Gravity and the universe | Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde, Priyamvada Natarajan [FULL DEBATE]

Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde and Priyamvada Natarajan discuss inconsistencies in our current theory of gravity. Is the fault with Einstein's theory of general relativity, or with our understanding of quantum mechanics?
Like this content? You might like this too: iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with...
00:00 Introduction
01:58 The problem with our theory of gravity: the quantum field theory and Einstein's theory of general relativity are mathematically incompatible
05:28 First pitch - Our theory of gravity lacks proper understanding of what quantisation is
05:51 Second pitch - We have to rethink gravity from a microscopic perspective
08:29 Third pitch - Data will show us the way
11:31 Theme 1: Where does the fault in our theory of gravity lie?
21:56 Theme 2: Do we need an entirely different account of gravity?
39:12 Theme 3: Should we accept that a single holistic account of the universe is impossible?
We all know the story of Newton framing his theory of gravity as a result of watching an apple fall from a tree. But 350 years on we still don't understand this seemingly simple force. Current theories cannot apply both at the small scale of atomic particles and at the giant scale of galaxies, on the scale of quantum mechanics and on the scale of general relativity. Without a solution the mystery of gravity threatens to undermine any overall account of the universe.
Do we need an entirely different account of gravity, or perhaps remove gravity from our explanations altogether? Or should we just accept that a single holistic account of the universe is not possible and see our theories as limited to a given frame and reference?
#gravity #generalrelativity #quantummechanics
Join celebrated theoretical physicist, Erik Verlinde, leading astrophysicist, Priya Natarajan, and famous physicist-KZbinr, Sabine Hossenfelder, as they take on the problems surrounding our conceptions of gravity today. Hosted by Bjørn Ekeberg.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Want to learn more about the theories of the universe? Watch Sabine Hossenfelder, Roger Penrose and Michio Kaku debate the multiverse theory in full here! kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWScnJmorbSGfsk

[@rayagoldendropofsun397]

Neither one of am known why Object's falls downward to Earth Surface, that's very hard to believe, knowing it's because of BONDED together Gas Molecules. Burn the Solid Object to see the freed Gas Molecules rising upward into the atmosphere, they're Born Again with New Life, quite visible to the naked eye's as Gas Smoke, Gravity Debunked. Theres no division within Classical, and Quantum Physics, that's because the Classical Universe is built on Quantum Particles, a hand full of dirt conforms such. Our Quantum Particles atmosphere enables Classical Ocean Waves. Classical human body breathe in Quantum Particles, Atmospheric Gase's. Energy's in Transformation is the driving force of the Universe. The Energy made human body in Atomic Molecular MOTION continues to Debunks Gravity none stop.

[@jawwadjawwad-ys8un]

First thing's if we keep on looking this universe separately on micro & macro scales then we are definitely not going in right direction because the matter's the same on both scales & no two different types of matter is under consideration so why applying to different theories to observe same matter,either it's on small or large scales & this's common sense that something very essential's missing & that's the reason both prevailing theories not supporting each other & why don't we look beyond these theories for the answer we are striving for? Please don't mess yourself on macro level because the required answer is hidden in micro or quantum level & if we are able to solve the missing links on quantum level then macro level universe will automatically reveal itself without any further or additional theory & if without solving quantum mechanics we try to solve macro scale problems then only mess & confusion will increase & nothing else. So for the time being simply forget macro universe & don't even try to mess with it. Hope that make some sense. INSHA ALLAH.

[@zeroonetime]

The Uni-Verse is a 01 binary, minus the purported multiple universes.

[@v2ike6udik]

she' s such a liar. she lieas about everything.

[@v2ike6udik]

If you want to hhave an i de, gimme me an idea, hot to get a million dollats out of lying cucademia. they promised million dollars for solving Collatz conjecture. There.

[@4thesakeofitname]

Madam Hossenfelder is one of the most reliable & effective science communicators out there. She can sufficiently condense any scientific topic to fit into the limits of ordinary people... It's always a pleasure to watch her talk on any topic indeed. Such a gem...

[@Thomas-gk42]

Absolutely right thanks

[@4thesakeofitname]

@@Thomas-gk42 Hi Thomas! (I recognised you from "her channel")

[@jeffreyculbert2093]

Her jokes are so ridiculously cringe worthy that they honestly become a delectable guilty pleasure. Can’t get enough.

[@NickRose-el3ze]

Ya, I love her. She's just seems hella down to Earth lol (pun intended) :)

[@Ichthyodactyl]

@@jeffreyculbert2093 The intentionally bad jokes are one of my favorite parts, honestly. Always gets a smirk and head shake out of me.

[@mikk01975]

I really loved Sabine's introduction to the problem. It gave very clear starting point even to me, who didn't know why those two theories didn't work together in the first place.

[@vladimirseven777]

Amazing, they just want to make everything the same, how unexpected. Put word "quantum" everywhere.

[@easygreasy3989]

Saw Sabina is on panel. 'Click play'. Thanks for the value.❤

[@Barnaclebeard]

Come for the condescending attitude, stay for the transphobia!!

[@RedAbz18]

She's transphobic?

[@tedl7538]

So Sabine, one of the most brilliant physicists alive, says in her intro that since the 1930s many smart scientists have devoted their lives to solving this problem, and if they couldn't make it work, then she's pretty sure she can't either. Yet somehow, incredibly, there are dozens of geniuses right here on this message thread who have figured it out. I truly and humbly stand in awe🤪

[@Thomas-gk42]

🤣A lot of megalomania out there. But I hope that SH, who is really brilliant (as mathematician too) has underestimated herself here in her tipical modesty.

[@gmrecneps]

Is Sabine really one of the most brilliant physicists alive? She seems to be a big physics personality, but if she is truly one of the greats I did not realize that.

[@baarbacoa]

@@gmrecneps I looked that up at some point. She is among the top science communicators. But not among the top theoretical physicists (although she is active in that field, not just a science communicator).

[@arubaga]

Breakthrough in quantum mechanics that could impact gravity could still come from lone wolf type researchers, but getting funding support is tricky if you are not a part of a large team.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@gmrecnepsShe wrote a great book, "Lost in Math", that bravely critizises the methodology in physics in the last decades, and beyond that, the way of funding projects. She also makes suggestions, how to do it better. Since that, she became something like arebel in physics, and a lot of circles of mainstream and establishment try to make her mouthy. Though from her abilities and age she should have a donated professorship in her country, she´s without a payed job.

[@nickfosterxx]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌌 *Gravity Challenges Overview* - Theories struggle at atomic and galactic scales. - Questioning Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics. - Debate on the feasibility of a unified universe account. 02:19 🤔 *Quantum Gravity Challenges* - Four forces vs. quantum properties. - Theoretical incompatibility, need for quantum gravity. 06:12 🔄 *Rethinking Gravity* - Combining relativity and quantum mechanics. - Microscopic exploration for deeper understanding. - Eric emphasizes understanding gravity's origin. 08:41 📈 *Data-Guided Progress* - Data's role in refining gravity understanding. - Precision measurements for theory testing. - Historical data-driven advancements. 11:51 🤝 *Reconciliation Debate* - Challenge in relativity or quantum mechanics. - Diverse perspectives on reconciliation. - Pria stresses data's role in revealing gaps. 14:38 🧠 *Quantum Gravity Exploration* - Sabina's focus on testing quantum gravity. - Challenges of quantum mechanics and measurements. - Potential for experiments without extreme gravity. 17:10 ⚖️ *Testing General Relativity* - Pushing general relativity's limits. - Belief in gaps emerging under scrutiny. - Cautious approach using known experiments. 19:08 🌌 *Theoretical Guidance* - Eric's theoretical approach, linking to thermodynamics. - Connecting gravity laws to microscopic understanding. 20:14 🌌 *Gravitational Equations Overview* - Gravity equations resembling gas properties. - Progress in treating black holes quantumly. - Rethinking gravity from a microscopic view. 22:22 🤔 *Different Gravity Accounts* - Debate on the need for a new gravity account. - Exploring beyond general relativity. - Discussion on removing gravity from explanations. 23:02 🌌 *Gravity's Cosmic Role* - Gravity's crucial role in cosmic order. - Need for refined gravity description. - Innovative ideas to test strong gravity. 25:19 🌌 *Cosmology Challenges* - Open questions in cosmology, dark entities. - Need for a new quantum gravity perspective. - Recognition of emerging crises and gaps. 26:43 🌀 *Discussion Direction* - Differentiating quantization issues and observations. - Considering gravity as emergent. - Possibility of a more fundamental theory. 30:25 🤨 *Various Approaches Exploration* - Advocacy for exploring multiple gravity approaches. - Caution against overemphasizing dark matter. - Open-minded exploration of diverse theories. 34:23 🤔 *Assessing Modified Gravity* - Reflecting on modified gravity limitations. - Acknowledgment of appealing properties. - Realization of its non-comprehensive solution. 36:26 🎲 *Understanding Gravity's Future* - Focus on understanding, not just modifying, gravity. - Progress in understanding gravity from string theory. - Anticipation of a new gravity perspective. 38:15 🌐 *Holistic Theories Challenges* - Difficulty in untangling astrophysical issues. - Tabletop experiments for quantum exploration. - Acknowledgment of complexity and limits. 40:08 🌌 *Perspective in Theories* - Observer-dependent nature acknowledgment. - Reflection on incomplete descriptions. - Awareness of human perspective limits. 41:07 🌐 *Aspiring to Holistic Account* - Expressing cosmic humility and limits recognition. - Agreement on aspiring to a complete understanding. - Acknowledgment of brain's limitations. Made with HARPA AI

[@user-gk3jk2wr4u]

We need many many more open discussions like this....I believe this mystery is at the very heart of our gap in the field of physics. We need radical new ways of thinking about it as conventional theories are making no progress. The UAP videos show that it is the door to wonderful things.

[@RagingGeekazoid]

Especially new ontologies (theories of what the Universe is made of). If something can be in more than one place at a time, it's not a "particle" in any meaningful sense of the word. So what are particles (quanta)? What are fields? What is the vacuum? Those are the questions that need to be asked.

[@user-gk3jk2wr4u]

@RagingGeekazoid i agree...one point I see mentioned....the human mind can and will crack this....

[@sciteceng2hedz358]

As Sabine said, when we can describe what a measurement is, then we will have it

[@user-cj8fd3el5y]

👏 ❤All three brought the point that not only we’re not able to get enough information to be able to understand the physical universe, but also, our brains are somewhat limited. Two of the panelists expressed that, despite those limitations, it’s worth trying our best. There is hope for this 🌎 after all 😊

[@1112viggo]

To be fair i think it goes without saying that the entire panel feels that way, otherwise they wouldn´t have become theoretical physicists.

[@tomschmidt381]

I agree, I think it is amazing brains evolved to keep the owner from being eaten by lions have been able to understand the universe as well as we currently do. Lets hope we are able to continue expanding our understanding.

[@rayagoldendropofsun397]

Don't think their Brain is somewhat limited, it's just that they're searching in the waste basket, for instance, they're not, but should be aware that Newton equations works perfect with Energy, setting in MOTION Earth Surface 9.8 Energy Conservation System Activity's at Quantum Level's, including ocean views, hurricane, Tornadoes, Dirt Devils, Earth Quakes, even the human body internal and external MOTION

[@ZigSputnik]

Well, we have another 4 billion years to do it - barring any global catastrophes that we are unable to survive. So I'm optimistic.

[@dragoscoco2173]

Or it is a grift.

[@batmanarkham5120]

Thank you for providing access to this extremely informative, succinct discourse.

[@yyyy-uv3po]

QM looks incomplete as Sabine mentioned, but frankly GR is too. Like, by what mechanism does energy bend space-time? Why do particles follow geodesics, and what does it even mean for a field excitation? Feels to me like we'll have to fix both, maybe even throw away both altogether.

[@goldwhitedragon]

And rely on the best choice, Langan's CTMU.

[@tonib5899]

Always understood it was the mass in spacetime that gives space it’s curvature and that it was this curvature that we see translated as gravity. Bigger mass equals bigger gravitational field equals bigger escape velocities up until black holes where it’s just too big. It’s just how this works quantum mechanically seems to be where we are stuck.

[@celiogouvea]

​​@@tonib5899I believe the only method to counteract the curvature of space caused by mass is through contraction of space, potentially resulting in repulsive gravity. While space can expand, the concept of contracting space seems overlooked in scientific discourse.

[@robinkelly1770]

​@@celiogouveaWarp field theory

[@celiogouvea]

@@robinkelly1770 Warp field theory, designed for propulsion, operates universally in space, independent of gravity. Its capabilities exceed our imagination. In my scenario, I aim to leverage planetary mass to elevate objects, potentially necessitating minimal energy due to the subtle interaction between an object and the planet. This approach avoids noticeable effects such as light distortion, mass alteration, or time dilation, effectively reversing gravity's influence, it's like curving space negatively by contracting, since space already expanded after Big Bang, I believe that contraction is possible.

[@johnalbinson4641]

It's always a joy to hear sabine speak. Such clarity and engaging presentation.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Right!

[@matteobonan6042]

It's impressive how Sabine and Priyamvada focus on making us understand their point of view to try and find a solution. It is clear that Sabine and Priyamvada have a complementary approach centered on the scientific method introduced by Galileo. Eric, on the other hand, tells us that we can throw away Einstein's theory confident in the fact that it is a theory of everything, which does not yet agree with reality, but which will in the future. Priyamvda's allusion to free parameters that adjust theories and Sabine's look of approval was amusing, as was Sabine's allusion to the pointless waste of time and money in the search for exotic particles needed to support outlandish theories.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Good analysis.🙂 Sabine already made suggestions in her scientific papers for these table experiments, she mentions here. It´s a shame, that she hasn´t a payed professorship and must fund her research herself.

[@Jeff-zs2pq]

Do you think there are no more exotic particles in the Standard Model predicted to exist, like the Higgs boson was predicted to exist 50 some years ago ? So,,,,,the Higgs field does not give particles mass in the Universe but the Higgs field drags particles along with it and that's how mass comes about ? We are progressing slowly but surely.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@Jeff-zs2pq well, the Higgs boson is not exotic in that way, it's part of the competition of the standard model. Other ideas beyond the standard model like supersymmetry would create new particles, but never were found.

[@Jeff-zs2pq]

Considering that the LHC cannot provide the energy needed for Supersymmetry particles to appear?

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@Jeff-zs2pq No, it's many magnitudes away from that. You need an accelerator of solar systems diameter or more for that. Sabine Hossenfelder explains it very accurately in her book "Lost in Math".

[@charlesblithfield6182]

Sabine’s approach of trying to measure the gravitation field of a macroscopic quantum object seems like a very good way to bridge the gaps in our understanding of gravity. Maybe current research involving quantum computers might bring this potential closer to being realized.

[@pauldowdall144]

This idea is suggested in Time Reborn by Lee Smolin. In a philosophical sense he suggests that space is an illusion made up by our brains and that time is a more fundamental thing. I found the book a hard read, look for some good summaries first.

[@charlesblithfield6182]

@@pauldowdall144 I’ve seen him give a talk at the Perimeter Institute on Cosmological Natural Selection.

[@curtishorn1267]

That's already been done.

[@wheatthicks]

@@curtishorn1267 Orly? Link?

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

This can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment. The gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass: r(G)=2GM/c^2 Consequently: 2E(0)/r(G)=F(pl)=c^4/G=ε(pl)/r(pl): with indicating the mutual quantization of the mass (energy) and space-time: m(0)//m(pl)=r(G)/2r(pl)=n,where n-total number of quanta of the system; the tension vector flux: n=[(1/4π)(Gћc)^-½]gS ( const for all orbits of the system: n=0,1,2,3....). Moreover, the parameter r(0)=r(G)-r(pl)=(2n-1)r(pl), defining the interval of the formation of the system, at n=0, when r=r(G)=0 (for example, the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang) turns out to be a quite definite quantity: r(0)=-r(pl). In the area [(-rpl) - 0 - (+rpl)] there is an implementation of external forces, "distance": (-rpl)+(+rpl)=0 (≠2rpl). On the Kruskal diagram of the hyperbole r=0 corresponds to the true Schwarzschild feature, the features V and VI are not even covered by the global (R, T)- space-time and correspond to the "absolute" vacuum; then the singular areas above and below the hyperbolas r=0 can be formally treated as the energy source (external forces). That is, the frightening "true singularity" is actually a superconducting heterotrophic "window" between the proto-universe (the source) and physical bodies*. As a fundamental theory, GR has the ability with just one parameter: r(G)/r=k to predict, explain new physical effects, and amend already known ones. Photon frequency shift in gravitational field Δw/w(0)=k; the angle of deflection of a photon from a rectilinear propagation path =2k, the Newtonian orbit of the planet shifts forward in its plane: during one revolution, a certain point of the orbit is shifted by an angle =3πk, for a circular orbit (eccentricity е=0); in the case of an elliptical orbit - for example, for perihelion displacement, the last expression must be divided by (1-e^2). GR/QG predicts a new physical effect: w/w(pl)=k; expression for gravitational radiation from a test body. This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present. ----------------------- *) - From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^½ (w)=-[h/4πm(pl)]w. Final formula:ф(G)=-[w/w(pl)]c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, r(n')=nλ/π=(n+n')2r(pl)l , the corresponding orbital radius, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - obviously, the quanta of the field are themselves quantized: λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl) = 2πc/w, where n'/n - system gravity unpacking ratio, n'- the orbit number (n'=0,1,2,3…). Obviously, on the horizon [r=r(rG), n'=0] the "door" is closed, however, the quanta [λ=λ(pl)] can go out singly and form the first and all subsequent half-orbits (n'=1,2, 3 ...) during the time t(0)=r/c=2nт, where т=1/w, т=((1+n'/n)т(pl), spending part of their energy on it each time. And it is this mechanism that provides the step-by-step formation of a variable gravitational field: variably accelerated expansion of spacetime as a phase space: |a|=g=πc^2/L, where L[=πr^2/r(G)] is the length of the phase trajectory (of course, the quanta coming through the "window" are also rhythmically restored). The phase velocity of evolution v'/π= r(pl)w/π; m(0)=(c/2G)rv', where v'=v^2/c. The angular momentum: L(p)=|pr|=n^2ћ [const for all orbits of the system; at n=1: L(p)=ћ] and moment of power: M(F)=dL(p)/dt(0)=nћw/2=-E(G)=E*, where t(0)=r/c, E*- energy of self-action. The gravitational field is characterized by a spontaneous flow: J*=(v'/π )(1/4π) g^2/G, where v'/π- phase velocity of field evolution. Entropy (here: a measure of diversity/variety, not ugliness/disorder) of the system: S=πε(pl)r(t)=(n+n')k, where k is the Boltzmann constant. Obviously, on the horizon entropy=min and with fundamental irreversibility, information is preserved (+ evolves, accumulates). Accordingly, m=m(pl)/(1+n'/n), where m=ħw/c^2, is the quantum of the full mass: M=n'm [

[@nalathekitten3594]

I’m a simple person 🧍‍♀️ I see Sabine, I click and like 👍🏼 😊

[@Thomas-gk42]

She's a jewel of science.❤

[@blijebij]

Erik Verlinde's line "We have an incomplete description of everything". I think is spot on.

[@gehwissen3975]

This should be interpreted as 'We don't have the slightest idea' Science doesn't know when to lay down....

[@mitseraffej5812]

@@gehwissen3975Just as well science doesn’t know when to lay down, if it had given up 500 years ago we would still be burning witches, tilling the fields by hand and have a life expectancy of 35.

[@bishopdredd5349]

Not sure science will go anywhere if they just starting ‘laying down’. There’s quite a few theories out there, just looking for more data to show which theory to build on.

[@blijebij]

@@bishopdredd5349 Science is at a very important transition point, moving from old school to new school. It requires time and patience. We live in a society where we expect today's answers to tomorrow's questions. Society is a bit hasty these days, impatient. There is one thing I truly believe in: due to mankind's curiosity, science will continue to advance. We simply cannot dictate its pace.

[@blijebij]

@@gehwissen3975 Personally, I hold a more positive view on things. For instance, modern science is still a relatively young field. It needs time to develop, so we shouldn't expect answers tomorrow, or perhaps even within our lifetime for some questions. Of course, there are some questions that we may never find the answers to.

[@sdutta8]

In the end, all panelists seemed to agree with Feynman’s “shut up and compute”. For me, the discussion raised the fundamental question: what is the purpose of a theory - is it to predict the outcome of an experiment or to explain WHY the outcome is what it is. Quantum mechanics is scoring well according to the first definition but not that well according to the second. Gravity seems to have some problems with both.

[@pauldowdall144]

Very good discussion, thanks to all. Lee Smolin is the physicist whose theories I feel most comfortable with. Closer to Sabine and Priyamvada. I think Erik's theoretical approach is needed but not when confined to string theory as a method.

[@unfortunatebeam]

yeah no one cares

[@bradleygraves3809]

@@unfortunatebeam if you have nothing nice to say, don’t speak

[@RagingGeekazoid]

I like Roger Penrose's idea about wave-function collapse being a gravitational phenomenon. It explains measurements occurring in macroscopic detectors but not for single particles in empty space.

[@kennethcole1551]

Gravity is directly proportional to the mass how much mass . The particles in bottom mechanics maybe not manifest enoug gravity to measure

[@unfortunatebeam]

@@RagingGeekazoid too bad Penrose, or anyone interesting, wasn't on stage here.

[@hermansims2296]

Thank you very much for providing this for us. It is amazing that in this 21st century we are able to hear from these incredible minds! Again thank you and your esteemed panel. H.M. Sims

[@jazdaone]

What a great debate. Why we can’t discuss like this on daily basis?

[@mickrivard8344]

Because most people dont want to or cant

[@grammasgardenofideas5081]

seeking new perspectives. Wonderful. Thank You

[@Floxflow]

Good debate 👌 Thanks 🙏

[@jamesascher8147]

I really enjoyed that. It really does feel like we are on the brink of new discoveries. I do wonder however, if it would happen faster if scientists got a bit more psychedelic

[@dearoledad8823]

We haven’t scratched the surface 😊

[@grammasgardenofideas5081]

solidarity with Sabine. love the conversation. thank ypu whoever put this together

[@bishopdredd5349]

Great discussion

[@gijbuis]

That last remark by Sabine "the problem may be that we don't really understand what quantization means in the first place" sounds to me (as a layman) like the hammer hitting the nail on its head! What are particles? Some sort of localized disturbance in a field? A sort of atto-scaled crop circle maybe?

[@axilmar254]

Verlinde says at 8:43 that we have a good idea of what gravity is, but in reality we don't. We don't know a) why matter bends spacetime. b) what is spacetime composed of (since it gets bent, it is composed of something). c) why matter falls towards the center of gravity. Bending spacetime is one thing, falling towards the center of gravity is another thing. We could have had only the bending, and not the falling, for example.

[@aurelienyonrac]

I think virtual particles moving in a "edge dislocation " fashion would explain gravity. I got the idea from bending metal at an atomic level. Exept instead of atomes sliding, it is virtual particles and there counterparts, sliding against eache other. Same way an infinite basketball team sitting on an infinite row of chairs, they scoot over to make room for one more person. Thus generating space time and motion also called gravity. It is quit simple. The consequences are not. 😅 I hope it makes sense. I just need someone to help me do the math part.

[@kylelochlann5053]

Spacetime is composed of events. We know exactly why matter "falls" and a little odd that you wouldn't have heard of general relativity.

[@User53123]

​@@aurelienyonracErik Verlinde already did the math. He proved gravity can be represented by information. There's more explanation needed tho.

[@michaltrneny1208]

Will we ever know, what space/time/mass is? I think no, but it doesn't matter. 37:46 Erik Verlinde: "I think our next theory of gravity will again not be a modification of the laws of Newton or the Einstein equations. No, it will be totally new perspective that will be given on what gravity is." My reaction: "Yes. Stephen Wolfram offers that perspective in his book A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics ."

[@desertself]

This channel is new to me. It's good!!

[@barunmitra8778]

This was a master class summarising the known and the unknown aspects of gravity. But even more importantly, this discussion was a demonstration of scientific thinking. Thanks.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Yep, great panel. Sabine is unique and brilliant.

[@gehwissen3975]

"Science doesn't think at all" Heidegger. Worth to think about. Seems unintuitiv first.... :)

[@paulmuriithi9195]

The comments section is far more interesting..so many brilliant ideas here.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@paulmuriithi9195 sarcasm?

[@hyperduality2838]

Reductionism (division) is dual to holism (unity). These "gamblers" are making predictions -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). The equations of motion and Einstein's theories optimize your predictions about the dynamics of objects -- syntropy. Making predictions is a syntropic process! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Simultaneity is dual to relativity -- Einstein. Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Knowledge is dual according to Immanuel Kant. Synthetic a priori knowledge -- Immanuel Kant.

[@davidfraser2946]

Things are very exciting at the moment. The ground is being tilled for a new set of ideas that can better describe everything.

[@sunway1374]

In terms of engineering/applications... We have invented and used devices that are based on controlling the other 3 fundamental forces. But not for gravity. We haven't made any device that can turn up or down the gravitational pull (push) of an object with mass. I think that shows our lack of understanding of gravity.

[@User53123]

That's becuz gravity is basically time, and we can't control time. Yet.

[@aurelienyonrac]

Controle the virtual particles and you controle gravity. Virtual particles recombine. But they can recombine in many diferent patterns. Look up "edg dislocation" when bending metal. Change the atomes to virtual particles sliding against there counterparts and you got space time bending. Also known as gravity. Does ut make sense?

[@jonka1]

Later in the debate Eric talked in a way that resonates with ideas I have been voicing for some time. I suspect that infinity will always get in the way of observation and that we need to bear in mind that whatever we can see and however far our technology allows us to make observations everthing that we can now and will ever be able to observe will only ever be local events and we will have to live with that limitation.

[@Shadismic]

Dear Dr. Biene, I think I have an answer to the subject but I dare not to go public with it for the hassle accompanied.

[@6ygfddgghhbvdx]

With so much progress we can not answer what is gravitational field of particle in the box? Amasing!

[@Thomas-gk42]

Because gravity is incredible weak, you just can measure it for large objects that have no quantum properties. That's why Sabine suggests better table experiments.

[@amaliaantonopoulou2644]

The idea that it is the exchange of information in quantum level, as this gentleman is saying, it could be the explanation of something like gravity between particles.

[@aaronperelmuter8433]

@@Thomas-gk42 It’s got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the strength, or lack there of, of gravity. The reason we don’t know the gravity of a particle is because particles can be in more than one place at the same time, so if it’s, for example, going through BOTH slits in an experiment, how do we apportion the gravity? Is it 50/50, 100/100, 70/30, or some other amount? Furthermore, Sabine never said anything at all about needing better experiments, she never mentioned anything of the sort. She’s a theoretical physicist, not an experimentalist, and she would never say “ye, let’s spend many more tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on yet another particle collider or similar experiment”.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@aaronperelmuter8433As she said on this panel, she sees herself as phenomenologist (in fact, she´s a leading mathematician), and she has suggested experiments, published on arXiv. Sureley they need less then hundreds of million dollars.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@amaliaantonopoulou2644I don´t really understand his theory, how information is connected with gravity. But perhaps it´s hidden deep in his math.

[@Joshua-by4qv]

Even if today's theories are only approximations, it is still deeply satisfying to have this understanding of gravity and its limitations. Almost all of humanity in human history was clueless about physics and the nature of the universe.

[@mitseraffej5812]

And I think the vast majority still are.

[@garagatza]

And again looking down on our ancestors. I just just think we lost some knowledge and/or we're not yet able to comprehend some stuff. And that's alright.

[@mitseraffej5812]

@@garagatza Maybe the human brain, the product of a billion plus years of evolution just doesn’t have , and maybe never will have the ability to comprehend the true nature of reality. The vast majority of humanity can barely comprehend tying their shoe laces, metaphorically speaking that is. But literally most of us can’t comprehend the inner workings of the technology we use.

[@skepticalgenious]

I truly do enjoy watching those that disagree but are so respectful. Very interesting ideas, I would agree perhaps the thing that will piece this together is something we have not even thought about. And it might even be a moment of... of course it works like this. How did we not see that.

[@markhuru]

Why not think first of the magic of the gyroscope, we already use angular momentum to describe shift… We’re now close, but it’s probably electromagnetic in it truest form the alignment of atoms toward an opposite pole

[@marksakowski9272]

I can definitely say I know what I don't know!

[@gehwissen3975]

Definitely not. 'I know what I don't know' is an inner contradiction

[@Napafoodie]

The big problem in current detectors is that the energy of observation effect isn’t taken into consideration. Right now, if we observe a difference when something is observed, We don’t separate the observation energy from the reaction energy. Running in circles

[@goldwhitedragon]

That's why you need the CTMU. A supertautology.

[@johnsimon2988]

S. Hossenfelder is a hero for laymen like myself. So intelligent and willing to go off the reservation of commonality. I think she's correct that string theory has been pushed and pulled to breaking and not much has changed in the understanding of gravity. A novel way of looking is needed. Go Sabine!

[@Thomas-gk42]

She´s a remarksable lady

[@giampierocampa4099]

As usual what Sabine says makes a lot of sense. I do not know, but we have been trying, and failing, to put gravity into a quantum box for basically a century now. Maybe it's time to ask ourselves if we really have to take that box for granted without ever questioning it.

[@aurelienyonrac]

I think virtual particles moving in a "edge dislocation " fashion would explain gravity. I got the idea from bending metal at an atomic level. Exept instead of atomes sliding, it is virtual particles and there counterparts, sliding agaist eache other. Same way an infinite basketball team siting on an infinite row of chairs, they scoot over to make room for one more person. Thus generating space time and motion also called gravity. It is quit simple. The consequences are not. 😅

[@Napafoodie]

Like an edge effect election crystals can form?

[@thomasbolton8373]

hey Sabine, your hairstyle is wonderfull, love it. thanks for your vlogs.

[@pdxyadayada]

What a wonderful discussion with great minds! Sabine is a favorite of mine, of course, with the other million plus YT subscribers….

[@charlottesimonin2551]

There are many questions unanswered here but perhaps we need to reconceive our view of the nature of reality.

[@willbrink]

There’s no known quanta of time There’s no known quanta of gravity This can’t be a coincidence. This is an aspect of the search for quantum gravity to make quantum mechanics and general relativity compatible. Yet, gravitational fields impact time. Yet, objects traveling at speed (acting as a gravitational field?) experience time differently relative to a stationary observer. Does that not demonstrate that gravity itself is not simply the effects on spacetime? Or, are they acting via different mechanisms? Does this support time and gravity as emergent? Some theories suggest a graviton exists, but gravity is so weak that detection of a graviton is almost impossible. Gravitons, if they exist, will be both weak and very rare.

[@Cyril29a]

Seeing that gravity directly impacts time gravity must be tried to the idea that time does not exist and is somehow the unifying factor in a static universe where consciousness creates the illusion of time. At the beginning of what we call time the entirety of the mass and geometry was contained in a tiny or folded context and then the geometry began to unfold bringing time with it. Well what if all levels of the universe expansion exist outside of time and gravity is how we experience the early moments of the universe when all matter and all space were one folded tiny thing hence the attraction of matter to all other matter. Gravity is the proof that the universe still exists as that tiny singular all encompassing phenomenon we just don't perceive it that way. Time and maybe space themselves are the illusion because of our limited ability to perceive the universe. After all we are each a location in space time so how can we as a small piece of the universe hope to understand the universe.

[@deltalima6703]

@willbrink these are good questions and deserve an answer without woo

[@PKWeaver74]

There's no known quanta of consciousness either. Bet that comment made you wince?

[@QuantumPolyhedron]

@@PKWeaver74 There is no known quanta of my pet gold fish. Who cares?

[@PKWeaver74]

@@QuantumPolyhedron Well there is actually though isn't there!

[@rogerjohnson2562]

I didn't realize that the electrons mass (gravitational attraction) wasn't compatible with the standard model. There is also the issue that the quark change from proton to neutron is just adding an electron; so an electron is just a quark change. The reasons mount why we should look for a better theory than the standard model...

[@rikimitchell916]

Kurt!! The door to the future is open to you. That was great, your clarity and depth were very sobering

[@therealDannyVasquez]

I love Sabine. Such brilliant and insightful communicator. She challenges my beliefs and false ideas about science and the universe in such a positive and beneficial way

[@Thomas-gk42]

right, same with me🙂

[@BasicMethodsWork]

I have studied this and this is what I think. Gravity has a working radius which I term as the Gravity Radius. If you are smaller than this radius, then gravity cannot influence you. You have to be larger than this radius before the influence of gravity can be felt. This will allow both Quantum Mechanics and the Macroscopic Gravity theories to co-exist. I think that the notion of gravity working at the Plank Scale is unreasonable. Gravity may also be quantized or granular. If the distances are very small (Quantum scales), then Hadrons will not be affected by gravity. Think about this...what if Dark matter is actually NOT matter in space, but space itself.

[@soundphilosophy]

Interesting; I've always thought it strange that physicists would repeatedly talk about a large relativity scale and a small quantum scale, but never give a cross-over point as an actual length; do you have an approximation of this radius length for gravity?

[@BasicMethodsWork]

It would have to be larger that the shell diameter of an atom, because electron orbits are not affected. I also believe that Space is granular or, in other words has structure. This would also be why we see the need for Dark Matter, it is actually the structure of space. Alternatively, Gravity could be quantized which would have the same result...wonderfully pleasurable this subject..comments, please.

[@soundphilosophy]

@@BasicMethodsWork 4 angstroms?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

is there anything unusual about rotation of stars near black holes(s) that has not been explained?

[@allanshillingford7104]

The missing link is a philosophical explanation, as was in the beginning with the Greek Thales etc

[@alieninmybeverage]

I keep repeating to myself "gravity is not a force." Sabine then says "The gravitational force." Now I am in a superposition that is gravitational. Nobel me.

[@NondescriptMammal]

The statement that "gravity is not a force" is debatable at best, and absurd at worst. I think it is a misinterpretation of general relativity, and of what it means to say "spacetime is curved" and that this curvature is the cause of gravity. It's especially weird when physicists say that Einstein's theory demonstrated that gravity is not a force, while Einstein himself referred to it as a force, even within his papers that introduced general relativity.

[@alieninmybeverage]

@NondescriptMammal "debatable at best and absurd at worst" is the human condition and all it contains. Hold my Nobel.

[@NondescriptMammal]

@@alieninmybeverage I'll gladly hold your Nobel, if in turn you will drop a bowling ball on your toes while repeating to yourself "gravity is not a force". 😸

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

​@@NondescriptMammal Can you define what you mean by a force? With the definition I would use (in essence the definition Newton uses but with curved instead of flat spacetime: Something that induces deviations from a geodesic), gravity is not a force.

[@poksnee]

@@NondescriptMammal Gravity ACTS as a force.

[@onehitpick9758]

Trying to unify quantum mechanics with gravity is like trying to unify statistical mechanics with regular mechanics with one simple equation.

[@hyperduality2838]

Reductionism (division) is dual to holism (unity). These "gamblers" are making predictions -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). The equations of motion and Einstein's theories optimize your predictions about the dynamics of objects -- syntropy. Making predictions is a syntropic process! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Simultaneity is dual to relativity -- Einstein. Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!

[@jawwadjawwad-ys8un]

Of course gravity is just a part of quantum mechanics & not something out of it. You will find the exact nature of gravity within the folds of ATOM.

[@tonib5899]

Always thought that mass creates curvature in space time and we see these affects as gravity. Never understood how it works quantum mechanically though.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

does the opposite of quantum measurement happen when cross horizon into black hole? particles become virtual particle energy probabilities? recoherence of quantum fields and wave function?

[@poksnee]

I am amazed that there is still someone promoting String Theory.

[@NondescriptMammal]

Me too, considering it has never had any empirical evidence to definitively support it.

[@TheSeedforme]

Parrots. It'll end up being true

[@poksnee]

@@NondescriptMammal Indeed. String theory is purely a mathematical construct.

[@pierregrondin4273]

There might be something to the idea of more dimensions, otherwise how can you explain entanglement and all the weirdness of quantum behaviour. There really seems to be a something else behind the quantum mirror.

[@pierregrondin4273]

Something that is not 3 dimensional.

[@jpdalvi]

Best part is reading all the crackpot "theories" in the comments. Sabine and Tim maudlin are some of the more lucid people today working at the foundations of physics.

[@Thomas-gk42]

But they don´t agree about locality.

[@jpdalvi]

No

[@FromRootsToRadicals]

Man never for anyone on tv or music etc have i thought this. But i love this woman. Lol truly. ❤ 🤗

[@Zen_Cycling]

As far as I'm aware there are more infinities in equations of GR rather than QM on their own. Therefore, feels like GR needs more input.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Great Panel, peaceful debate and substantial content. Sabine is a unique and extraordinary personality. I love her books and her channel.

[@tkwu2180]

Eric is the only one that literally seems to know anything about real modern physics ahead of 70 years ago. Both the others contradict themselves over 3 times each and clearly (at least) realise that they are well out of Eric’s league.

[@Stefan-jl3oc]

Its Erik, not Eric.

[@kokoflix]

Can you please give an example of these contradictions? None of the 3 panelists has the solution to the problem, so how do you know that Erik has a leg up on the other 2? Also, Erik is the only speaker on stage that seems impatient, or condescending, towards the other speakers. It's ashame, because this could have been more of a collaborative brainstorming session than a "Physics Idol" show.

[@tkwu2180]

@@Stefan-jl3oc lol. Spell check.

[@tkwu2180]

@@Stefan-jl3oc lol spell check

[@tkwu2180]

@@kokoflix this is why I never comment too, I would like to also add that my physics level is in now way, I’m sure as nearly high as there’s and it’s about semantics really too. I know why Sabine says things like gravity is not a force, when you learn physics it’s difficult to explain things to people, for the 1st main reason, as I’m sure you’ll all be aware, we live on earth and there is obviously an atmosphere where we have to take brownian motion into account for things like sound. When you study this subject you need to rewire your brain in a sense as we use an old language that does not represent event newtownian physics, let alone, Einstienian. When we do equations they are almost always only as precise as a point of view from a vacuum in space, or you would end up using chaos theory and never having precise answers in small regions. Almost nowhere in the universe to our knowledge has such and incredible dynamic as we have on earth. I find that a little profound and beautiful tbh. But it’s why when people want to engage it’s very hard to not either sound like a pretentious asshole, or condescending know it all, I suppose on that note, then props to anyone that gets people thinking on here. Hope I didn’t come across as I think I did. I’m guessing Sabine knows her audience too so it’s why she uses language she does. The final longwinded point as someone said something I’m guessing inferring this, is despite many audiences misunderstanding the word theory in physics, there are plenty of out there when it comes to to the unknown, but unless we get smaller than quarks we know quite a lot, gravity and dark matter our easily our biggest mysteries but don’t need to be unified, as Eric pointed out, gravity is emergent at different scales, it’s not even existent when quarks dominated the universe, if you would like just an opinion (as it is all it can ever be) I would check out Neil Turok for dark matter (even if wrong, my point being on the cutting edge is that he has working ideas that are about to be tested and proved if that is a good example for my point about Eric, who I will put a link to his lecture and if you are a real geek, then read his papers), and I’m going to slightly contradict even myself about data, but only because if he’s right he will have outdone almost every physicist on earth, is Stephen Wolfram. Mocked by some but has working theories in my opinion better than the standard model (Yes I know that is controversial).

[@Napafoodie]

We accept the fact two things can be in two places at the same time and that two things can be invisibly linked across the Universe. This whole conclusion is based upon Einsteins declaration that nothing is faster than the speed of light. Better answer - assume Einstein is wrong. Both entanglement and uncertainty principal can easily be explained if things can move faster than light, but we just can’t measure this. (Yet)

[@CACBCCCU]

I saw a headline yesterday - "New Gravity Theory Lacks Energy Conservation." Everything based on Einstein's gravity lacks energy conservation unless you treat Einstein's "gravitational time dilation/compression" as nothing more than gravitational photon dilation/compression, enabling a system-wide time-basis for equations utilizing total system energy balancing.

[@Napafoodie]

And we can’t balance the things we don’t see

[@jasoniannone9675]

Sabine talks about quantization of gravity and it reminds me of Rovelli's assertion that time is quantized which makes me wonder if space-time and gravity are bound in some neatly describable way. Rereading this post, I understand that I'm just repeating the unification problem. I just had an insight out loud on this forum. Sorry.

[@jarekk.8247]

Every particle is energy. Energy is the opposite of space. Energy in contact with space creates the effect of canceling the surrounding space, which we observe as gravitational attraction.

[@MarianLuca-rz5kk]

Hello Jarek. Your statement is interesting. Please explain a little more in detail.

[@jarekk.8247]

space on the smallest scale is of a foam structure, when in contact with energy this foam collapses and the entire space shifts towards the energy. Scientists misinterpret the Casimir effect

[@jarekk.8247]

A spinning massive object can drag space behind it like honey. As a consequence of this distortion, light cannot leave the black hole. Near the center of the black hole, where all the energy is concentrated, space disappears, producing an acceleration equal to the speed of light.

[@Napafoodie]

The Horizon keeps appearing. And it never ever disappears. Just like you can’t catch a rainbo

[@Napafoodie]

@@jarekk.8247 I’m flagging those because you have just shown me so many answers I must come back. But I’ve too many open threads in my mind right now to assimilate. Let’s stay in touch.

[@johnpeers6540]

When did this take place?

[@sammorrow8420]

When the rate of time slows down, does the overall energy of a moving object change? The answer is no. To maintain the same energy it must accelerate. Time is included in all calculations of energy so if it changes its rate, doesn't that change something else? Acceleration is somehow inversely proportional to the rate of time and vise versa. I don't know why or how but time dilation may in fact actually cause the effect we call gravity much like a difference in air pressure causes wind. They did mention thinking outside the box in the video.

[@mitchellwashington8882]

I still think gravity is what accelerates time. And I would accept an interpretation that from a microscopic point of view gravity is what gives an observer the feeling that time is moving, but personally I think gravity bends the "time" part of space time. To reverse gravity would be the same as reversing time or "unbend" time.

[@Napafoodie]

There is always time to discuss time. Here’s my thoughts on time regarding humans. But everything is a fractal, so just slip whatever vocabulary in that works for other dimensions. DNA is history DNA is the future DNA is time. Our carbon based bodies are mass. Our nerves are energy Our chakras are the magnetic force holding things together.

[@Thomas-gk42]

"But nature knows how it works" - Sabine on top again!

[@erikdenhouter]

I would really want to go back to the original problem of the split experiment, wave or particle, and so again tackle the duality before quantum theories came in.

[@onnomon]

I don't think anyone mentioned the idea that quantum mechanics emerges from microscopic properties of space-time. Maybe the mention of a "space-time atom" but no one seems this is an avenue of approach. I am not a physicist but I do scour the web for these sorts of ideas. For example, a space-time manifold is continuous but does this preclude that such manifolds can be closed forms embedded in other manifolds. And if this were the case would not the embedded closed-form provide a discontinuity, a threshold if you like, between the closed-form and its embedding space. A threshold IS a quantum property. I sense that space-time (gravity) is really the mother of all properties of matter and energy but not in the existing constructions of Einstein's GR field equations. Those GR equations might be used to develop other structures of space-time, like the way a black-hold is, only on a different scale (think Planck level). I probably won't be around to see whatever outcome happens. All I know is that the GR math is vastly different from the QT math, just the math, never mind the physical entities they model. no wonder we're still talking about this.

[@maladyofdeath]

Maybe there is a correlation between whether a particle exists in a single state or two states at once and the gravitational field, perhaps quantum effects are gravitational in nature.

[@refusneant]

Very good.

[@Oliveir51]

May JWST distant observations we do not understand yet contain a solution to this ?

[@lowiq888]

A GREAT ENDING: the moderator asks....what is gravity? Prya simply does not know. Erik says gravity is the cost of moving information. sounds like quackery to me. Sabina tried to answer the question although I disagree about the LORENZ part. I think Sabina won the debate by at least one light-year.

[@jasoniannone9675]

I like the angle of deriving gravity from microscopic observations. Either or both models will change in some way but it makes sense to start at the beginning. What is the least massive observable gravitational field today? (90mg gold sphere, apparently. That's a lot more massive than I imagined.)

[@lordemed1]

What is gravity? 'A phenomenon that keeps our feet on the ground.'

[@diezelvh4133]

We are rapidly approaching that time dilation, that is, time/space time physically moving itself is what is causing gravity. But, what is time, and why does it only move forward?

[@pdxyadayada]

Is there a natural example of absolute ’no motion?’ How might gravity and motion (acceleration, etc) be related?

[@shawns0762]

General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated. Even mass that exists at 75% light speed is partially dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center. It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. Einstein wrote about dilation occurring in "large clusters of stars" which is basically a very low mass galaxy. For a galaxy to have no/low dilation it must have very, very low mass (or low mass in its center). It has recently been confirmed in 5 very, very low mass galaxies to show no signs of dark matter. For the same reason binary stars will always have predictable rotation rates. What we see in modern astronomy has been known since 1925. This is when the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It was clear that there should be an astronomical quantity of light emanating from our own galactic center. It wasn't until television and movies began to popularize singularities that the concept gradually became mainstream. There was clarity in astronomy before that happened.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what happens to acceleration of general relativity / gravity inside black hole?

[@arubaga]

We currently cannot observe past the event horizon, so what happens inside a black hole remains in the theoretical domain.

[@louisgiokas2206]

Phenomenologist. Sabine is correct in saying that "no one knows what it is". I was working on a classified project at one point. My studies had been in physics (I later switched to computer science) and one day I was talking to a colleague, and he gave me his business card. The job title was Phenomenologist. I had no idea what that was. I was very puzzled. At school I worked in the High Energy Physics department. We knew about the theorists. In fact, the HEP department took most of the top floor of the building (it was a large physics department) but on the small wing of the floor there was a theory department. In fact, Charles Misner was located there. Funny we never went down to see him since we all bought the book Gravitation, which he was one of the authors of. But I had never heard about phenomenologists. So, Sabine is probably correct in her attitude, except that with her exposure online, people might begin to understand and appreciate phenomenologists.

[@bobtarmac1828]

I demand answers!

[@johnmcmurray-yl5lu]

It is easy to quantize gravity. We know that the Electro-magnetic force divided by the Gravitational Force, equals the fine structure constant. Therefore the Gravitational force equals the Electro-magnetic Force times the Fine Structure Constant. QED

[@benmcreynolds8581]

I love this discussion. I see it being said gravity isn't a force. Is that a technical nitpick? Like Pluto isn't a planet (it's a dwarf planet) I'm curious because it really seems like gravity plays a massively important role throughout space? It gets referenced all the time? It seems like Gravity is something that should be looked into further? I'm just confused on why it's being said that gravity isn't a force & we are set on dark matter making up for the majority of the structure of space? Here's an example question related to the current position around dark matter: (I won't list every factor but) What if we don't fully grasp how density, mass, Electromagnetism, static charges, temperature interactions, friction, & all other forms of the EM spectrum behave in space & especially on VAST scales throughout the cosmos? There are scales in our universe that we can barely grasp with our most advanced simulations. If our values are off by the smallest degree, it vastly affects the outcome of the simulation.. If outcomes can be so different with the most minor adjustments in the values we input, We should at least stay open minded going forward. It's only logical that we don't fully understand things at immense scales. Also dynamic chaotic systems are insanely hard to simulate using our current models. It's reasonable for us to have a hard time finding the appropriate values & measurements. I know we will see people figure out ways to continuously improve the understanding of these things over time. As well as improving our simulation technology capabilities. Hopefully science can see we have run into a road block when it comes to the limitations of our understanding of certain aspects of our cosmos. It would be foolish to think we fully understand things. It seems reasonable that once things get chaotic & dynamic & are at immense scales & extreme forces, That we most likely have a lot left to learn..

[@Thomas-gk42]

Sabine currently made a video about that gravity is not a force. It was about GR. Yes it´s all terminology and definition. Traditionally they call it a force, but at last its geometry of spacetime.

[@seanhewitt603]

Want a theory of quantum gravity?, huh, me too. I've always wondered about the passage of light THROUGH time. Is it possible that the higgs field is what causes the flow of time, the passage from one moment to the next? Once you have temporal referants, you can then experience up, down, fowards, etc... so light passes through time, giving inertial vectors their values and perhaps even create virtual particle pair production...

[@ScRaMbLeS247]

It's always magnets and fields. Fields that we havnt defined that compound and are indestructible which are the boundaries of matter unable to decay like particles in the vacuum of space.

[@ejenkins4711]

In my opinion to combine the mystery of gravity and relativity. Start with 2 centers

[@Napafoodie]

Would one center be the opposite? Or would the circulation be opposite?

[@ejenkins4711]

@@Napafoodie i see it more as the return rather than opposite

[@charlesblithfield6182]

Adding a photon to a BH increases its surface area by a square. Is this relevant to the questions at hand?

[@Napafoodie]

A photon has an absolute value of 1. One squared is one. C2 is only a constant, not a variable. And far as relevance, the speed of light isn’t relevant in the equation.

[@monkerud2108]

yeah the limits are more in detail than in form, the universe as it is might be impenetrable for physical reasons, but that doesn't mean we can't understand better and better what kind of impenetrable it it.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

black holes are quantum objects from which can measure gravitation field?

[@benjamindees]

Send a black hole through a double-slit and tell us what happens.

[@JASONQUANTUM1]

Gravity is the rate of change of a Quantum State Vector emitted as Hawking radiation onto a qubit. It was recently published showing how Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can be unified. Heres the short version published on Zenodo. In the Lightscape of Quantum Information Holography (QIH), we embark on a mathematical sojourn, where the symphony of equations resonates in the unison of quantum mechanics, information, and gravity. The relation ℏω=mc^2 stands as the cornerstone in this theoretical construct, harmonizing these seemingly distinct domains into an integrated framework. Wormhole Oscillations and Hawking Radiation: Consider a pair of entangled black holes connected by a wormhole. The Hawking radiation emitted from the boundary of these black holes is imprinted on a qubit, transferring quantum information through the oscillatory behavior of the wormhole. Equation 1: Oscillatory Behavior of Wormholes ΔΨimprint=∫t0t1(2e^iωwormholet)⋅ΔΨHawking(t)dt In this equation: ΔΨimprint represents the imprinted quantum state vector due to the wormhole's oscillations. ωwormhole signifies the angular frequency associated with the oscillations of the wormhole. ΔΨHawking(t) represents the quantum state vector of the Hawking radiation emitted at a specific time t. This equation encapsulates the dynamic interaction of wormhole oscillations and Hawking radiation, contributing to the quantum imprint on the holographic screen. Quantum State Vector and Light Needles: The imprinted quantum state vector acts as a light needle, encoding information through its angular disposition, θ. Equation 2: Angular Disposition cos(θ)=∣ΔΨimprint∣/(ΔΨimprint⋅q^) Where: q^ represents the reference quantum state (qubit axis). This equation elucidates the probability encoding mechanism, where the cosine of the angle between the quantum state vector and the qubit axis determines the probabilistic outcomes. Encoding Acceleration and Gravity: The rate of change of the angle, θ, encapsulates the acceleration, which is synonymous with gravity in General Relativity. Equation 3: Encoding Gravity a=d^2θ/dt^2 Where: a is the encoded acceleration (gravity). By capturing the acceleration in the quantum framework through the rate of change of θ, this equation bridges the realms of quantum mechanics and gravity.

[@lonesomealeks4206]

[@cvally1]

love the blue leaves

[@robinkelly1770]

An electron is a particle wave. Can the particle and the wave be in 2 different places at the same time? If so is it not possible to detect the gravity in one place and the effect in another?

[@therealDannyVasquez]

What happens at the event horizon of the quantum level, where it meets the macro relativity level? Is there even a horizon inbetween where the two worlds meet?

[@Napafoodie]

Life is all a fractal. The quantum world meets the macro world at every single frequency change. So we don’t need to explain quantum vs universe. We just need to explain the frequency change at every level. A Taurus is a frequency changer. Our chakras change frequencies within the human body. Black holes change the frequency within a Universe. An electron changes frequencies between orbits. The event horizon is the frequency change. Find the calculation for one, it will describe the function for all.

[@thesciencebeyond]

We are looking at things from microscopic view point no matter if that microscope is a giant telescope looking at areas and distances at the scale of light years. Unless we adopt the ancient Eastern methodology of seeing the whole system within our own consciousness, what we call the concept of 'Aham Brahm Asmi', the mysteries of the working of the cosmos would continue to allude us.

[@hungryformusik]

A very good idea from Sabine, to measure the gravitational field of a massive quantum object. I strongly believe that‘s the way to go.

[@Thomas-gk42]

She already suggested such experiments since years. They are not funded, cause she´s an outlaw of physics, since she wrote her book "Lost in Math". She´s a brave human being.

[@Levon9404]

I’m more than willing to explain with details from quantum level to infinity, how gravity forms and works, I’m hoping less than year, I will start to explain what is gravity and how it works.

[@craigstiferbig]

A measurement is just an observation of a relative obstacle of flow and the vector changes

[@aaronperelmuter8433]

So if I measure my hand and it’s 10cm wide, exactly what flow is this being an obstacle towards and WTF does any of this have to do with vector changes? Your statement doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

[@Napafoodie]

The problem is knowing the inputs for what you are measuring. Say you want to measure wind resistance for a runner. So you put the anemometer in front of runner. The measurement is now skewed by the wind shield it provides. So one must always adjust for this. In quanta, there is an energy of observation which must be adjusted for. Just a look of your eye to someone across the room can cause hearts to flutter. Imagine the power of the energy of you eye in the microscopic world. This energy can change the micro ecosystems. For example, a microscope works by magnifying light on a specimen. The light is so bright it often kills your sample.

[@craigstiferbig]

@@aaronperelmuter8433 so to answer your question though. Your hands edge is interrupting the flow of the measurement that you're setting a boundary for that property. But also your act in movement at all is an infringement/coupling on the wave function itself to an extent.