Would you be open to interviewing them on your channel?????? Edit: Those who want an interview, like or reply to this comment.
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Yes, if there is enough interest from viewers.
@theotormon3 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh I second the motion
@benegesserit98383 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh wow i hope so...
@das_it_mane3 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh also interested
@chocochaos3 жыл бұрын
I would love to learn more about this, so yes!
@KazimirQ7G3 жыл бұрын
*Physicist:* A final non-reductionable theory must be made of something *extremely simple.* What is the most simple thing we could think of as building block? *Me:* Hmmm... Maybe counting, adding, subtracting... *Physicist:* Empty 3D space with infinite recipes ruled by integrals of wave functions and nested operators.
@stevemotocrayz28923 жыл бұрын
"...wave functions and nested operators. .baked @ 350*F for 25-mins in a pre-heated oven.
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Lol. Well, the math is simply a description of how things move in empty space. I can't think of a simpler way to describe the universe, but maybe I'm not creative enough.
@AVUREDUES543 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh “universe has stuff” checkmate, physicists
@PrivateSi3 жыл бұрын
My thoughts exactly.... Seems like they have imbued space with whatever properties they need while declaring it to be empty. If not they have imbued particles with properties that fit the bill... You can't get something from nothing. I still prefer my non-mathematical satire (that can be modelled in 3D+1D/4D)... -- Personally I still think gravity gradients (acceleration curves) are continuous but gravity is quantised. Time and space are also fundamentally continuous but hold a base quantised subspace field of +ve base charge cells (quanta) held together by an ethereal sea of free-flowing - ve charge... -- Knock a lattice cell free and you have a repulsive warp vibrating at C, never quite balancing, sending out blip spheres (electrostatic force) - A Positron (p+ = up quark), same for the hole but with opposite phase (e- = down quark)... EXACTLY equal opposite phased p+ + e- annihilate on contact, else they form NEUTRATRONS (Dark Matter).. Opposite phases cancel repulsion, recoil pushes particles together. -- Gravity + Dark Energy is a macro effect due to the fact each p+ attracts 1 quanta of -ve charge away from voids, this adds up to a gravity welll, with voids expanding due to less -ve charge 'glue'... -- Strong + Long Force is a flux tube of AC subspace current (longitudinal vibrating line of subspace lattice cells between entangled/bonded particles that thins with distance until only 1 lattice cell wide)... -- Weak force is statistical due to constant bombardment from the NEUTRATRON FIELD (Neutratron is a gravitational electron neutrino)... -- Temporary matter is large chunks + holes blown out of the subspace lattice field, quickly annihilating to regular (=empty) lattice, e-s, p+s and n+-s (neutratrons). -- As I've said many times now!
@adamt.38833 жыл бұрын
It doesn't have to be simple to us, it just means everything emerges from a single principle, however abstract. Which leads to the oxymoron that it could be simple, but in a way that's beyond human understanding.
@theraven68363 жыл бұрын
I’m still remarkably confused, but at a much higher level. 😂
@eduardoferreira19633 жыл бұрын
Same here!😅
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
All T.O.E. theories are extremely complex, understandably, because they are attempting integrate all particles and forces of the universe in the mathematics. This is true for String theory, Wolfram, Loop quantum gravity etc. I tried to simplify as much as I could. Have another viewing, and if still confused, please list your points of confusion, and I will try to answer it. If you can follow even a little bit, you are way ahead of most people.
@theraven68363 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh Arvin, thank you for your response. I actually meant my comment in a more jovial sense. In reality, I found your presentation extremely clear, at least for us laymen. Again, thank you for your response and for the work that you do; I find it interesting, informative and entertaining as well.
@cryptolicious37383 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh Fibre bundles. educate us on that soon please?
@Sasuser3 жыл бұрын
That's when you know it's working...
@pyne19763 жыл бұрын
Thanks Arvin! It does nothing for these brilliant scientists to come up with fascinating theories without someone like you to deliver them to us laymen.
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
I agree. I'm hoping that scientists like Jesper can get more support for their theoretical work on fundamental physics. A lot of great ideas are not pursued, as you know, due to lack of funding.
@bidish22243 жыл бұрын
I also want to become a scientist and research about them
@rauldurand Жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh Fantastic job! You deserve millions of subscribers.
@davidfain1454 Жыл бұрын
I absolutely agree! You do a wonderful job of synthesizing the information. My deep unanswered question at this point is how it all came about something from nothing.
@robinbickel24513 жыл бұрын
Bro, I'm so impressed at how well you're able to take these theories and make them palatable for those of us without physics/mathematic degrees!
@Picasso_Picante923 жыл бұрын
WoW! My head hurts. But you helped clear up a few things about the Plank Length for me. I always learn something from your videos. much respect Mr. Ash.
@genostellar3 жыл бұрын
Yes, I also learned something new about the plank length (Corrected: Planck length) from this. I love when ever I learn even the smallest new thing about how physics works.
@The9thDoctor3 жыл бұрын
@@genostellar the plank length is used by carpenters when they need to know how long their planks are
@genostellar3 жыл бұрын
@@The9thDoctor I'm honestly not sure whether or not to find your comment amusing or annoying.
@spiralx62493 жыл бұрын
I see from Google that QHT hit the scientific arena around 2015/6... and only 5 years later, we get to hear about it. Persumably because of their simplifying book. Sad also to read that they have had to chase crowd-funding to do their day job so well. It reminds me of the way David Bohm was simply ignored, when he published his 1952 pilot wave theory. Only last year did it seem to finally emerge as proper public property, though some physicists have been quietly exploring it for years, and the odd science book has referenced it.
@pauldirc.. Жыл бұрын
What do you find about it , is qht progressing
@DaellusKnights Жыл бұрын
This is my first time hearing about QHT, but it's encouraging because it agrees with my notion that the concept of a true singularity is simply that... just a mathematical concept. I've never believed in the theory of "infinite density" just for the reasons a lot of us already follow: if, prior to the Big Bang, the universe was a single infinitely dense point, then it could expand an infinite number of times and it would STILL be an infinitely dense point. Even energy has to have a bottom limit. I'm definitely interested in learning more about all of this... but the fact that it uses non-commutative geometry is more than a little daunting. I've looked at that before and calling it "complex" is a MASSIVE UNDERSTATEMENT 😱😱😱
@roccobierman49853 жыл бұрын
I'm sold. QHT is now my new banner on which I will contemplate things. Great video as always Arvin. Thank you so much for the work you do for us.
@kunxv153 жыл бұрын
my mans beanie game too strong
@jaybingham37113 жыл бұрын
Gotta go strong when you're prepping to rob a bank after upload
@theaviary2383 жыл бұрын
The beanie is dope AF. 👍
@jaredf62053 жыл бұрын
Indeed.
@dr.jamesolack85043 жыл бұрын
Jared Freedman I am inclined to concur...
@tom3fitzgerald3 жыл бұрын
Tone it down
@ankitnautiyal25683 жыл бұрын
Great Video. Your videos always make me start from physics, and take me to the realm of philosophy. Deeper questions. Your video have a therapeutic effect. I want to appreciate your effort of going through these very complex papers and presenting in a way that is comprehensible to us. I dont claim to understand the maths behind, but do get the wonderment part of it. Thanks again for an awesome video.
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Thanks. The wonderment is really what I am trying to convey. I want people to keep wondering and seeking answers to BIG questions.
@dimitrisavic47023 жыл бұрын
My favorite notification to get is a new upload from this channel!
@Frahamen3 жыл бұрын
Someone: what was before the Big Bang? QHT: Yes.
@cryptolicious37383 жыл бұрын
u mean when the 'Being' clicked deploy on our simulation?
@Piddlefoots3 жыл бұрын
@@cryptolicious3738 Click !
@Bassotronics3 жыл бұрын
Before the big bang there was bang big.
@meanjoebean82883 жыл бұрын
Q: Who's on first? A: Yes.
@ahitler55923 жыл бұрын
Big dong
@shinhermit3 жыл бұрын
Your strength, sir, is that you really make me feel like I'm your friend, when you say "...in the next video my friend." Also, "that's coming up right now" makes me go back to childhood immediately 😄
@stormlord19843 жыл бұрын
Lovely channel, dealing with proven and hypothetical scenarios with ease.
@adibmohareri12234 күн бұрын
It was awesome! Thanks a lot Arvin!!
@TheBaconWizard3 жыл бұрын
That's the first time anyone has explained not only that there is the Planck-length, but why it exists and is that size.
@shahkarimi35873 жыл бұрын
You're doing a big good job Arvin, and I can imagine nothing but a big heart and good intention behind all this! Wish you a long life and much love 🙌🏽
@thebrothersdude3 жыл бұрын
Great episode! I love that Jesper assisted, it's always great to see great quality science being promoted! :)
@StephenJohnson-jb7xe3 жыл бұрын
What I love about this video is that you started out speaking about a few points that I have been thinking about for some time now. You then went on to address them in so much depth that I ended up feeling very reassured both in the explanation and in the fact that people much smarter than me have been thinking about it too.
@InfamoussDBZ3 жыл бұрын
Mr. Arvin is one of the best science communicators I've ever come across, because he's so extraordinary at helping people without a background in math and physics visualize these complex principles of nature. It's the absolute best way to teach students, because the maths just describe what you understand and I wouldn't touch that math with a 10 foot science pole.
@dria73872 жыл бұрын
Him and Sabine are my to-go science channels 🥴
@fakhruddinnalawala54513 жыл бұрын
Says "Stands on" but ends up the other way round in the animation, LOL! Nice video and great explanation, though, 10/10 would recommend.
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I agree. "Stands" was not the best choice of words.
@andrewsomerville57723 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh imo the words were right and the graphic was wrong/backward
@drdca82633 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh This reminds me of Scott Aaronson's short story "The Pancake at the Bottom" about ordinal numbers. Often, people think of the larger ordinals being above the smaller ones, with 0 at the bottom. But in Aaronson's story, 0 is at the top, which is a turtle resting on another turtle (1), resting on another turtle, and so on, and then these first omega (the first infinite ordinal) turtles, are on top of an iguana or some other reptile, idr. Well, I shouldn't spoil the story, but I find it quite meaningful.
@hackerulroman3 жыл бұрын
@@andrewsomerville5772 yeah, it should've been a tower with biology at the top but the problem is that we would have some kind of floating pyramid as we have no idea how tall it should be maybe a good alternative would've been to start zoomed in on the tallest then we go down as we list the layers then just show non labeled layers going down when he says something about how many layers we will have or something like that
@rc59893 жыл бұрын
Whoa! Now I have an exciting new theory to learn about! Thank you very much Arvin Ash! Plus, I am hopeful that gauge theory and the configuration space will be possible to help with an open problem in recreational mathematics. So learning about QHT will help out there as well.
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Yes, exactly. The simple explanation of what a configuration space really is, hopefully, will help you and others.
@OSI-Fan3 жыл бұрын
It is important to know that Jesper Grimstrup is self-employed and gets no academic funding, because QHT is outside of the current mainstream physical research. So if you think that his work is important, consider to give him a one-time or recurring donation.
@thomasj81053 жыл бұрын
Getting rid of singularities and the universe coming form nothing seems a lot more reasonable.
@mikemcfadden86523 жыл бұрын
The universe still exists, so this only moves its beginning to some different point, or demands acceptance it has existed for eternity.
@zorand673 жыл бұрын
Exactly. But not in this way. I wrote to Arvin, and he simply ... ignores what I've sent him. I have also put that in the comments of several of his previous videos. He doesn't react. Wrote to him on FB. "Nada". The game is ... over. Intelligent NPD (qr.ae/pNn9xf) psychopaths ("magicians": nevalalee.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/feynman-the-magician/) are going down. Definitely. Why are they psychopaths, is clearly explained here: independent.academia.edu/ZDimi%C4%87 Enjoy the victory of healthy reasoning. Truths are available only and exclusively to the clear healthy reasoning. Enjoy the simple, clear, inherently unified, true fundamental physics. Ready to be taught in the higher grades of primary school. In the secondary school, the pupils will already get to the expert level. It is not hard to be expert for ... really fundamental (the most basic) things. Only psychopaths can turn that into "super 'science'". Forget about QHT, and all of the previous ... mad constructs of "magicians" www.goodreads.com/quotes/131800-the-scientists-of-today-think-deeply-instead-of-clearly-one What I did, I did for you, for everybody. Forget about me, but do not neglect the most important truths which are presented here independent.academia.edu/ZDimi%C4%87 and which we all need. If we want to get rid of the psychopaths, which all top-elites are composed of. ALL (lawyers, business, bankster, political, military, ..., religious, and scientific (especially the experts for "fundamental" "physics(es)" (yes, physicses: relativity, QM, QED, QCD, QFT, ..., strings/superstrings, branes/D-branes/...holographic branes, ... ))
@Itsmellsfishy3 жыл бұрын
@@zorand67 yeah can’t imagine why he doesn’t respond...
@zorand673 жыл бұрын
@@Itsmellsfishy No need to imagine, Micha-el.
@jorgepeterbarton3 жыл бұрын
@@Itsmellsfishy 😆
@dr.satishsharma97943 жыл бұрын
Excellent...... thanks 🙏.
@andersjjensen3 жыл бұрын
Hi Arvin. You got the pronunciation of Danish names pretty darn close! :D I'm perfectly well aware that Danish is a tongue twister even to the other Scandinavian countries, so even getting it somewhat intelligible is a feat in and of itself. And getting it 99% like you did really shows you put effort in not being wishy washy with peoples names :)
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Thanks. It took me a few tries. I knew I would mangle the names, so I got help from a Dane. Lol. Interestingly, Jesper was very kind, and wasn't bothered at all about how I might pronounce his name.
@andersjjensen3 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh Heheh. I can imagine. We're usually like "Just go ahead and pronounce it according to English spelling rules... otherwise you might summon a demon or some shit" :P
@yooo77743 жыл бұрын
My brain has blown up even with this simplified explanation . Great job as always. Thank you .
@dougnulton3 жыл бұрын
Always love a good episode from Arvin “Right Now!” Ash.
@DeadEndFrog3 жыл бұрын
Amazing! As always! Thanks!
@robertschlesinger13423 жыл бұрын
Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video. Many thanks for the link to the arXiv paper and the website for further information.
@RickClark583 жыл бұрын
Very interesting. When I saw your teaser I did some reading on this and I have to say I like it better than the other theories. I hope your recovery is going well.
@perspective5003 жыл бұрын
Amazing explanation, I finally understand QHT a little bit. Thank you very much
@sleeplessforawhile3 жыл бұрын
Arvin, thank you so so much.
@ISK_VAGR3 жыл бұрын
Arvin AMAZING explanation as usual. Finally, a theory that makes sense. I was suspecting that infinite gravity in the center of black holes is just silly. My logic is that in the "Singularity" the quantum fields are under "tension" thus there is no sufficient vibration to create matter in there. Consequently, there is a limit to compress the matter. In the singularity gravity = 0. although the boundaries of the singularity are superdense and thus with a lot of gravity of course. WHY MASS "GENERATE" GRAVITY ACCORDING TO QHT? THANKS
@KetilDuna3 жыл бұрын
When things get really small or really big they get equally fascinating and scary! Thanks for another great video.
@dubsar3 жыл бұрын
Moments before the Big Bang scientists from another universe were about to conclude the ultimate experiment: to concentrate 1.2 x 10^19 GeV in a space just 1.6 x 10^-35 meters across.
@genostellar3 жыл бұрын
I feel like they may have succeeded.
@henrytjernlund3 жыл бұрын
I've often wondered if the gamma ray bursts were civilizations trying that super super particle collider experiment and thus wiping out their solar system. Would be a Great Filter solution as well.
@dubsar3 жыл бұрын
@@henrytjernlund I think there can't be that many advanced civilizations wiping themselves out.
@sabercrosby81283 жыл бұрын
I've been waiting in anticipation all week for this vid 😃 there's not many videos out there about quantum holonomy
@hyperduality28383 жыл бұрын
Parts are dual to wholes -- Holons. Holism (integration) is dual to reductionism (differentiation). The western thought paradigm of differentiation, reductionism and separation is dual to the eastern thought paradigm of integration, holism & unity. Divergence (division, differentiation, entropy) is dual to convergence (unity, integration, syntropy). Universals (holism, infinite) is dual to particulates (reductionism, finite) -- Plato. Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant. Generalization is dual to localization. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Homology is dual to co-homology. 6 quarks, 6 leptons & 6 force carriers (Higgs, photon, gluon, Z, W+, W-) -- the standard model or the number of the beast 666 (triality)! Thesis (Proton) is dual to anti-thesis (Electron) synthesize the photon force carrier -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Force carriers are a by-product of duality being conserved, they are synthesized by duality! Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato. Triality or trinity is built from duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@lior50593 жыл бұрын
Very interesting, thank you! What is the scientific community reaction to that ? and is there any experimental result or observation that come out of it? How the theory resolves all the known paradoxes, apparently rising when combining gravity with QM?
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
I think it is just not well understood because few can do the math. Their predictions cannot practically be tested. But Grimstrup and others are working on getting more predictions from the math that can verify or falsify the theory. The known paradox solved is that the solution to Gravity does not need a quantum description.
@das_it_mane3 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh does that mean gravity is an emergent phenomenon in QHT?
@jorgepeterbarton3 жыл бұрын
@Michael Bishop decay is hawking radiation and thus a quantum phenomena, beyond realising the mass has disappeared, right?
@lior50593 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh Thanks !
@robertodalmasso12443 жыл бұрын
thanks Arvin for such an intuitive and yet fairly accurate description of the principles of QHT. It amazes me that a conclusion from this theory is that the quantized way of matter interaction seems to be "the simplest" way to go: that's promising!
@gonzalogarcia65173 жыл бұрын
Question from José Edelstein: - "Do you think that one day it will be possible to extend your ideas to describe quantum gravity in our universe?" Juan Martín Maldacena answers: (skipping the first intro sentences to the topic) - ".... all these ideas have so far been more useful to try to understand aspects of black holes. For those aspects, it does not matter much what the structure of space-time is at great distances, a black hole can be in space -flat time, curved one, etc. What I hope is that as one understands more aspects of black holes one can understand more about the explanations of cosmology. "" The reason is that inside a black hole there is a collapsing universe. "" A black hole is a configuration of space-time where there is a region of space-time that is collapsing, big crunch of course or a big bang. That region is what we call the interior of a black hole. If one manages to understand this with quantum gravity in a correct way, perhaps one can understand that little cosmology and based on that translate those lessons for a cosmology where that initial singularity is at the beginning and not at the end of time. "
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Yes, it may be possible with QHT. The math has not been fully worked out yet. More researchers are needed to explore this theory.
@gonzalogarcia65173 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh Exactly, we have to be careful. There is no denying that it is wonderful in itself. What we can do as a conceptual exercise is to go one step further and ask questions accepting that the universe can be considered an AN, for example, - If the universe is an AN that has more AN's inside it, the information entangled in the "main" Hawking radiation could be subjected to different Hawking radiation inside the AN. Since the information would not be lost but would be exponentially encoded. - what is gravity in this context? - time ? - Is the model we have of our universe with big bang, analyzed from today at the beginning, for someone outside of an AN is the model of a spaghett? -etc
@crowemagnum13373 жыл бұрын
His hat makes excellent camouflage with the background.
@nekoeko5003 жыл бұрын
No strings made out of faith, check. No extra one hundred dimensions, check. Ridiculously complex math, check. Looks like we have a winner! Some day... Hopefully...
@havenbastion3 жыл бұрын
There is no reason to believe the universe is not infinite in every sense, in time, in distance, and in scale.
@nabeeldin35443 жыл бұрын
@@havenbastion universe is not eternal. it has beginning. also, finite too.
@vladbcom3 жыл бұрын
I subscribed to Magellan through your link! Thanks!
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Nice! Let me know how you like it.
@captainzappbrannagan3 жыл бұрын
This theory makes the most sense to me I like it. It's too bad that's irrelevant to what is actually true lol (quantum is not intuitive). Testable results are nice but we will never have pre-inflation data to test with. In QHT does enough matter compressed to the plank length cause the same curvature of space and what an infinitely dense object would, I feel like there would be something that could be testable in here. It would explain why the black whole event horizon grows with each matter/energy absorption, if there was a true singularity you would think infinite density would not need to grow and widths. I like how well you simplified the complexity for the general public here great work!
@farshadostadalirezania19363 жыл бұрын
thank you very much Mr. Ash as usual a beautiful explanation of hard problems.
@tellder13 жыл бұрын
This theory is incredibly interesting! But what are it's greatest criticisms? Did anyone disproved it, or found holes in it?
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
The theory has not been worked on enough to say. The math has to be worked out so that some testable or fasifiable predictions come out of it. I think that is one of the biggest things remaining to be done.
@hyperduality28383 жыл бұрын
Parts are dual to wholes -- Holons. Holism (integration) is dual to reductionism (differentiation). The western thought paradigm of differentiation, reductionism and separation is dual to the eastern thought paradigm of integration, holism & unity. Divergence (division, differentiation, entropy) is dual to convergence (unity, integration, syntropy). Universals (holism, infinite) is dual to particulates (reductionism, finite) -- Plato. Noumenal (rational, analytic) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic) -- Immanuel Kant. Generalization is dual to localization. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Homology is dual to co-homology. 6 quarks, 6 leptons & 6 force carriers (Higgs, photon, gluon, Z, W+, W-) -- the standard model or the number of the beast 666 (triality)! Thesis (Proton) is dual to anti-thesis (Electron) synthesize the photon force carrier -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Force carriers are a by-product of duality being conserved, they are synthesized by duality! Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato. Triality or trinity is built from duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@Name-js5uq3 жыл бұрын
Such a very clear and concise explanation what a joy to watch thank you so much
@IncompleteTheory3 жыл бұрын
Interesting contender and not widely discussed yet, at least in my faculty with is the University of KZbin.
@artb47003 жыл бұрын
Excellent video, Arvin.
@Zamiell3 жыл бұрын
How does QHT explain time? Time needs to emerge from the axiomatic geometry somehow, and you didn't mention that at all. This stands in direct contrast to "Mad-Dog" Everetianism. Since time is a term inside of the Schrodinger equation, I think that most physicists believe that *time* is the actual thing that is fundamental, not space. Meaning that if you just start with an axiom of time and a Hamiltonian, space can pop out of it as an emergent thing. I don't see how you could do it the other way around.
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
The Hamiltonian comes out of the math. This describes the time evolution of particles and forces. I don't think the theory tells us any new description of time, if that is what you are asking.
@stevemotocrayz28923 жыл бұрын
No, Danielle. .in your case, time becomes infinite.. therefore immeasurable..a contra-positive to its own definition (linguistically).
@fractal_gate3 жыл бұрын
Wow, this was a tough one, but you did your best Arvin! Great video.
@zarehs3 жыл бұрын
QHT should go mainstream just like LQG and ST. It seems more promissing the way it generates QM without gravity causing issues. Everything from thinking of moving stuff around. I wonder what happens to time.
@TheOnlineBlackboard3 жыл бұрын
I also think it's more promising :) You can help making it mainstream by sharing this video, buy the book, gift the book or just mention it to your friends!
@anshanshtiwari88983 жыл бұрын
I think this theory has not caught on in pop science probably because people can digest something like "everything is made of tiny strings" but not something like "stuff like this exists because of the way it moves in space".
@shashankchandra10683 жыл бұрын
Can u send the 2D or 3D image of quantum field plz?(example:electron field,up-quark field)
@shashankchandra10683 жыл бұрын
@@anshanshtiwari8898 Can u send the 2D or 3D image of quantum field plz?(example:electron field,up-quark field)
@shashankchandra10683 жыл бұрын
@@TheOnlineBlackboard Can u send the 2D or 3D image of quantum field plz?(example:electron field,up-quark field)
@billtodd76933 жыл бұрын
Wow. Fascinating. Thank you!
@ankitrout42103 жыл бұрын
Why your videos are damn addictive
@parkey53 жыл бұрын
Brilliant episode, thank you Arvin
@hejsplish53523 жыл бұрын
This was incredibly explained. Thank you Ash and the Danish scientists for this amazing theory.
@Dxeus3 жыл бұрын
I continue staring at my laptop screen for 30min or more after the video ends. This only happens after I watch the Arvin Ash videos.
@jvcscasio3 жыл бұрын
I prefer this over string theory
@scoringdigitsson.51943 жыл бұрын
Bruh
@kuntalmukhrjee39933 жыл бұрын
Me too. that theory is unimaginable. I cant think in 4d and their universe is in 20ish ds
@russyork3133 жыл бұрын
No question, just a compliment. Awesome video my friend! Was pretty cool to learn this.
@feihcsim70453 жыл бұрын
thank you arvin for bringing me out of my wolfram-weinstein-lisi echo chamber
@sekac8883 жыл бұрын
Great video. I really enjoyed it. One question: You start describing QHT by stating that we only have empty space and some stuff but no time. How can you move stuff around if there is no time? To move something from A to B requires some interval of time? I did not understand that part.
@calebr71993 жыл бұрын
I really wish I could understand the mathematics behind physics a but more but I feel like I would need to spend years learning to come to a closer understanding
@roneyandrade62873 жыл бұрын
Yes you would. Around 8 years of very hard work
@genostellar3 жыл бұрын
You could do, as I do, and learn it one piece at a time for fun in your spare time. If you're into that. It'll still take a long time, but understanding it all right away would be boring. You'd be robed of the thrill of each new discovery in understanding that you make.
@mitseraffej58123 жыл бұрын
I have a basic mathematics degree I gained 40 years ago and then entered a career that had no use for it, and have subsequently forgotten the intricacies. Even so, what I use to know I feel would still be of little use.
@genostellar3 жыл бұрын
@@mitseraffej5812 Some things we learn not because they are useful. Some things we learn because they are fun. The basics are important, even if only to determine that you knew something 40 years ago.
@zorand673 жыл бұрын
You don't. I wrote to Arvin, and he simply ... ignores what I've sent him. I have also put that in the comments of several of his previous videos. He doesn't react. Wrote to him on FB. "Nada".The game is ... over. Intelligent NPD (qr.ae/pNn9xf) psychopaths ("magicians": nevalalee.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/feynman-the-magician/) are going down. Definitely. Why are they psychopaths, is clearly explained here: independent.academia.edu/ZDimi%C4%87 Enjoy the victory of healthy reasoning. Truths are available only and exclusively to the clear healthy reasoning.Enjoy the simple, clear, inherently unified, true fundamental physics. Ready to be taught in the higher grades of primary school. In the secondary school, the pupils will already get to the expert level.It is not hard to be expert for ... really fundamental (the most basic) things. Only psychopaths can turn that into "super 'science'".Forget about QHT, and all of the previous ... mad constructs of "magicians"www.goodreads.com/quotes/131800-the-scientists-of-today-think-deeply-instead-of-clearly-one What I did, I did for you, for everybody. Forget about me, but do not neglect the most important truths which are presented here independent.academia.edu/ZDimi%C4%87, and which we all need. If we want to get rid of the psychopaths, which all top-elites are composed of. ALL (lawyers, business, bankster, political, military, ..., religious, and scientific (especially the experts for "fundamental" "physics(es)" (yes, physicses: relativity, QM, QED, QCD, QFT, ..., strings/superstrings, branes/D-branes/...holographic branes, ... ))
@Marz26953 жыл бұрын
Thank you arvin
@DjordjeRomanic3 жыл бұрын
I truly enjoy listening your videos :)
@DjordjeRomanic3 жыл бұрын
Well, watching too... of course :)
@MBicknell3 жыл бұрын
I always find you describe things in such better detail than other channels. For example all other channels just state the plank length as the smallest denominator of space. Yet you've just explained its not its just that its the smallest amount we are able to measure. So in theory..... Could there be infinite distances between any two points? Great content yet again.
@akamiclarry3 жыл бұрын
Wow QHT is an amazing theory, the idea of infinity and multiple dimensions always seemed to me a bit too far fetched, it’s good to hear of a realistic explanation. 💯👊🏾
@davidosullivan98173 жыл бұрын
Great content 👌
@ScottWengel3 жыл бұрын
QHT could become a leading candidate for me as i have a hard time accepting infinity. Going to purchase this book immediately. Thx Arvin
@brianjuelpedersen63893 жыл бұрын
And the book is a good read too. Disclaimer: I do not know Jesper Grimstrup or is acquainted with him in even the slightest way. Never met him or even heard him speak. But I AM Danish like Mr. Grimstrup, and us Danes have been described as more of a tribe than a country, so maybe I am partial.
@genostellar3 жыл бұрын
You still have to accept infinity. It's just shifted from infinitely small things to an infinite past with this explanation.
@ScottWengel3 жыл бұрын
@@genostellar dang, you spoiled the ending... hehe Then my infinite quest to look for a theory without infinity included will continue, forever
@genostellar3 жыл бұрын
@@ScottWengel Such an ironic twist.
@pauldirc.. Жыл бұрын
@@ScottWengel What do you find about it
@jp55683 жыл бұрын
Can’t express how appreciative I am of you. I’m an undergrad physics student and the quality of this content with the visuals and how you break everything down is phenomenal. Makes me aspire to discover something that will eventually end up in one of your videos
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Thanks my friend. Congratulations on majoring in Physics. More power to you!
@jp55683 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh thank you sir! Keep up the great content
@shivamg_sk3 жыл бұрын
Hi, enjoys your videos alot. Could you make video on fundamental nature of space, time, energy. And ads-cft.
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Great suggestion! I like that idea.
@stevemotocrayz28923 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh Yes..! Please...! !
@mdragon993 жыл бұрын
Nice practical, illustrative description of measurement and energy connection.
@avadhutd14033 жыл бұрын
@Arvin ash What your opinion on future of string theory?
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
I think it has some useful mathematics, but as far as being a TOE, I think it has not provided the evidence needed to get there.
@gravitonthongs13633 жыл бұрын
A bit knotty.
@jeffreyprentis3 жыл бұрын
At 59yrs am I too old to become a physicist Arvin.Im a lifelong Atheist but the deeper I delve into the world of science I I keep thinking this is so hard maybe we aren't meant to know the truth about life.
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Sure it's not easy math, but if you are an atheist, then you know that there is no "meant to" in the universe. We can figure it out. If not, our AI helpers will figure it out. I wouldn't underestimate our capability to understand the universe.
@jeffreyprentis3 жыл бұрын
@@ArvinAsh Thanks I will delve as deep and for as long as my brain will allow Jp
@Bananakid113 жыл бұрын
couldn't the "end" of our observable universe just be the smallest size, that matter could interact with? So maybe there is something "behind" this curtain, but energy as we know of can't really effect anything that is behind. Language is weird for trying to explain what I mean... EDIT: just at 4:40 and I realized that you told exactly what I wrote here :D
@altrag3 жыл бұрын
There's two possible "ends" to the tower: One is that we actually find the end - a description that we can definitively say cannot possibly be described by anything simpler, even in theory (that's what QHT is apparently attempting). The other is that we find the practical "end" - a point which beyond its impossible to make observations of any kind, even if you haven't ruled out the possibility of smaller things. That's kind of where string theory is at - what are those strings made of? "Energy!" What's energy made of? "Its just a thing that exists!" String theory is currently still far from "practical" end. Yes, its probably impossible for humanity to ever probe string theory energies so people working in the field are trying their damnedest to find a (comparatively) macroscopic effect that no other theory describes to be used as a test, but in principle those energies _could_ be obtained if we drained a few stars into a galactic scale particle accelerator. But even when we hit those energies, the very best we could do would be using one string to measure another string, and unless that was sufficient to tease out a concept of what "energy" actually is, that would be as far as we could go - even if we still aren't certain that "energy" couldn't be made up of anything more fundamental. Hell, that's quite possibly where we'd be with the standard model right now if it didn't conflict so badly with relativity.
@issolomissolom35893 жыл бұрын
0:31 the smartest picture ever
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Indeed. Wouldn't you love to have been there in the audience for that meeting?
@mohitt82853 жыл бұрын
Is the sequence of unification presented in previous video required or a different path is permitted for example if we unify strong force and gravity before unification with electroweak force
@TheOnlineBlackboard3 жыл бұрын
Well, since the standard model has weak, strong and EM, it would look more likely that these three would be united first. But since we don't have any working theory, it's hard to exclude anything. In QHT it's more like you have gravity and from gravity you get strong, weak, and EM
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Sure, I don't think a particular sequence is required. If you can unite gravity with any of the other forces, for example, that would be a huge revelation.
@Vilsent3 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for this!
@Tal-Bar3 жыл бұрын
Hi Arvin! Thanks for the videos, I find them very inspirational and informative! I wanted to ask - you said that a result of QHT is the quantum nature of Nature. If I got it right, it is the description of nature using Hilbert spaces. Does QHT also give us a way to derive the Schrödinger equation? Does it have something to say about the measurement postulate? Thanks a lot again! Tal
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Thanks. No, the Hamiltonian emerges from the math, but I don't think the math has been worked out to the extent that equations like the Schrodinger equation comes out of it. More work is needed.
@kentonjones53943 жыл бұрын
Thx for a nice walk 🚶♂️ 👍
@DM_Curtis3 жыл бұрын
Right out of the gate, what stands on what is upside-down in the graphic -- is gravity reversed in this video?
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Yeah I get it. I wanted to do a tower concept. Maybe the word "stands" was not the best choice of words.
@stevemotocrayz28923 жыл бұрын
If it bothers you THAT much, Curtis... just change your rotational setting and turn your phone 180*... Geez.. the remainder of us understood perfectly what was being artfully depicted. Time... how & ever..to move along
@jmanj39173 жыл бұрын
So, if gravity is curved spacetime, and spacetime is quantized, then it follows that gravity is also quantized.
@raimonwintzer3 жыл бұрын
Question: if we cannot measure something, is it actually able to affect us? Since if we cannot measure it that also should mean that it cannot interact with us
@pragneshbamanya50793 жыл бұрын
If we can't measure it then that means our technology is not good enough. We have just scratches the universe, many things are unknown even are today
@gastonlagaffe91563 жыл бұрын
thank you so much my friend; we need people like you to try to escape from the traps our minds are creating for us 👏👏👍👍👍
@mikemcfadden86523 жыл бұрын
My theory of everything: Given that infinity and eternity are inevitable something was bound to happen.
@stevemotocrayz28923 жыл бұрын
Mike ..truly love your prophetic comment..!!..put your "bound" in quotation marks and get an even bigger smile 😁
@shantanu2753 жыл бұрын
That explains big bang through statistical mechanics of Entropy but unifying gravity and quantum field theory still remains at large
@DK-ox7ze3 жыл бұрын
"something was bound to happen" - Well, even probability and statistics require some agent to cause any irregularities, no matter how tiny they are.
@simesaid3 жыл бұрын
I don't get it, is this a syntactical wordplay or something?
@MrKydaman3 жыл бұрын
I agree, in fact I believe that absolute nothingness is the only real impossibility.
@RohitSharmaDECIPHERETERNITY3 жыл бұрын
As above, So below! That's the truth
@kukasr3 жыл бұрын
Finally something better than PBS Space Time IMO :)
@brianjuelpedersen63893 жыл бұрын
I don't know if I would agree that it is better - at least not always - but definitely up there with PBS SpaceTime in terms of quality and production value
@dongately28173 жыл бұрын
Its videos like these that make me wish I hadn't quit school in the 8th grade.
@oreowithurea50183 жыл бұрын
He sounds like a really nice guy
@gabbaell3 жыл бұрын
I like his hat. It suits him.
@tim40gabby253 жыл бұрын
Whilst an underlying simple basic building block of a TOE would satisfy human minds, why cannot that underlying block itself be complex, tho fully reduced?
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
It's possible, but I think any complexity would necessitate a theory that explained the complexity from simpler precursors, if it is to be a FINAL theory. So this is what QHT attempts to do.
@sripuranam3 жыл бұрын
As Arvin showed, when we have found more and more fundamental blocks from atoms->protons->quarks we have always found something simpler than before. Think of the huge periodic table --> small standard model table. You are correct that we don't know for sure that the basic block is simple but our experience says it most probably is.
@GordLamb3 жыл бұрын
Without any experimental evidence or mathematical exploration, I'm still convinced that quantum uncertainty is a direct consequence of quantization errors. :p
@neznamy553 жыл бұрын
well, that may be true, but I hope it's not, because if it is then we live in deterministic universe with little to no room for free will
@GordLamb3 жыл бұрын
@@neznamy55 What is free will, anyway, though? If we can't measure/model accurately enough to predict outcomes or states of a running system to any significant degree, why does free will even matter? How would you differentiate having free will vs. not having it?
@neznamy553 жыл бұрын
@@GordLambI don't actually believe in free will, yet it seems quantum uncertainty conserves illusion of it. What free will is? In eyes of scientist it's sort of miracle(there is no free will in deterministic view). In life of a person, it's about everything, example - responsibility over our life, our triumps and our failures, we can be praised, we can be shamed, we can be blamed, but only if it's act of our free will, without free will concept of responsibility collapses, you can't be guilty of something you were destined to do, in the same way you can't even be praised for any success - because it's not you who is responsible - universe that set starting values is responsible, everything that followed was nothing but a chain reaction, also there would be no need for consciousness (which current science doesn't understand) as all we would need to be is automatons that act according their program, no need for conscious choice if there's predetermined path
@GordLamb3 жыл бұрын
@@neznamy55 thing is, whether or not the Universe is actually deterministic has no material impact on personal responsibility. You're still responsible for your actions, right? Philosophically one might argue that it's "unfair" to punish people for things they were predisposed to do, but we don't need quantum uncertainty to be able to model the human brain at the macro level. We can already detect many motor actions before they're recognized by the conscious mind. In the future, we'll undoubtedly be able to predict complex response to stimuli seconds.. minutes.. perhaps even hours in advance. But punishment isn't (in an ideal world) meant to be vindictive, but protective, so it's a moot point. If we can't see the future or model/evaluate our own mental state, then we have the illusion of free will. And I submit that there's no material difference between than and a free will influenced by true randomness.
@stefaniasmanio8593 жыл бұрын
Omg! 😳 one of the very best videos on the subject! Dr Arvin you are great! 👍👍💕💕💕 please, would you get deeper about this theory, and what about dark matter and energy? Is this QHT able to tell us anything yet? by the way are you ok, under your cap?
@caleboki20083 жыл бұрын
Does QHT decouple space from time? That is, does the concept of space-time exist in QHT?
@shantanu2753 жыл бұрын
13:33 He explained that spacetime can be curved without quantizing gravity
@ArvinAsh3 жыл бұрын
Great question! My understanding is that the math of the geometry does not need to incorporate time, but when you solve it for the configuration space, the Hamiltonian comes out, which shows how forces and particles evolve over time. I am hoping Jesper reads this, and elaborates.
@thejackanapes58663 жыл бұрын
Wouldn't time still just be the entropic relationship of how things move in empty space (or - if you accept monistic physicalism, the entropy of the monad)?
@kamikazekauz91863 жыл бұрын
Intuitively it would not need to involve time to describe any POTENTIAL movements in a 3D space, as you could basically describe the outcomes of various recipe combinations and assign them probabilities for occuring, giving you something analogous to the wave function. However, for the movements to actually take place in said 3D space you still require a fourth dimension unless your object in question is able to be in two or more places at once, which would go against all known physics (think of the wave function collapse gives you a discrete outcome). I know that wave functions have not been mentioned in the video and that they probably should not be mixed up in this theory, but to me they help grasping this concept a bit better.
@DaviesAcoustic3 жыл бұрын
Is it that time comes from the presence of all possible 'recipies' for moving things from A to B?
@WilliamDye-willdye3 жыл бұрын
I love the "bottom-up" approach. Find the extreme end-point, and work back from there. QHT uses geometry, which has a lot of advantages. I encourage readers to try their hand at the bottom up approach. It doesn't require a lot of prior knowledge to get started! One end-point that I've long used is "stuff happens", which is the extreme of being 100% correct but also 100% vague. In a sense, however, relativity and QFT are in the same quadrant. Relativity is very correct, but it doesn't tell me if I'm in love or which cell phone I should buy. So how can I work backwards from "stuff happens" to an acceptable theory? A more popular end-point is essentially "random everything", like the many-worlds interpretation. At the end-point it suffers from predicting nothing by predicting everything, but how do we improve it? If you get stuck, try asking what improvements are necessary to make a proposed end-point an acceptable theory. A nice part about that last question is that it doesn't require expertise in math, yet it's a question that many of the best minds in physics spent a lot of time considering. So give it a shot. What ideas would arguably be the absolute final answer? How could work backwards from that end-point to an acceptable theory? What makes a theory acceptable? It can be a fun mental exercise, and anybody can play.
@YathishShamaraj3 жыл бұрын
It gives more evidence of pilot wave theory
@havenbastion3 жыл бұрын
If an intuitive explanation is sufficient, an unintuitive one is a tragedy.
@Spencie_C Жыл бұрын
Great talk Arvin, not a physicist here, but awesome presentation!
@EmeraldView3 жыл бұрын
Okay then. "Can we FINALLY stick God into that infinitesimally tiny non-probable space?" Asks every religion on Earth.
@Piddlefoots3 жыл бұрын
They will find a way !
@letsif3 жыл бұрын
Every once in awhile, something jumps out at me and hits me in the GUT (sorry). This was one of them. I will be exploring further and can't wait to read Shell Beach. Thanks for your clear presentations, however simplified.
@Demonz20003 жыл бұрын
Aw yeah, I'm the 33rd like
@JohnVKaravitis3 жыл бұрын
I see a universe where people know about Sp0ns0rBlock!