding a good strategy and THIS ONE IS GOLDDDDDDDD. I can’t believe it was this easy. LOL THANKS YOU’RE THE BEST!!

[@MaxPower-vg4vr]

4.3 Quantum Gravity Unification 4.3.1 Gravitons as Information Perturbations: Describe gravitons as ripples in the information fabric of spacetime. h_μν ∝ δI_μν, where h_μν is the graviton field 4.3.2 Loop Quantum Gravity in Information Terms: Reinterpret spin networks and spin foams as information processing structures. Γ = (Γ, j, i), where j are information capacities and i are information transformers 4.3.3 String Theory as Information Vibrations: Recast string theory vibrations as oscillations in an information field. |ψ_string⟩ = ∑ α_n |n⟩, where |n⟩ represents an information oscillation mode

[@ehsnils]

We work on the assumption that time is a single dimension, but what if it's not - but it's not possible to observe as multidimensional because there aren't any way we can distinguish between the dimensions. Is a dimension "folded up" or is a dimension "flat" - it might be impossible to tell unless we have references.

[@gaylenwoof]

I have a conjecture that is wildly speculative, currently untestable, and probably bonkers but, nevertheless, probably true to some extent: A final solution to the problem of quantum gravity will go hand-in-hand with a solution to “the hard problem of consciousness”/machine sentience. The roots of this idea are mostly mere gibberish from the perspective of current science because we have no clue how to approach the reality of subjective experience (“qualia”) using the objective tools of science and math. The question of why some material systems have subjective experience is metaphysically baffling - even more baffling than the relatively “easy” problem of unifying two different types of seemingly incompatible math. One of the aforementioned “root” ideas underlying my conjecture is this: What is missing from current science is a “unified field theory” of subjective/qualitative experience. What it’s like to experience “red” and “pain” and “the feeling of knowing that 1+1=2” are all (according to the root idea of my conjecture) grounded in a unified field, just as the properties of electrons and photons are presumably grounded in a unified field. The scientific foot-in-the-door for science to study qualia is the intersection of neuroscience and dynamical systems/complexity. To put a bit of flesh on the bones of my initial conjecture: If/when we can develop a good theory for how neuronal activity self-organizes into the neural correlates of subjective experiences, we will find that the maths needed for that theory might provide possible insight into how to bridge the maths of QM and GR. Why? Because EVERYTHING that we know about objectivity stems from intersubjective experience. “Objectivity” essentially IS intersubjective agreement. What fundamental theories need to explain is WHY we are able to uncover so much intersubjective agreement without relying on the untestable metaphysical assumptions of “pure objectivity” that mysteriously exists beyond any possible experience of it and that seems to be in conflict with the loss of local realism, thanks to QM. Why should my experiences agree with yours (e.g., “why do we agree that the data shows the result = 42”) when we both consciously put ourselves through a certain set of subjective experiences (i.e., we both subjectively experience what it feels like to perform the steps of an experiment)? Answer: Qualia are the “particles” (wave crests?) of a unified field that probably obeys fundamental dynamics guided by one or more conservation laws that can ultimately be modeled with some form of self-organizing dynamical systems type of math. Whatever THAT math turns out to be will probably provide the bridge between QM and GR, in addition to giving us a way to model the emergence of (and/or mathematical nature of) sentience. Perhaps AGI can work without theoreticians developing this full theory but, if not, then genuine AGI could remain elusive for a long time (in contrast to the increasingly useful but fundamentally limited SIMULATIONS OF intelligence we see emerging today). To put it another way: AI researchers can hope that the subjectively experienced qualitative feelings of “what it is like” to understand logical implications is not necessary for true AGI, but my own intuitions are that this is probably a vain hope. I’m obviously not the only person thinking along these lines, but there is a scarcity of highly respected science popularizers who attempt to seriously explain the possible fertile soil to be found in this grey zone between fundamental physics and philosophy of mind/cognitive science. These ideas are wildly speculative and carry the cringy burden of guilt by association with “quantum woo” and whatnot, but the core ideas of finding the neural correlates of consciousness and expressing them in terms of self-organizing dynamics is respectable enough so that a merger with the equations of unified field theories in physics may someday not be so cringeworthy. Bottom line: I’m suggesting that mathematical solutions to the “hardest problem in physics” and “the hard problem of consciousness” in philosophy could remain unsolvable until they are recognized as being branches of the one and same unified theory.

[@mhouslay7281]

That’s extremely thought provoking.

[@richardmcbroom102]

Physics is like art, not so much about form, or light, or color, but about questioning the nature of the esthetic experience, itself, by offering hope that dissonances will be communally resolved.

[@SuperYtc1]

What if there is no "particle" of gravity. What if gravity is not a "thing", but rather an illusion of geometry? Like how two people travelling in a straight line can meet at the north pole.

[@RythemicPhantom]

You literally just described, Genral relativity my friend !! 😅

[@Mandragara]

What is geometric distortion produced by quantum superposition?

[@hamidlarbicherif3173]

I don't know , but I have a hypothesis where mass don't exist, mass is just an illusion. And there is nothing like particle, there is only fields (no gravity field as it is an illusion)

[@RythemicPhantom]

@@hamidlarbicherif3173 You described "Quantum Field Theory" . 🤦🏿‍♂🤷🏿‍♀

[@hamidlarbicherif3173]

@@RythemicPhantom no, as quatum field theory can't describe gravity. But in my hypothesis, gravity can be described, but not as newtonian gravity nor as in general relativity. Just in different way just by using fields.

[@victorc2869]

17:44 no need to believe in miracles... nicely said!

[@gyro5d]

Consciousness has a singularity.

[@sdfsfmnsdkfsfdsfsldmfl]

Can you describe what you mean by it?

[@gyro5d]

​@@sdfsfmnsdkfsfdsfsldmfl The Blinking Universe, blinks every 1.1Thz/sec. Compresses down to a singularity of one Universal Consciousness, encircling the Nothing.

[@danstevens6455]

Another great educational video by Ash which makes physics enjoyable and comprehensible for those like me who are not physicists but like to learn about the fundamental nature of the universe as we best understand it.

[@Mikey-mike]

Gravity is not a force. Quantum is force. This is the reason why Gravity and Quantum will never be unified. Quantum is Discrete, Integral. Gravity is Continuous, Differential. The paint, paint brushes are Quantum. The canvass is Gravity.

[@ArvinAsh]

Gravity is force. Don't let people who read an article about General Relativity tell you otherwise. It simply isn’t true to say, “according to general relativity gravity isn’t a force”. Einstein himself, in his writing, always referred to gravity as a force, and even specifically downplayed the significance “geometric interpretation”, considering it not much more than a mental aid, not the true nature of gravity. Other forces can also be expressed as a geometric model. The only difference is that gravity affects everything with mass and energy. The other forces only affect particles with a particular charge.

[@Mikey-mike]

@@ArvinAsh Sorry, but gravity is the curvature of spacetime, which is not a force. Einstein and others also said this, contrary to your claim. The Equivalence of Gravitational and Inertial Mass is unique for gravity and does not exist in Quantum.

[@gyurbanvikrenc8267]

Quanta are not force but chunks of energy. And I think that this is where and why it goes all wrong, because then force is identified with energy transfer (in other words interactions). First, there might be no force at all just a deformation of a field, second the reason why energy transfer is quantized might be completely independent from any properties of a particular field. That is, something else makes things quantized, it's not the innate property of fields. Speaking about strings... the strings (=field) of a guitar are continuous, but the notes(=particles) played on the guitar are discrete. Think about that...

[@haushofer100]

​@ozzymandius666Actually, that measures the normal force exerted by the scale on you.

[@Mikey-mike]

@ozzymandius666 Gravity is acceleration, which alone is not force. The mass chosen to measure weight is arbitrary. Not so for quantum. The weight measured on a scale comes from the quantum of the mass of the scale, not gravity acceleration.

[@Mosanbeats]

Let’s get this man to 1 million 😊

[@georgwrede7715]

In other words, in just a few hundred years, we have killed every miracle, one by one.

[@csababobalo8692]

That would be a miracle in itself!

[@roberttarquinio1288]

You have to quantize space time itself The fabric of space and time Space time is dynamic Space time flows like a wave A space time wave function maybe applied in quantizing space time itself - psy sub st included in equation A gravitational field is comprised of gravitational field waves Interacting gravitational fields produce gravitational waves Gravitational waves can and/or may be quantized and apply a gravitational wave wave function psy sub gw included in equation

[@JoshVandever]

We always think we're at the end of all theories and the next one is the ultimate theory, only to find out we have more to learn.

[@-LSC]

This video would have been 10/10 if added in the end, “and that’s why string theory exists”

[@zoltanandy2598]

gravity has a strong connection with the Plank constant therefore it can be quantized... the critical question to answer is "What does the plank constant really mean?" What does it really stand for? Once we are able to unravel that mistery we should be able to find a way to figure out its connection to gravity...

[@Kaffeesuchti1985]

Perhaps one step in a solution to the problem of gravitiy is, to realize that the curvature of space by a mass is a "symptom" but not the origin of gravity. There is still the question to answer if there is or is not something like a boson of gravitiy aka Graviton. A particle that somehow curves spacetime. As long as we don´t find an entrance into the physics of space or better said the "mechanics" of how truly mass curves space, we will still dabate how gravity works forever. The question is how does mass interact with spacetime? What is the interaction between a mass and spacetime or how does mass "touch" spacetime? And, are those questions interlinked with the question when gravity kicks in when you start from a nano-scale and going up to micro-scale, where sunddenly mass "appears" also for quantum objects?

[@FVLMEN]

Space isn’t warped by matter. Space doesn’t exist. It’s not a thing. The atomic realm are projective geometry nodes like whirlpools of a zero point principality. Analogous to water, a flat body of it is timeless. Dilation and magnitude in the form of a whirlpool derives temporality and spatiality. The cavity mirrors a discretion of the substrate, the layers out of phase to the completeness of the substrate that make up the whirl impart the mirage of space and temporality. Material being holographic projection, and it and time and space and mass are all apparent attributes of zero point nonuniformity.

[@richardmcbroom102]

In an idiocracy something is considered "explained" when that explanation becomes so convoluted as to become sufficiently opaque to all logical inquiry.

[@piercedavid]

Fantastic video

[@charlesjmouse]

Aways excellent. FWVLIW: We probably need a new Copernicus or Einstein to come up with a new paradigm in which to fit our understanding, but short of that... I can't say I have a particular issue with our 'microscopic' understanding of the 'quantum world' and the 'macroscopic' view of 'space-time'. Gravity is sufficiently different from the other 'forces' I don't consider it the same thing, so in a way trying to unify them is pointless. Further: -If we take a bottom-up approach to the universe it seems to me that the geometry of space-time as described by GR is no more than a emergent property of the underlaying quantum world. Just like 'Langton's Ant' we can know the fundamental 'rules' - QFT, and we can accurately describe the emergent macroscopic behaviour that arises from those 'rules' - GR, but because one is an emergent property of the other we don't have the mathematical toolset to predict emergent behaviour without 'running the experiment' so the two are forever separated - at least until such time as we can come up with a way to accurately predict emergent behaviour from fundamentals. This leads to a testable prediction of sorts - in the absence of a wholly new paradigm or the maths required to predict emergent systems we will never unite QFT and GR. Unsatisfactory, unsettling? -How about we reverse the arrow of causality? What if the universe as we understand it is indeed a 'classical, macroscopic' entity, and what we are really seeing when we drill down to smaller scales is not the quantum mechanics of 'very small objects' but simply increasing 'statistical fuzziness' as an artefact of being further from what actually 'drives' the nature of the universe - macroscopic space-time? Plank length and time are no more than the point at which this increasing fuzziness renders such concepts meaningless. Yes, this would require flipping one's view of how everything works on it's head - reversing causality's arrow - but on the positive side we wouldn't be left with a situation where we have to say "It's unpredictable therefore unknowable, because it's an emergent property of what we do know." Again, there should be predictable consequences of such a model, one's that can be tested. -Of course the most satisfactory solution is to move on to the 'next better paradigm' for how the universe works, at which point many of our mysteries may be explained in the recasting... no doubt with new mysteries emerging. Here's the tricky part: It may be what we have now is as good as we are going to get because we have reached the limits of human cognition. Frustrating though that may be we may never know! Happily our current models are good enough that it will be a long time before we reach the end of their usefulness. It may be that what we have now really is 'the truth', in so far as any model can become 'the real thing'. That being the case, tricky issues like seeming singularities, dark matter, and dark energy, are more a failure of imagination than not being explicable within our current paradigm - we just need to work at it. Is all this meaningless rambling? Quite possibly - but if your are seemingly stuck in a box it doesn't hurt to wonder what might be outside.

[@DefleMask]

Has anyone checked the quantization of space-time on large scales? Emit photons to the same direction (Earth-Moon as example). Place detectors: 1. Predictable location if gravity applies continuously 2. Predictable location if gravity applies every planck-length 3. Predictable location if gravity applies every wavelength

[@dr.michaellittle5611]

Outstanding video, as always, Arvin. 👏👏👏👏

[@SmogandBlack]

Very well put, as always 😊.

[@richardbates6311]

Good show Arvin! Thank you.

[@geraldwelch8117]

According to the theory of inverse gravity, that rubber blanket should be expanded like a balloon and where mass enters the equation, small or large indents would be seen, according to their gravitational impact.

[@Andospar]

Loved the video and thanks for sharing.

[@MrAlyxandyr]

Quantizing gravity is roadblocked by only being willing to measure things via light. Gravity interacts with light, and since we're so insistent on viewing it as the shape or movement of space itself; we're roadblocking ourselves from finding ways to quantize it. Once we get past that, I think we'll be fine.

[@wefinishthisnow3883]

Great video as always Arvin, but why only talk about string/loop theory? Can't you talk about asymptotically safe gravity (collab with your friend Sabine if needed) and emergent gravity?

[@rwarren58]

Arvin, you stated we can’t (yet) measure the gravity of an atom because it’s too small. What is the smallest unit of mass that we can measure its gravitational force? Thank you. 1M subs! 🎉

[@HimanshuSharma-oy9ss]

I was literally searching for a video on this same topic yesterday on your channel.

[@meekerdb]

Now you need presentation on the alternatives that avoid quantizing gravity, treating it as a statistical effect of quantum fields as first suggested by Sakaharov.

[@sabriath]

well when you treat gravity as a wave function given off as a difference between spatial position changes of each particle multiplied by that particles "frequency" based on its mass divided by the planck time, then add it up and derive the solution....then you get a whole bunch of neat variables that come out, including G (as a very crude summation), "c" (as a restriction across the planck distance in the planck time), and hbar (as the fundamental itself). it's only "difficult" to theorize these things because 1. particles are far too small to measure gravity with our current technology 2. the summation process of all particles within an object and their spatial coordinate system will only at best give an approximation due to the uncertainty principle and look no different than "closing in on G" as a result, which isn't an ideal way to prove the hypothesis, nor give exact measurements of each particle's frequency against the stratum itself BUT....what it does help prove is blackholes, shrink, and universe expansion along with the whole idea of quantum tunneling. humans will figure this out in about 125 more years, when we create gravitational devices themselves to test gravity....it's weird, i know, but it's like using light (in splitters) to prove light.

[@finhas8865]

Let me propose a theory of everything. Simply based from Einstein's gravity as stretched and warped space. It's not just gravity, energy are stretched and compressed space, usually in a waveform, yet perceived as quantized energy. Mass are contained, tangled and intersected space. Gravity is just accumulated stretch of space due to trapped space in mass. When mass somehow release the the trapped space, the released extra space, rippled through space as energy(and of course, more space). Space simply are not some emptiness or field, it is the fabric of the universe. Time are just side effects of changes in space. Expanding universe? What do you expect when almost everything in the universe are constantly releasing energy(space)?

[@synthesiatutorials3081]

We would detect and likely find direct observable evidence for this casing expansion. Plus we have to account for zero-point energy fluctuations or bose-Einstein condensate phenomena, but i could be wrong!

[@carnsoaks1]

Rather than saying "incomplete " and opening the door to detractors, perhaps we could say, "Complete for the Accessible Universe " or something else that signifies how he nails everything up onto Black Hole Interiors or QCD Regimens.

[@osmang442]

I like to think that gravity concentrates the possibility of quantum events in the many-worlds theory. For example, as the amount of matter increases, the possibility of quantum interactions increases within that given space. Hence, it "attracts" other possible interactions between parallel worlds. I know this is probably wrong, but it's a fun thought experiment!

[@Redfizh]

My universe has infinitesimal values and quantization is rather an effect that occurs when the level of requirements of that effect has been reached. First classical, quantum second. This would lead into infinitely complexity in every scale but I think complexity has overall value and when this value is nearly zero, it will act as a reset like at plack scale for example.

[@richardmcbroom102]

By definition a singularity is an event that occurred only once. Ultimately, any explanation of the universe or our own individual existences must resolve to a singular question: "What is the plausibility of an event that occurs only once?."

[@ashraf2661]

Super interesting as always, !!

[@rtbeerzi]

Mr Beers "Rudimentary theory for quantum gravity" Entangled pairs get trapped at the center of a physical body. The other half of the entangled pair(s) that do not get trapped at the center, radiate away from their other half (as the only direction you can head in regards to zero dimensions (a single point in space) is outward from that dimension). This irradiated half pair will continue outward in all three hundred and sixty degrees of three dimensional space. Because of the entrapped state of the "half pair" at the centre of the geometric object, the force of the entanglement exponentially decreases with distance, but because the pairs must always remain entangled, the outward bound half pair will always return to its unified state eventually. With this, you get a massless body of half pairs inside of a geometric object and a massless body of half pairs that is radiating away from a geometric object.... both of which insists in returning to union, but only 1 of them is able to travel freely. The radical half pairs will return not instantly, but temporally, and because there are so many of them, and because they do exist and can exert a force they drag all that they come into contact with towards the other half of its pair (Within the object), and this causes gravity. This theory would explain why gravity works everywhere with mass. Why gravity does not exist in the center of a hollow body. Why gravity gets weaker as you get further away from the host body. It implies that there is a possible way to overcome the forces of gravity by keeping these pairs from splitting, or being effected by the radical half pairs. It explains why gravitational force is spherical, but not always uniform. It explains gravity in a quantum way, while still abiding by classical physics. It allows us to test for gravity and to test our assertions, that this may or may not be the truth with actual graspable concepts we are already aware of. It requires very little new discovery, and could help branch into other fields for new information in electromagnetism, or particle physics. If this theory ever turns out to be true, I came up with it in my room after watching this video about 25 mins ago as of this comment. I will take only a fraction of the credit however, because without the geniuses that taught me the basics like my teachers and educators I wouldn't have been able to understand or relay this theory of mine. The largest holes in the theory would have to be: Being able to explain why half pairs get trapped in physical geometry to achieve these results. Explaining the energy difference between an entangled pair in a gravity state vs a free state (and why the entrapment of half of the particles results in temporal changes rather than instant ones) Why these temporally effected particles bridge the gap between quantum and classic physics New Black Hole Paradoxes (As, this theory breaks down when you bring black holes into question: the strongest gravitational objects do not follow this theory, unless, the entrapped particles still exist within a black hole) An explanation as to how Mass can effect the "Snap Back" of these particles to their entrapped pairs. "Why do more massive objects increase the rate and strength of this process?" Temporal paradoxes "Could a Retroactive particle experience this effect?" may be a challenging question to answer, and the effects of this if true, could shatter our perception of time more than it already is It's not perfect, but i think it comes a long way and with a few experiments, it's possibly the next step Current lack of Evidence makes this a purely conceptual theory. Cheers, Mr Beers

[@BigCrowsVideos]

Maybe the theory of quantum spacetime is wrong, but it's beautiful - we could say, that we found "pixels of our universe", which are the size of Plank's length and time

[@CybeleCotter]

The 5th Dimension could be found by traveling back in time to the late 1960s and early 1970s. In other words, during the Age of Aquarius.

[@123_ns]

Thanks for the beautiful content, one question please, what is the music always played at the beginning of your videos?

[@ArvinAsh]

It's called Retrowave

[@JustXAshton]

Gravity is an induced effect of relative zero point energy fluctuations in spacetime. Free Energy is possible. See - Casimir Effect.

[@robertteh3056]

Basic questions need to be answered such as where do gravity, quantum loops, particles, quarks, bosons, electrons get their elemental force from ?

[@schmetterling4477]

Relativity. Dude, you need to pay attention in school. ;-)

[@stefaniasmanio5857]

Hi. This is fantastic… ❤❤❤. Thank you so much ! ❤❤❤

[@mrslave41]

1:00 Black hole can be inferred directly from Newton. Once you notice that his law of gravity is mass in variant. This again indicates that something is accelerating regardless of mass. Later when the speed of light was discovered to not be instantaneous it was possible to calculate the black hole equation. The radius of the event horizon. Which I think people did accurately. So black holes didn’t need to wait for General relativity. And I think they did not wait for General relativity.😮

[@GoblinMode3004]

John Mitchell also wrote to Henry Cavandish about Dark Stars in 1783, theoretical objects that would have a mass meeting or exceeding the escape velocity of light, if light works like other masses. They just didn't have a Newtonian theory of light (hello Einstein)

[@richardmcbroom102]

The very essence of "quantum" is reduction of terms by cancellation to pure rational numbers while respecting the meaning. The question should be: "How many electrons at rest mass does it take for their gravitational attraction to equal the repulsion of two equally-charged electrons?" Answer: 4.16574 x 10^42. In quantum space that has zero dimensions, who needs ten, when nothing will do? The message is clear that everything is connected , but nobody wants to know that ("an aberration") when the intent is to cheat. (Cheating requires lag time in order to enjoy the profit from it.)

[@noelstarchild]

I was cosy in my ignorance until this video upload. Struggling to accept it.

[@neilbeni7744]

Love the animation ❤

[@tonymottram1396]

The words you used to end this video were great.

[@willoakley9334]

Gravity is not a force in our space-time, where energy is defined. E = mc^2 shows gravity and mass exist in a domain c^2 remote from our spacetime. Gravity, mass attraction, is a force in that remote space-time. Gravity is quantized in the rempte space-time but not in ours.

[@threeMetreJim]

I been thinking about what causes gravity due to an object recently. Best I can come up with is that it's just a lack of space. Higher density means less space, and more gravity. The gravity at the surface of the object would be strongest; space pushed out of the way; getting weaker as you move away. Maybe it can be modeled using a fluid? After all, many people say that space is filled with many appearing and disappearing particles at all times, and if you were to view a fluid at a small enough point, you'd probably see individual molecules appearing and disappearing seemingly randomly due to brownian motion of the fluid molecules. You also get a pressure at the object surface that could be analogous to gravity. A 'normal' object in space would look like a very low density, open cell, sponge. I am in no way suggesting the Aether even though it might sound similar. It would suggest that a solid object in a fluid represents a black hole, but that doesn't feel right. It would also suggest that empty space has a very low 'density', but not zero.

[@c4t4l4n4]

"space pushed out of the way"... I have entertained a similar idea when watching vids about black holes. I called it "space displacement" by the presence of mass/energy. The idea is to find a theory that shows that the displacement of empty space results in a "tension" between the mass volume and the region around it. Black holes are objects that displace a considerable amount of "empty" space and then it begs the question about what happens to all the virtual particles or vacuum energy that is otherwise within this region of space. From what I understand of atoms and their nuclei, there is still a lot of "space" left to squeeze out, even with neutron stars. But with black holes we reach a point where mathematics butts its head against a singularity. Then however, black holes do still grow in size (as far as the event horizon is concerned) and this growth manifests itself by the observations of gravitational or other observed effects. My favorite BH is TON 618, which has a Schwarzschild radius 2.7 larger than our solar system (add grains of salt). That is a lot of space "pushed out of the way"! With space pushed out of the way, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that space behaves like an evicted tenant that simply wants to move back into its home. 😎

[@threeMetreJim]

@@c4t4l4n4 It's a bit of a simple idea and seems to work the opposite to what you'd normally expect - more compressed stuff between objects would tend to push them apart but you could also say objects will fill areas where there is more space too. Not sure how it would work with optical red shift and acceleration causing a force though.

[@threeMetreJim]

@@c4t4l4n4 It's a bit of a simple idea and seems to work the opposite to what you'd normally expect - more compressed stuff between objects would tend to push them apart but you could also say objects will fill areas where there is more space too. Not sure how it would work with optical red shift and acceleration causing a force though.

[@JoeDeglman]

Gravity is basically a buoyant force in the magnetic flux density gradient around a mass, per Gauss's Law for Gravity. I.E. an energy gradient in the ether, dielectric, or magnetic flux condensed around and within a mass.

[@mdb1239]

Interesting. Thank you. I think after 50 years, it may be beyond what human intellect can understand. The optimism from 30 years ago is vanishing into murky frustration.

[@albasitdanoon7211]

As we look deeper and deeper gravity fade away, so it could be at the fundamental levels there is no garavity in spacetime which means it emerge out of massive number of quantum interactions. The analogy might help here is that the water emerges from collections particles, namely, if we look deeper into water we find small particles and interactions but no water as a fundamental substance.