Hacking the Nature of Reality

PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
↓ More info below ↓
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
tinyurl.com/yx9cusk5
Check out the Space Time Merch Store
pbsspacetime.com/
In particle physics we try to understand reality by looking for smaller and smaller building blocks. But what if that has been the wrong philosophy all along?
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Matt O'Dowd & Graeme Gossel
Graphics by Leonardo Scholzer & Adriano Leal
Post Production: Yago Ballarini, Max Willians, Pedro Osinski
Directed by: Andrew Kornhaber
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / @jrsschattenberg
In standard use, the S-matrix can be calculated if you understand the forces in the interaction region - for example, in the nucleus of an atom. But what if you don’t know those internal interaction forces? Heisenberg sought a way to ignore that internal structure and, rather, treat the S-matrix as fundamental. The S-matrix was to become the physics of the interaction, rather than an emergent property of more fundamental, internal physics. Heisenberg’s made some progress in the 40s, but the approach came into its own 20 years later when the atomic nucleus refused to give up its mysteries.
Special Thanks to Our Patreon Supporters
Big Bang Supporters
Alexander Tamas
David Barnholdt
David Nicklas
Fabrice Eap
John S
Juan Benet
Morgan Hough
Quasar Supporters
Christina Oegren
Mark Heising
Vinnie Falco
Hypernova Supporters
Chuck Zegar
Danton Spivey
Donal Botkin
Edmund Fokschaner
Hank S
John Hofmann
John Pollock
John R. Slavik
Jordan Young
Joseph Salomone
Julian Tyacke
Justin Ash
Mathew
Matthew O'Connor
Syed Ansar
Timothy McCulloch
Gamma Ray Burst Supporters
A G
Adrian Hatch
Adrien Molyneux
AlecZero
Andreas Nautsch
Angela Prigge
Bradley Jenkins
Brandon labonte
Craig Stonaha
Dan Warren
Daniel Lyons
David Bethala
DFaulk
Eric Kiebler
Frederic Simon
Geoffrey Short
Graydon Goss
Greg Smith
John Funai
John Griffith
John Robinson
Jonathan Nesfeder
Josh Thomas
Kevin Lee
Kevin Warne
Kyle Hofer
Malte Ubl
Michael Conroy
Nick Virtue
Nick Wright
Patrick Sutton
Paul Rose
Robert Ilardi
Scott Gossett
Sean Warniaha
Sipke Schoorstra
Steve Bradshaw
Tatiana Vorovchenko
Tim Stephani
Tonyface
Tybie Fitzhugh
Yurii Konovaliuk
Randall Sylvia

[@mikemcculley]

Subjects deserving their own episodes seem to increase exponentially.

[@Haannibal777]

Mike McCulley It is okay if you understand nothing. Just use the s-matrix.

[@Scorch428]

If you were to talk about ALL the subjects deserving of their own episode, youd need an entire episode to list them.

[@RanEncounter]

@@Scorch428 One episode is not enough...

[@RanEncounter]

OP that is what science does.

[@nickwilliams2745]

“The more you learn the more you realize how much you don’t know”

[@terryboyer1342]

I'm not sure how I feel about the uncertainty principle.

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

Try applying the ambivalence principle.

[@craigwall9536]

You've been watching too much Rick and Morty.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

And commutable / non-commutable values...?

[@seanludeman4940]

Underrated comment 😍

[@noxnc]

Don’t worry, it’s neither here nor there.

[@brianmessemer2973]

I love "tame the infinities" 😂 "Down boy, down infinity, sit, SIT, good boy, gooooood infinity." 😂

[@Yezpahr]

Cracking the whip at infinity itself.

[@macysondheim]

I don’t believe in atheism, srry.

[@punkiller666]

​@@Yezpahr *cracks the whip at infinity *whip reaches infinite mass and creates black hole *gets engulfed by black hole 🕳

[@alexescalona108]

Why am I watching this like I understand it?

[@jvcscasio]

Cause his voice sounds good

[@Vicvincexxx]

William Harris me too, I think pretending to understand it helps to understand a little sometimes. If you watch this and you think you don’t understand, you don’t even try to understand and all his intelligible talk becomes nonsense and then you can’t even snap up the parts that are actually inside you intellectual capacity. So keep pretending! (Just don’t try to educate someone else)

[@prunabluepepper]

Well if you watch the videos on this channel often enough, you'll sooner or later understand

[@NGC6144]

The Quantum Story: A History 40 Moments by Jim Baggot. It is written to be largely accessible and a primer for the determined novice in getting their feet wet in this wonderful quantum mess.

[@alexescalona108]

@@Vicvincexxx I have an understanding of alot of concepts and stuff but stuff like this just goes beyond my head. It requires an actual education

[@sasshole8121]

This is my favorite series in which I have no idea what's going on. Watch every episode though.

[@fnalfnal9264]

Your not alone

[@VikingTeddy]

I recognize some of the words. I just watch for his relaxing voice and pretty animations. Is this what a baby feels watching TV?

[@justsuperdad]

The plethora of comments like this have me thinking people are being excessively humble. I believe Richard Feynman said, "anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics, doesn't understand quantum mechanics." Does this set understudies up to psycologically want to say, "I don't understand," just to be considered as one who might understand?

[@moarsaur]

The information just vanishes from the universe once it crosses the event horizon of a Sass Hole.

[@fugslayernominee1397]

nd here I was thinking that watching the previous eps of this series might help me understand what's he saying in this particular video LOL

[@kevinmcdonough9097]

Always seems to deserve another episode. The more ya know the more episodes it takes to fulfil the hunger. The first hit of science is always free kids. It's intoxicating.

[@AZ-bm3ki]

11:10 "Remember that clever bit of work by Gabriele Veneziano" Me: "No"

[@MsSonali1980]

:'D

[@DermMicro]

Haha

[@ragzouken]

i am SO pumped for an episode on the amplituhedron

[@enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

Nima rocks!

[@enaidealukal9203]

"amplituhedron" sounds like the name of a mars volta song

[@frun]

Video about amplituhedron: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rqOtc6Cpl6ednsk

[@StandFastable]

@@enaidealukal9203 It really does. Like a mixture of the songs _Aberinkula_ and _Meccaamputechture_ as well as the album _Octahedron_ .

[@robtheimpure]

13:10 "spaceless timeless particle scattering" Wait what does that even mean? How do things scatter if there's no time for scattering to happen? Or no space for things to... be in?

[@davidhand9721]

Think about a feynman diagram. When you look at it, you can choose which axis on the diagram is the time dimension. I think what they're referring to is a collection of vertices and connections where you can arrange your temporal and spatial axes arbitrarily. But I could be wrong.

[@richardcampbell2438]

@@danrayson Even here the problem is much deeper and it goes the nature of the very language by which we symbolically understand and represent 'reality'. Parsing "What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense." we see "what really" implies that that there is a falsehood that is not true but to be (ie 'is') entails before and after or the passage of linear time.. So too "exists is" entails an ongoing present traveling into an as yet undefined future. Multiply, " the velocity of material change is 'relative'" are three words: velocity, change, and relative, that all entail some form of before/after/if/then aspect which is inextricably tied to time as passage from the now to the then. Thus I posit that the authors can not explain to us what they mean because the very language and cognitive structures where by they would or could communicate it to us is based on and thoroughly tied to the innate perception of time that has sculpted our languages and thus our tools of cognition and understanding. To truly tell us of these things is a Stygian feat equivalent to explaining "UP" to a two dimensional entity. Rob Theimpure is right to be confused. The phrase "spaceless timeless particle scattering" can be written down and it can be described and debated endlessly, but I suggest it can never be truly, as Robert Heinlein once said, 'groked'.

[@mikes2381]

We'll explore this more in the next... Space Time.

[@antonystringfellow5152]

RobTheImpure I don't know but consider the following: A photon is a massless particle, meaning it has no internal energy. It's basically just a perturbance in the electromagnetic field. Having no mass means that it can't experience time - it travels only through space and does so at the speed of causality (cause and effect). Gravity waves travel at the same speed, for the same reason (different field but just a perturbance too). So, a photon that left the edge of the observable universe has, from our viewpoint, been travelling for over 13 billion years. From the perspective of the photon, no time has passed. If no time has passed where is this photon (from the photon's perspective)? Surely, from the perspective of the photon, it is here, where it started its journey and all along the path it took to arrive here. So, space doesn't exist either (if there was no time taken to travel here, it didn't pass through any space - here and there are the same thing). Maybe it has something to do with that. I certainly hope so because that conundrum has been bothering me for quite some time.

[@danrayson]

​@@richardcampbell2438 What if I said "Change is what is fundamental, time is but an emergent property of change." I don't think we need deny the existence of time, and to embed the concepts of time within an explanation of it's non-fundamentality does not cause a problem other than the requirement for carefully choosing your words. "Is" can be a word which when read can mean "currently", but it can also mean "in truth". Indeed the language is nuanced and a reader must read the intended meaning ... which requires a preexisting understanding of the idea ... I see your point. However, we have managed to describe 11 dimensions of reality (the last time I heard) so we surely do have a language to describe it, it may not be English, but the concepts can be communicated and done so robustly. I think the same can apply to the emergent nature of time, if indeed it is emergent and not fundamental, a suitable language may be something like a state machine diagram rather than words, but an approximate description can most certainly be achieved using English. As for describing UP, one would surely chose mathematics to do that.

[@ScatterlingOfA]

Despite the almost incomprehensible complexities of this talk, describing an alternative understanding of reality at the smallest cosmological scale... It's still more comprehensible than the current development of USA politics

[@redbeam_]

of course it is it has logic

[@nicolasolton]

The deepest understanding seems to require an advanced, high level understanding of mathematics.

[@StevePlegge]

QLD: Quantum Lego Dynamics!

[@tehbonehead]

Quantum Lego Theory: The piece you are missing is responsible for holding at least three other pieces.

[@MsSonali1980]

Don't step on them

[@BlackHole-qw9qg]

8:53 someone finally figured out that T-channel was just S-channel in vertical...

[@b.griffin317]

Even physicists can sometimes be dense.

[@peaceonearth351]

Yeah, and the virtual particle doesn't exist. Is reality even reality?

[@l0_0l45]

Diagrams like that are just visual aids. The equations are harder to reconcile than a 90° rotation of a 2D squiggly diagram.

[@drawapretzel6003]

@@l0_0l45 But i bet they make perfect sense as a 90 degree rotation in a 15th dimensional quantum framework.

[@RanEncounter]

@@drawapretzel6003 15th dimension? How about n-dimensions?

[@technocore1591]

Matrix Mechanics: There is a spoon, but you can’t know what kind of soup it holds til you taste it.

[@ryanlhobson13]

Epic

[@ryanlhobson13]

Or. There is a spoon but you can’t know what kind of spoon it is until you taste the soup.

[@headecas]

or u dont know if the damn cat is dead or alive till u opne the box

[@tjpprojects7192]

But when you taste the soup, it becomes fruit juice.

[@burtosis]

Matrix mechanics, when you don’t understand the identity of the identity matrix.

[@dazraf]

Awesome episode as always! The historical threads are equally as interesting as the theories themselves and actually deepen our understanding. Please can you cover the Amplituhedron?

[@aleksandrpetrosyan1140]

Fun fact, the S-channel and T-channel are named such because they are a space-like channel and a time-like channel for particle scattering. Another fun fact, Mandelstam variables are named sort of after them; the integral corresponding to the s-channel Feynman diagram has a s = (p + q) in the denominator. Another fun fact, there's also a u-channel. And there's also a third Mandelstam variable.

[@kylebowles9820]

I remember reading about the Amplituhedron! Seeing these bootstrap efforts pave the way for the next generation of physics is really cool! Makes you optimistic about the next 100 years

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Any similarities to a time crystal?

[@lucasthompson1650]

@chris sonofpear1 yeah, but it's B-theory time … because really advanced science these days has a letter in front of it. Some D-bag told me that. 🤓

[@jjhack3r]

Optimistic? Why is it a good thing for humans to be able to control the universe?

[@andrewodongo6381]

We have to water board those aliens to reveal their tech

[@Transblucency]

@@andrewodongo6381 I think water boarding will be too low tech to be very effective. This is going to require a deuterium hyperplaning and a sponge.

[@edsmith4995]

Perfect timing! Just sat down with my chicken kebab, fire up KZbin, and boom, a new Space Time video! Get in!

[@tobetrayafriend]

Kebab and Spacetime? You're a man of impeccable taste sir.

[@edsmith4995]

@@anasnadaf6609 GMT

[@peaceonearth351]

@@tobetrayafriend I was eating the same thing in a parallel world at the same time. We're like identical. Lol

[@thirdeye147]

@@peaceonearth351 one went for Naan bread and the other got pita

[@peoplesrepublicofunitedear2337]

That is called a Kabaab, not a kebab

[@Milennin]

Whenever I want to feel dumb, I watch this channel.

[@varunahlawat4863]

U r not alone then but this keeps me curious about things that our lifestyle has no importance for. These topics are fundamentals that all should know except math

[@courtneykachur9487]

First, I finally understand something you said. I had never thought of the “bootstraps” imagery being an issue about going upwards while pushing against nothing. I guess I overlooked that. That aside, you start from the idea “don’t make things more complicated” but after a few sentences we learn that another scientist has re-injected crazy hard math. Then someone says “Heisenberg” again, and then another scientist pulls out the Calculus injector to make string theory. And then again another person comes along to point out that simplicity is better, only to be followed by another Complexicator with two doctorates. Ahhh, the human condition....

[@animistchannel2983]

This whole script was an example of what happens when physicists drop acid and stop trying to make any sense at all in actual English, then just blather on and free-associate for 15 minutes. I think they had 3 shitty scripts, and rather than make any of them any more coherent, they just cut-n-pasted the lines of each between and over each other.

[@peterfireflylund]

@@animistchannel2983 maybe Deepak Chopra is more your style… and level.

[@ethereallens]

"Unfortunately Neo, You have to see it to believe it."

[@nyyotam4057]

Indeed.. I also think that the quantization is an indirect proof, we live in a simulation.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@nyyotam4057 It was a simulation where the great simulators said to each other, "Let's see what happens if we make it real."

[@brianmessemer2973]

"There is no spoon."

[@b.griffin317]

spaceless-timeless quantum scattering? oh my! can't wait!

[@peaceonearth351]

That's one of the primary reasons I think nobody really dies.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

It's all very abstract mathematical at present. I'm certainly not against such a possibility, but hard to get hard data, yet. I suspect it may come down to how at quantum scales time is more emergent, as is wave forms, perhaps..

[@frun]

Watch this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rqOtc6Cpl6ednsk

[@NewMessage]

"Here, take a cookie. I promise, by the time you're done eating it, you'll feel right as rain." - Matt O'Dowd (paraphrased)

[@c.ladimore1237]

arg i NEED to see the spaceless/timeless particles episode now. i live in the binge culture!

[@sdfkjgh]

mohosavish: Lemme get a hit off that pipe, Dad. #RedMeat #MaxCannon

[@onokimchi9010]

@K-Wullums xD this was great ..thx

[@abc121xyz]

maybe we a grasping the simulation interface we are simulated on, just think about this, what a simulated being would see if they try to understand the simulation they are being run? such as a character in a utterly advance VR game.

[@matthewwriter9539]

3:00 LEGOs are amazing, they can make anything and everything.

[@cherrydragon3120]

@c ball everything is edible if you're brave enough

[@RanEncounter]

@@zutaca2825 Would you try it with the Sun? I would like to see your hypothesis on that.

[@KevD_]

Have you seen this book by Ben Stiller? He uses Lego to help explain particle physics... www.goodreads.com/book/show/36329751-particle-physics-brick-by-brick

[@svennoren9047]

@c ball Because it is a polyol (poly alcohol) just like sugars.

[@matthewwriter9539]

@c ball I don't know how antifreeze tastes because I have an intelligent modifier higher than +2.

Thank you Matt for the videos! Truly one of the best channels there is!

[@1337OTTER]

Matt: “...we try to understand reality by looking for smaller and smaller building blocks. But what if that’s been the wrong philosophy all along?” Particle physicists: “Actually, Quantum Mechanics forbids this.”

[@jacobr7729]

you dare use my own spells against me, Potter?

[@geradosolusyon511]

@@jacobr7729 who? I'm pretty sure their name is... Level 9...

[@realzachfluke1]

@@jacobr7729 hahahahaha, that was pretty good 😂😆😂

[@frun]

S-matrix theory might have something to do with the *fractal universe hypothesis*, explained in the article "Down in the fractal depths of quantum matter and space-time"(the part mentioning levels). Interesting to know what it all actually means in conjunction with the superdeterminism.

[@sean_vikoren]

Once again, I am filled with gratitude at your willingness to educate.

[@happygimp0]

13:07 "It removes the concept of space and time. This only emerge later ..." How can something emerge later when there is no time? How can there be later when there is no time?

[@johnmorrell3187]

Later as in at a later step of the calculation/analysis

[@wamyc]

@@johnmorrell3187 doesn't.... change in analytical state just imply time existing? Doesn't scattering imply both spatial and temporal alteration? I'm not saying there's no way that it could work; I'm saying it's quite worth it to be aware when one is confused and why.

[@cazymike87]

`No, this is not true ! Spacetime its emergent literally , that its what Nima's implies ! Not as a calculation/analysis , but as a real thing ! But , to be onest , its not real : because real means spacetime for us ...because we are a product of spacetime emergence ! So , yeah , I believe you can say as a calculation /analysis . But , the reallity ...hmm , the irony here of this word :)) ( reallity = spacetime for us ) ....its more complicated ! In case , I wasnt clear : There is something before time emerge ....so , time Appears latter !

[@AliceTheSpider]

What is later l, later in which direction forward/backwards in time,space, anything else Time and space can easily be emergent properties

[@lolgamez9171]

It didn't happen. It's happening now, and it was inevitable. It has always happened, and will be the last thing to happen.

[@JacekAdamczyk]

I come to this channel once every few months to learn I did not get any smarter. I stay subscribed in hopes to one day understand at least half of the video.

[@Sanelicv]

Little mistake at 8:00 The "s Channel" is the annihilation channel and the "t channel" is the scattering channel. The diagrams were correct, though.

[@Cyber_Kriss]

Meh...😑

[@robdeskrd]

I would totally watch the annihilation channel

[@Kaepsele337]

The diagrams would be correct if time would go from left to right, but they animate it to go from bottom to top. That's a different convention and I think that's where the confusion came from.

[@teufeldragon1657]

Good thing you noticed that as well. Here I was thinking I was going crazy and couldn´t tell apart the t and s channel anymore.

[@mediawolf1]

Yay, I've been waiting for an episode on the Amplituhedron!

[@stuartas75]

3:45 who else knew protons are made of lego

[@josephmarsh5031]

Impossible. Legos hurt way more than protons do, when you step on them.

[@prunabluepepper]

I think it was a pun, because of ligo.

[@concernedspectator]

Very excited to learn about the amplituhedron. I remember running across it a while back but have never gotten a concrete sense of what it is, just that it is something profound. Looking forward to it, whenever that may be.

[@dakinmaher4522]

Love your videos! Love your science! Love your insight. Explanations I understand! Thank you Matt O'dowd and y'all!

[@anasnadaf6609]

The alien kid who didn't pay attention to detail while creating this simulation giving rise to uncertainty principle is a lazy dork.

[@anasnadaf6609]

@Unabashed Hedonist what if the kid plagiarized two other projects where momentum was defined and other in which position was defined and superimposed them just like its pet his friend Schrödinger's cat

[@rodrigoserafim8834]

Nah. Its exactly how I would design an RPG. "Roll a d20 to create a particle - antiparticle pair out of thin air. What? You made that up. No, its in the rule book particle table on page 314, look it up."

[@anasnadaf6609]

@@rodrigoserafim8834 referring many world's interpretation there may be some universe where laws of physics might be different and kinda better than one we're in. leadng to better grade for science project to alien kid

[@AtlasReburdened]

Nah, uncertainty is fine. Free will has to come from somewhere. Incompleteness however, is a real kick in the teeth.

[@Vasharan]

It's just a rounding algorithm to save on computing power.

[@KelpieMindTricks]

So many words I can pretend to understand. I'm like the monkeys in 2001, a space oddysey.... Shoot me into space.

[@Phelan666]

"Remember that clever bit of work by Gabriela Veneziano?" _"Who?"_

[@ErwinSchrodinger64]

Don't limit yourself. Discovering and doing research is the hard part. The learning part is not easy but with enough practice and time... a lot of calculus, partial differential equations, some abstract algebra... classical mechanics, field theory, and general relativity... it all begins to make A LOT of sense.

[@falsehoodrefuted]

Don't let babbling scientists make you feel stupid because you aren't. You have an intellect that is capable of deep reflection and introspection. Don't get me wrong I love science but scientists are not immune from chatting utter rubbish, they do it all the time.

[@b.griffin317]

Just watch it more than once and really think about it while he's talking. It's not casual speech, that's for sure, but not beyond your reach either.

[@johnkan5619]

Allan Nielsen When starting to understand physics etc, just drop all expectations of what you think words might mean, and what they may represent. Instead, step into the discourse and learn some concepts and how they work. Accept that there are fields, that particles behave in certain ways, and space-time relativity exists etc...

[@Deedee-ee1sg]

Such an endlessly fascinating subject even though it's hard to understand a lot of it. Excellent video!

[@rc5989]

Loving the deep dives into the history of theoretical physics, with the careful curation of Matt O’Dowd.

[@ObjectsInMotion]

Some people bending spacetime here posting comments at light speed before even watching the video here...

[@Tore_Lund]

My comment is in this category, so I moved it here instead pf posting it as a separate comment: No, QFD still presumes that what appears as particles and forces, still are only interference patterns of wave functions. The reason we call them particles, is just not to make Feynman diagrams harder than they already are. So Fourier, Heisenberg whomever still are in there somewhere, it is just to remain sane, we discuss everything as particles. but it would be nice to have solvable wave equations for that level of reality, so we could forget about particles all together. However going the other way, we can instead just sit down when physics publishes its last paper: "Universe: exists"!

[@chrissonofpear1384]

And would such need a 'reference beam'?

[@pappi8338]

Simply take a red pill from a guy you've never met before

[@davidpatterson9770]

Its worked for me in the past...

[@psycheevolved1428]

Just don't trust the blue pill. Woke up in an alley with a condom in my arsehole

[@Jon58004]

@@davidpatterson9770 robitussin gel caps

[@DoodleDan]

@@psycheevolved1428 sameeee!!

[@bytefu]

@@psycheevolved1428 That's not bad at all, could have been worse, e.g. you could be pounded in the arse as well.

[@sshado2]

This is the best episode yet. Thank you!

[@dougabugg]

Wow, this was a really interesting episode, I've always wanted to get a look at how important scientific discoveries were made, I can't wait for the future episodes in this series!

[@kzng2403]

5 am in the morning, look what I found.

[@fernandor3854]

Me too

[@meowrkerd4rker_]

[@jibbernuts]

I prefer to watch videos at 5am in the evening

[@sebastrong]

And as always, thanks for producing...

[@JiminiCrikkit]

I'm glad you're moving to cover the Aplituhedron ... It's a an odd thing and look forward to that episode!

[@kam8556]

Matrix mechanics were briefly mentioned in one of my quantum mechanics lectures the other week. A coincidentally well-timed video ;D Nice to hear more detail about the subject.

[@JPsk8core]

You messed up with s and t channels. The s channel is the annihilation, where the virtual bosom carries the momenta of the initial particles hence the propagator has in the denominator k^2=(p1+p2)^2=s

[@Pseudo___]

13:35 Wrong the best way to get someone to answer your question is say something wrong on the internet.

[@enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

FINALLY!!!! After months of griping, we get the AMPLITUHEDRON!!! YOU HAVE EARNED MY RESPECT AND DEFERENCE!!

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Excellent video. Many of Nima Arkani-Hamed's paper may be found at arXiv.org . The IAS (Institute for Advanced Study) posted an excellent one hour lecture by Nima that should be accessible to college-level students.

[@spsmith1965]

Theories which interpret space and time as emergent properties are on the right track IMO. Reality is far removed from our ordinary perception.

[@svennoren9047]

Plato's cave.

[@Ni999]

Great teaser! Hoping the amplituhedron episode points out Nima's use of twistor math.

[@drdca8263]

I’ve tried to look up the definition of twistors, so far I haven’t understood it.

[@Ni999]

@@drdca8263 It's a non-trivial idea that Roger Penrose first started working on in the 60s as a solution for understanding gravity at the quantum level. Early on it was competing with string theory and was appealing because, among other things, it was based on 4-dimensional space-time. It had some significant problems and was largely set aside as inadequate. That in itself would put it in the rich class of theoretical physics trivia along with so many other dead ends. But if nothing else, the really interesting thing is that it keeps cropping up and evolving into a useful tool for solving other theories' problems - until that hits a dead end and we're sure that's about all she wrote for twistors. Except every few years it turns out helpful in some other problem, including now for QCD. Search KZbin for Roger Penrose twistor and you can get a more accurate response straight from the horse's mouth. He wrote a book about it, _Twistors,_ but I don't know if it's still in print.

[@drdca8263]

Ni999 Ah, thanks. I was thinking it was a mathematical idea first and something with applications to physics second (like vectors are). May have been part of why I was confused when trying to understand it as a math idea? I intend to take another look, thanks!

[@Ni999]

@@drdca8263 I absolutely do not mean to sound clichéd or cute but I often find myself realizing after my latest forays into one of his papers that there's math, there's physics, and then there's Penrose.

[@drdca8263]

Ni999 haha! Alright

[@tommuller849]

Nima arkani-hamed is a really fascinating physicist. I'm really a fan of him and his work. I'm looking forward to those videos!

[@yojiviriak675]

Arvin Ash was fabulous on this. Matt is awesome too.

[@zoxnesanctuary5782]

just in time for bed time

[@ohtheblah]

Just to bed for time

[@b.griffin317]

dreaming is a good way to sync complex ideas in your understanding.

[@peaceonearth351]

Gotta love them quantum particles.

[@culwin]

Life hack: model your particles as quantum states

[@IuliusPsicofactum]

This is the episode nobody asked for but everybody wanted to have.

[@ramalingeswararaobhavaraju5813]

Good morning teacher sir, PBS Space Time, thank you sir for your teachings.

[@ErwinSchrodinger64]

At 4:43, can anyone please tell me the name of the melodic track playing in the background. Thank you.

[@KristofferEngstrom]

I also do wonder. Sounds like star map music in mass effect on board the Normandie.

[@iosefka7774]

@Criminalize Obesity That joke is 7 years old. Move on.

[@genghisgalahad8465]

It's Danube AND Canon!

[@kendomyers]

Track is called "lemon party" link to follow

[@kendomyers]

Lemonparty dot org KZbin is making me type it this way so enter that into your address bar

[@KristofferEngstrom]

Whats the music that sound similar to the system map music in mass effect ?

[@fgorn]

So this was just an introduction to whatever series you people will work on next? Awesome! Waiting to understand what you told.in this episode.

[@kagannasuhbeyoglu]

Perfect content. Thank you PBS.

[@sdfkjgh]

5:54 Geoffrey Chew sounds like an off-market brand of bubble gum. Like, mebbe it's a knockoff of Big League Chew.

[@sameershareef123]

Lego theory : *the fundamental building blocks for everything in the universe is Lego blocks.*

[@u.v.s.5583]

That would explain why there is so much pain in human life and the universe. You step on the bricks.

[@JuBerryLive]

I've watch some videos of Nima Arkani-Hamed online... And this is where my understanding of modern physics breaks. That's some next level stuff.

[@uranus2970]

It is hard to follow, yet so interesting...I love these videos.

[@hunterG60k]

This ties in with a book I'm trying to get my head round at the moment, The Case Against Reality by Donald D. Hoffman. He argues that we didn't evolve to see reality as that would have been far too overwhelming, instead what we perceive is more akin to icons on a desktop. He includes space and time in this analogy. One of the things he brings up in support of his theory is the quantum wave function, can we prove that anything exists when we're not observing it? He also brings up points like the information in a black hole is equivalent to its area rather than its volume. I'm not sure I have a good enough grasp of the relevant physics to see where/if he's misunderstanding it so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the idea, if you're familiar with it? Great video btw :)

[@EnglishMike]

If we didn't evolve to see reality it was only because it didn't give us an evolutionary advantage on the plains of Africa. Our senses were tuned to survival, and our brains evolved to process that sensory data and come up with a strategy to boost our chances. Unobservable phenomena didn't matter, so our sense of scale was firmly rooted between the very large and very small. As for the rest, yeah, I would have to read the book :)

[@clockworkdave9850]

I've seen some of Hoffman's stuff..very interesting.

[@hunterG60k]

@@EnglishMike This is pretty much what I thought he was getting at but he takes it way past that, ie. even when we use technology to see the very large/small we are still just looking at icons on a desktop, to use his analogy again. It's very much bending my brain lol

[@wendigo017]

I have always wondered if Planck was right about one singular intelligent mind being the matrix of all matter, could we possibly hijack that Matrix and change reality 🤔

[@sigmagx8956]

Dude.

[@thegreath.sapiensapien6907]

Who owns the Mega Massive Powerful Quantum Computer simulator Matrix we are living in.

[@Videohead27]

A similar idea: if we can gain an understanding of the interactions between quantum fields we could create any particle with any property with enough energy. We could maybe even learn how to change the energy values of quantum fields over a region, perhaps create a quantum vacuum for the particles that exist within a certain field. I’m clearly no physicist but I write some sci fi and that’s something I’m working with right now.

[@stevencooper4422]

Donald Hoffman mathematically guesses the same

[@fuseteam]

@@thegreath.sapiensapien6907 we *are* owned by the MMPQ Computer

[@MrSarevok187]

Hands down one of the best channels on KZbin :)

[@ekszentrik]

My pet theory is that it's pointless to search for ever smaller fundamental particles because there will always be a smaller particle ad infinitum (it's turtles all the way down). Nature just generates such smaller particles on demand (whenever an interaction requires a smaller particle, including human observation). Physics are actually "designed" top-down rather than bottom-up.

[@liamkneeson8866]

Perfect timing, I just finished watching Neil Degrasse Tyson on Hot Ones.

[@Liz-pc3dc]

😅 Neil is a fav of mine too

[@alb.1911]

link please.

[@liamkneeson8866]

@@alb.1911 kzbin.info/www/bejne/epKbXoScfMqgndE

[@alb.1911]

@@liamkneeson8866 thanks! 🙏

[@nyttag7830]

When will we get an episode about the tictac incident and a scientific valuation

[@smrtfasizmu6161]

My grandpa worked his PhD in matrix calculations of quantum mechanics. This reminded me of him

[@Kram1032]

Ooooh I'm really looking forward to an explanation of the Amplituhedron. When that first became a thing a few years ago it definitely sounded very exciting.

[@chuuuu1131]

When you like before watching because you very much like physics videos

[@gnisllehdracula9073]

Great Channel covering Mind Melting Topics on a weekly basis. These videos simultaneously making me fascinated by the world and giving me some existential crisis's. Brilliant! Edit:Positive Nihilism like 7Shinta7 said🙌

[@7shinta7]

Why an existential crisis. All this stuff has taken me to a state of positive nihilism years ago. 😊🤷🏼‍♂️

[@himerosTheGod]

Particles coming from seemingly nowhere & creating matter seems like magic to me.

[@MrMakae90]

Hey, love your videos! An episode on X17 and other "maybe new particles", please!

[@richardmasters8424]

The centre of the S Matrix......so that’s where the creator consciousness of the universe to bring about a single reality resides.

[@LeeGoGators]

PBS Spacetime: Hacking the Nature of Reality Me, has played on 2b2t once: I know a thing or two about hacking

[@ivgotballsofsteel4048]

this might be why fitmc showed up in my recommendations...

[@katakana1]

@@ivgotballsofsteel4048 This reply was posted before the comment lol

[@constpegasus]

How can you not love PBSS Spacetime.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

The Lego blocks were a very nice touch, by the way. 😄

[@TAK-yj4hj]

„You have 5 Minutes“ „I can’t. I need more time!“ „5 minutes!“ *finger flying over keyboard* „Im in the Mainframe“ *colors and sounds appear* *hacks reality*

[@mikewagner2299]

Are you saying there comes a point where asking "why?" has no meaning and daddy universe just says "because I said so!"

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

It is only ever the case that "why?" questions have no meaning. Any time it seems like a 'why' question is meaningful is merely an approximation to general meaninglessness.

[@SweetHyunho]

Why is a quest for algorithms by which we assume reality can be reduced to a simple and elegant foundation. Not that we can verify the code.

[@__-cx6lg]

Literally no. It's offering a different possible answer to the "Why?"

[@Ozinarg]

Yes. There is a "bottom of the well" when it comes to the universe and the things in it. Think of it like this: why is one plus one equal to two? Why is it that one and one can never be anything other than two when added together? All of math is based on axioms. Algebra has 5. Five simple axioms are the basis for the entire system. What's an axiom? Something that is taken to be absolutely true. Why is it true? Because it is. Does this mean it might not be? Maybe. Has it ever not been? Not yet. One plus one equals two because it is. The universe similarly has a "bottom of the well" where things are the way they are because that's the way they are, but for most of the universe, we just have no idea what that might be.

[@__-cx6lg]

@@Ozinarg In case anyone is wondering: no, this comment of Mr. Granizo's isn't actually true. It doesn't make sense do say that "algebra has five axioms" because "algebra" isn't one thing; there are lots of different algebraic structures, each with their own axiom lists. As for the axioms themselves, you're better off thinking of them as *definitions* rather than *assumptions.* The axioms of geometry define a 2D plane, the natural number axioms define the natural numbers, etc. (Even this isn't quite right; really, we're defining a potentially infinite _class_ of models.) So debating about whether 2+2=4 will always be true is a borderline linguistic dispute: under the standard definitions of those symbols and the standard definition of "true", tthe statement's true. Period.

[@dominickbergeron797]

The Amplituhedron sounds the a fascinating idea! I can’t wait for that video

[@chriscollen6543]

Love this channel, been watching for years now. Does anyone know if they have any videos on spinners, tensor fields or hopf vibrations? Been hearing a lot about them but I don’t think I’m fully understanding them and these guys always do such a good job explaining complex ideas.

[@my3dviews]

3:38 So, the nucleus of an atom is made up of legos. Okay, got it. 😁

[@juubatuuba8354]

KZbin gave me lego comercial before the video :) . I wonder did the algorithm analyze the video or the commenrs.

[@mikeyaureliush9017]

Ha Ha, that made me laugh

[@MsSonali1980]

The only danish (kopenhagen) interpretation I understand 🤣

[@jerroneous8549]

Who knew we were doing atomic research as kids?

[@MrAevias]

"we can imagine antimatter as matter travelling backwards in time", does this mean if we observe antimatter, we are observing the future? just a random thought haha

[@MsSonali1980]

No matter and antimatter are both in the present (a guess) oh my, maybe the reason we can't see antimatter is that there is no future xD 😱

[@this2ismyname]

Perhaps there’s a mirror universe of antimatter expanding backwards in time from the Big Bang solving the explanation as to why there’s so little antimatter in our space time?

[@chrissonofpear1384]

And does one have non local links...

[@carnsoaks1]

Nima spent a good decade doing his Amplitahedron (& positive grossmanian) looking at Only Scattering Amplitudes. This taught me how slow science can progress. Even at the break neck pace of our age.

[@schmetterling4477]

We have been exploring relativistic field theory since before 1930 and relativity in general since around 1630. Don't expect fast progress here.

[@ravenlord4]

This reminds me of Planck's solution for the Ultraviolet Catastrophe problem. His idea had (at the time) no right to work, and yet his leap into the unknown created the theory of quanta (photons).

[@S3t3sh]

Me: OOOH! They have a discord server! Me 3 sec later: Patreon *grumble grumble*

[@pfigor]

Sad poor physicist noises

[@billyseneczyn94]

AHHH yes, NOW i understand.

[@brianmessemer2973]

😂 Hey at least we show up, tune in and try to hang with the truly smart people...

[@tomrivlin7278]

S-matrix theory is still useful in a lot of non-fundamental scattering theory! I recently finished my thesis studying atom-atom scattering and it had a large discussion of S-matrices. This episode was a great explanation for a subject I always found rather un-sexy whilst studying it for my PhD :)

[@BenjaminCronce]

Reminds me of heisenbugs in software. Sometimes the more accurately you attempt to measure the bug, the stranger and more confusing it gets. At some point you need to stand back and ask what assumptions MUST be violated in order for the symptoms to exist at all. In the end, many times you need to use circular reasoning to solve the problem because the problem is fundamentally circularly related.

[@sebastianelytron8450]

I wonder what is the average IQ of this channel's comment section. Probably the highest average IQ in all KZbin comment sections.

[@SirButcher]

Well, from the fact that I barely understand anything that Matt says: I definitely pulling down the average here. Sorry guys.

[@ezryder_]

IQ is bullshit. The world is not black and white.

[@noodle71110]

I'm dummy dumb 😂😝

[@pingosimon]

"Fiddly details" ...Matt, did someone challenge you to sneak "fiddly-dee" into a script?

[@scottlee9655]

I'm a novice to physics, but I've always been fascinated, , I accidentally a couple of weeks ago came across this channel and I think I've watched them all .. I'm going to have to start again mind, unfortunately I'm not jonny 5, will be become a patriot.... In about ten mins, brilliantly narrated too 👍👍

[@15Mrtin15]

Insanely great and interesting videos Matt is really so fkcing smart understanding and explaining this topics so good Now imagine the people who discovered and investigate them Respect.