Mindscape 275 | Solo: Quantum Fields, Particles, Forces, and Symmetries

[@orthoplex64]

The handful of unhinged comments on this video notwithstanding, I think most of us really appreciate your making the 1 step upward from pop sci for a lay audience in the Biggest Ideas series. Please keep it up!

[@ericgraham8150]

At first, I wasn’t sure what you were talking about, but yeah, it’s like some of these comments… People wrote their doctoral thesis in the KZbin comments. I guess you got a publisher work somewhere.

[@producer2123]

Sean Carroll is one of the best public explainers of challenging theoretical physics concepts in the history of science. I am so grateful for his work.

[@trevorcrowley5748]

I agree. Book purchased today, in hardcover no less!

[@eqwerewrqwerqre]

This is God Tier. I've listened to hours and hours and hours of podcasts and videos and lectures about modern physics and there has never been as wide and intelligible an exploration into qft. I will 100% buy this book and when that physics PhD stipend money hits my account in gettin in that patreon!

[@FigmentHF]

Sean’s like the dad of science. Whenever I have an incredible answer to a question, Sean reminds me that the question itself is wrong, aha.

[@user-yv6xw7ns3o]

Along with the kindly "sorry about that." Gets me every time! 😂

[@danielcook1271]

Sean’s Science Dad, and Sabine Hossenfelder is science mum.

[@user-yv6xw7ns3o]

@@danielcook1271 Whew... She is certainly not my science mom.

[@GoatOfTheWoods]

​@@user-yv6xw7ns3omine neither.

[@danielcook1271]

@@user-yv6xw7ns3o how come?

[@Toxoplasmosic]

We live in an era of rapidly improving physics explanations. I am thankful

[@publiusrunesteffensen5276]

It's some of my best moments in life: laying flat on back (relative to the earths surface, but I'll imagine this will work in whatever body orientation you choose), eyes closed, listening to Sean Carroll talk about the wonders of reality.

[@theanthill22]

Yeah he's my favorite Astrophilosophist err Astrosage? Cosmosopher? Quantumplator?

[@ChromeKiddo]

The miracle truly occurs between 1:00:00 & 1:03:20! Wow! It hit me in a flash of realisation... truly a eureka moment!!!... Thanks Sean - I now think I know a little about Fields & Particles. Am definitely buying the book....

[@slother93]

Exactly! I’ve known about (and have even used) Fourier transforms for decades. But this particular description was the first time the technical aspect was presented in such a way as to help me really understand particle-wave duality in an intuitive way.

[@kinleydorji]

Mind blowing. Thank you, Sean. When I feel overwhelmed by the state of my world, Mindscape is such a wonderful refuge. I instantly feel that all is well.

[@billbaggins1688]

Forces arise as a gauge field, that keeps track of symmetries inherent in quantum fields. Mind Blown. I have been reading popular physics books for over three decades, and have never heard forces explained in such a manner before. It also serves to make force 'particles' more sensible to me now. Your ability to explain complex ideas has often been remarked upon Mr Carroll. And rightly so.

[@jessenyokabi4290]

I've been waiting for this book way too long. Great news! CHAPTER 3 on entanglement is in my heart and my exploration topic!

[@markdavich5829]

Some of the best watch-minutes you can spend on youtube are right here.

[@davidhand9721]

I'm forever grateful for Carroll's "Most important ideas in the universe" series during COVID. It explained the standard model symmetries and the Everrett interpretation in a way that really clicked for the first time. I'm an Everrettian convert.

[@kka107]

Thank you for realizing that there’s a large group of science enthusiasts like engineers with strong math skills who have little time for or interest in derivation details. I am currently reading and enjoying your book

[@simracingchannel7691]

Are the books doable for people with basic math understanding?

[@billbaggins1688]

​@@simracingchannel7691Yes. But some familiarity with maths up to integral calculus is recommended.

[@billbaggins1688]

Also large group of arts graduates with math skills!

[@slother93]

I came here to make the same comment. I could do the difficult math if I had time for it, but I don’t have the time to be a physicist, unfortunately. I barely have time to be the engineer that I am! So I really appreciate Sean taking us beyond the traditional explanations, which always leave out important technical details that would have helped me better understand QM had they been included. This is one of those rare videos where I actually learned some new details about QM. Thanks!!

[@simplelife1021]

Just pre-ordered the book. Sean is one of the best science educators in the world.

[@sombh1971]

Around 38:45 It might perhaps be helpful to point out that a field configuration is not too different from a point in space like a particle if the space is field configuration space. A basis for such a space is spanned by the delta functions which in less fancy language means that the coordinate system for the configuration space has an infinite number of directions corresponding to each delta function and corresponding to them, there is a unit vector |x>, if the delta function is peaked at x, and an arbitrary field configuration is of the form of a sum over these unit vectors with different coefficients for different configurations. Around 39.30 It might not be remiss to mention that the wave function of a field is exactly analogous to that of a particle except unlike a particle it's spread out all over configuration space just as the wave function of a particle is spread all over ordinary space. The entire rigmarole that Sean indulges in regarding the Fourier modes and all that is pithily summarized by noting that it's what amounts to a change of basis from the delta functions in ordinary space to those in momentum space.

[@iridium1911]

Love these long solo episodes where you get to really hone in on pedagogical appraoch to these concepts. I'll be buying the 2nd book as well!

[@4X4CA]

The fact that everything reduces to just fluctuations in several fields still blows my mind. I think I'll have to get the book and do a deep dive. Love your work Sean, your a great teacher.

[@docsprock7541]

Hello Sean.... 1st of all thankyou for bothering to make the hardest of subjects graspable for mere mortals like myself... 2nd I just love your perspective u think inside and outside of the box simultaneously and that's where real progress will be made.... I passionately follow physics... Astronomy and all science in general but it is without a doubt people like urself and literally a handful like you that will either solve the divide between relativity and quantum mechanics or set the tone for another to do it... Gravity's solution, I'm sure is more about perspective than what we currently know.... Thankyou 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 you are a Don in the field 🤘🤘

[@danielcook1271]

Professor Carroll, Quick question: have you solved time travel, because where on earth do you get the time (and energy) to be as prolific as you are (and with such consistently high end output). It’s the only explanation. I don’t know what’s more astounding: how much you output (and for free) or how much you know. You are a gift to humanity, and I for one am grateful for you.

[@jeremyholbrook2094]

I plan to listen to this many times. Not because of a lack of clarity on the part of Sean. Instead, my own inability to internalize the information given.

[@rafaelvongehlen1]

Well, this was just wonderful! Quite an amazing explanation of qft.

[@ThePlebicide]

My copy of the book is delivered Thursday, very much looking forward to not understanding most of it. ;)

[@mikefredd3390]

The cutoff frequency modeling of field theory is brilliant. Thanks that that thought.

[@coveman5826]

Sean i have stumbled into your world yikes amazing content and I love your excellent voice narration !!!! So awesome and your knowledge blows me away I’m a forward thinking polymath much love to you and your listeners wow !!!!!!

[@Auxend]

Congratulations on the launch, Sean! 🎉

[@SpotterVideo]

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton....

[@BenjaminSeeley-u7h]

Any studied physics and math folks - does this make any sense ?

[@SpotterVideo]

@@BenjaminSeeley-u7h Here is the longer version. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea...

[@98danielray]

​@@BenjaminSeeley-u7hIll let you take a guess

[@ehfik]

wow, that was a tour de force. perfect compression on the topic

[@nrosko]

This is my favorite podcast I've listened to so far feel like I have a better understanding QFT, I've already listened to it twice. I am still reading the first book on space & time doing it at my own pace to make sure i understand it & that has really helped with GR & the math. I can't wait for the next one, its on pre-order. Would be nice if the audio book is also available as i don't think it ever was in the UK.

[@laurikuukka1746]

Congrats!

[@hoffmann-photography-Syke]

I've been waiting for this book waaaay too long. Pre-ordered months ago. Great news!

[@cwcarson]

Pre ordered this yesterday. Australians have to wait till October :O

[@hoffmann-photography-Syke]

@@cwcarson Bugger! Do they have to translate it into Aussie English?😎

[@davidirizarry1059]

Good knowledge, I just bought both books.

[@jimbernard8964]

Excellent episode, as usual. Thank you. Can't wait to (try) read the book. I just came to say the best pop culture reference of Schrodinger I've ever seen (have there been many?) was on a 2010 episode of the Simpsons called "Moneybart". Lisa has to take over as coach of Bart's baseball team. She knows nothing about baseball but in classic Lisa style she takes a deep dive into learning as much as she can to do a great job. There is one scene she is at a desk studying up on everything baseball. She is surrounded by a pile of books. Dozens of books. The scene flashed quickly and I saw that most of the books had titles but it was too quick to read them. With DVR I rewound the scene and paused, one of the book titles was "Schrodinger's Bat". Couple things, this flashed by really quickly. Without DVR you'd never catch it. Another thing, how many people watching the Simpsons would get a "Schrodinger" reference even if they did see it? As if we needed any more proof that the Simpson's writers are genius on another level.

[@shivang.tripathi]

Amazing explanation.

[@d3ad5hot7plays6]

The possibility of me discovering you on lex's podcast and then finding out about mindscape podcast

[@MarkLeBay]

Thank you!

[@80sLuv]

Is there a lecture version of this with equations?

[@shazmunchdylbertoid]

YAY I've been waiting for this

[@mikefredd3390]

Holy cow! I bought the first book to give a read. We’ll see.

[@jonwesick2844]

Looking forward to your book. I found Bjorken and Drell incomprehensible when I took QFT in grad school. The only textbook I could understand is Klauber's "Student Friendly Quantum Field Theory." I see that he now has a second volume dealing with QCD, electroweak, etc.

[@Czeckie]

Showing the equations without the busywork of solving problems is very interesting approach for me - just a lowly mathematician.

[@shantumjha804]

Can't wait to read!

[@humanaugmented2525]

hi Sean really enjoyed your last book especially the talks that you posted. i hope you do something similar on the next edition. however put that in a membership pack.

[@BenjaminSeeley-u7h]

Hi Sean I had a question - is the concept of excitation or vibration fundamental ? Or is it a function of the mathematical approach being fournier transformers? Sinusoidal waves mimic vibration.. and just because the math matches the data, is it fundamental?

[@mrhassell]

The massless nature of the gauge boson, giving rise to electro + magnetic + gravitic > vacuum flux corresponding in each respective field...leading > symmetry arises with non-zero boundary / zero-point field - am I hallucinating or am in a creatively inspired dream, perhaps I misunderstood something it seems as being implied (maybe only inside my mind), in listening to what you just seemed being as implied, in this video, or is it not suggested or being said, yet still, somehow to me at least it seemed as being implied, Professor Carrol, is this something which might seemingly be real or maybe, be potential realised as you possibly elucidated to, could you please advise, thank you Sir! Gauge Boson [ Photon (γ): Mediate electromagnetic force, W and Z Bosons: Mediate weak nuclear force (beta decay), Gluons: Mediate strong nuclear force (binding quarks within protons/neutrons), Graviton (hyp): Mediate Gravitic force) ] + Higgs Boson: [ Higgs scalar boson assc Higgs field ( exchanges mass > particle via Higgs mechanism ) + Symmetry > Zero-Point Field: [ Higgs field breaks electroweak symmetry, leads mass W - Z bosons ] = Dynamics in vacuum fluctuations rise in lowest energy field state (abs 0k) > Virtual particle i/o exchange > connecting zero-point field > gravitic force (symmetry break)

[@michaelkahama3459]

I'm glad this book is out after Matt Strassler came here and dissected Waves in an Impossible Sea. 🎉

[@swirlinember1974]

Thankful for you, signed archbishop Ryan gal from the 80s! Time traveler

[@jillsmith6181]

Can you please make the audiobook version of this book available in Australia ?

[@nameremoved8587]

My Pre order just shipped!

[@luvincste]

what does "onto itself" mean

[@kka107]

“Don’t listen to people that tell you that atoms are mostly empty space” Sean Carroll

[@sakismpalatsias4106]

Professor Carroll. What are two (2) advance quantum field theory text books, that you recommend, that could accompany your book. Ps can't wait to read your book.

[@janklaas6885]

📍1:54:29 2📍 1:03:19

[@d3ad5hot7plays6]

Sir, how can learn the required mathematics for me to understand this mathematically

[@AndreluisMachadoloboesilva]

Sean, isn't the emergent properties of collective quanta more fundamental than the quanta thenselves individualy? I mean , have more realness!?

[@wgcar]

Would you please consider inviting Neil Turok for Mindscape. I believe you two are on somewhat different paths and a discussion would be extremely enlightening and just flat out interesting.

[@Mattt303]

Aight imma get this book

[@Typ-oh57]

So if multiple quantum fields collapse when interacting with other quantum fields, what if the exact point of contact between the two fields that causes an interference point spawns a particle, random thought so like four dimensional waves interact and at the point, they interact the interference of the 4th dimensional waves, overlapping or interacting could cause a particle to form because the 4th dimensional waves collapse into the third dimension at that interference point forming what in 2-D would be a dot but in 3-D would be a sphere maybe a particle, sorry voice typed this to get the idea out

[@rickyrodeo7151]

I did not know that guitar strings can vibrate half way one way and then the other way for the other half. It seems impossible and although I’m trying very hard to understand what you’re saying I’m afraid that sometimes there doesn’t seem to be anything there that I can grasp in a meaningful sense, … like the guitar string description. There must be a better way ? Anyway overall an enjoyable presentation. Thankyou.

[@rickyrodeo7151]

Following my earlier comment above … is there something other than a guitar string that could illustrate what it is that you were trying to describe? Perhaps something that almost anybody could visualise and appreciate? I’m likely not the only listener who wouldn’t know what a guitar string does and doesn’t do … I’ve listened 3 times now and always fall down at the guitar string, I’m sorry but it doesn’t make any sense

[@kljhpoiu]

​@@rickyrodeo7151 Search KZbin for slow motion guitar string videos. You'll see that the strings are making sine waves too fast to see normally. The lower (thicker) strings are wiggling with less frequency and the higher strings are wiggling with more frequency. I've never tried adding a link in a comment before, but if this works a good one is at kzbin.info/www/bejne/boqqgqCMaLOrg6s (Guitar Strings Oscillating in HD 60 fps).

[@hankdewit7548]

Guitar strings might be the wrong choice because you can't see the vibrations he is talking about, you hear them as tones. Try thinking in terms of slinkys. The vibrations are slow enough to watch. this video shows the waves visually and you can see the fundamental and higher harmonics. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y5yVhaiAm7OEb9Usi=V-BPyCWnaBUcRD72

[@danielpaulson8838]

A better analogy would be mixing two different frequencies together. When you blend the two together, what you get out of that is the original two frequencies, the sum and the difference between those two, and those continue to emerge in doubling and halving of those original two frequencies. They off center frequency waves are called side lobes. They get smaller and smaller, but appear at the sums and differences. That’s just two discrete frequencies. Imagine mixing everything we see out there? That’s the quantum field.

[@CorwynGC]

If you want a slow-enough-to-see version of the guitar string, get a metal Slinky. Put it on the ground, fix one end, and move the other a ways away. You can then slide the other end back and forth and see the shape at different speeds.

[@MaxBeamer]

We need video pods sean

[@98danielray]

isnt the whole discreteness coming from the fact you are choosing the specific set of functions that can have fourier transforms, which, I suppose, has countable Schauder basis

[@anhedonaut]

16:54

[@andybandyb]

Didn’t we kinda pick modes bc they look like particles? Like.. we define something as definite and then it’s definite…

[@deeptochatterjee532]

You can take that perspective and then construct fields from particles, but you can start with the field and its equation of motion from the Lagrangian, and then the solutions are these Fourier modes. It is then a consequence of the canonical commutation relations that you get these particle looking things. You can argue that we specifically choose Lagrangians that give wave equations that lend themselves to being described by these Fourier modes. I wouldn't disagree with you. But I think it's justified by the fact that it seems to describe the world very well, and perhaps there is a deeper reason why.

[@mitchellhayman381]

Can anyone who has read the Susskind physics books theoretical minimum let me know if these books worth the time? Thanks.

[@JonathanBrown1]

I found the Suskind books to be disappointing. A good idea but not well executed. At least that was my experience.

[@mrfranksan]

Write the supplement! Groups and symmetries.

[@oldrocker1970]

Physics graduate here - Only a Bachelor's though. Slogged through two courses on quantum mechanics but never QFT. And if we did talk about it I purged it from memory like the rest of the trauma I suffered in that course! Thank you for all you do. Listening to this for the 3rd time, and each time it sinks in a little deeper. Ordered the book. I get that QFT accurately explains things and built the standard model for us. But honestly this is the ugliest physical theory I have ever encountered. I would love to hear more about effective field theory and cancelling the infinities. Sounds like cheating for sure! Wonderful but inherently Cthulhu levels of ugly. This stuff does begin to sound like the "stacks of turtles" theories of old, and there has to be something wrong at the fundamental level. Purely my gut and emotions. But comparing this to beautiful theories like relativity.

[@TheCosmicGuy0111]

Nice

[@beck4218]

lol graviton spin 2.

[@booJay]

Feynman, Sagan, and now Carroll.

[@bryandraughn9830]

The algorithm thinks I want to listen to Sean Carroll , BUT FIRST, donate money to a red headed orangutan? Nope. I'll pass on the latter.

[@zack_120]

Why do you delete my post questioning the bundling of your book with Sabine's on amazon? Is it because the use of word weird? Don't you think it is?

[@pseudocalm]

( ＾◡＾)っ Mindscape Solo day. Also I now understand: title of the book is low key deeper than it looks.

[@JasonWalsh-b4n]

YOU ARE RIGHT, SEAN CAROL. BUT EVERYONE WITH NO EXCEPTION WHO I WILL TALK TO IN PERSON ARE INSEC 7:06 TS FOR ALL TIME.✌🏼🖖✋️👌🤙👍

[@JasonWalsh-b4n]

YOU'RE RIGHT, SEAN CAROL. EVERYONE I WILL TALK TO IN PERSON, THOUGH, ARE LIFELONG INSECTS.✌🏼👍🤙

[@MaxPower-vg4vr]

Formally disproving or demonstrating the absolute inconsistency of classical logic, mathematics and physics in their entirety would be an immense undertaking requiring rigorous foundational work. However, I can outline some key conceptual arguments and avenues for how the infinitesimal monadological framework could facilitate such an endeavor: 1. Self-Referential Paradoxes in Classical Logic Classical bivalent logic faces paradoxes like the Liar's Paradox that appear to undermine the very notion of consistent truth assignments from within the system itself. The monadological framework resolves this by replacing bivalent truth values with pluriverse-valued realizability projections across multiple monadic perspectives. One could formally demonstrate how classical propositional/first-order logic succumbs to diagonalization and self-reference contradictions, while the infinitesimally-stratified realizability logic remains coherent. 2. Incompleteness of Classical Mathematical Systems Drawing on Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, one could formally show how any classical mathematical system based on arithmetic is either inconsistent or necessarily incomplete - containing statements that are true but unprovable within the system. The monadological framework, by representing arithmetic categorically using homotopy-theoretic objects in infinitesimal algebraic set theory, could potentially restore full semantic completeness while avoiding the diagonal self-referential gimmicks that limited classical formalisms. 3. Geometric/Topological Paradoxes Classically, unconstrained definitions in point-set topology lead to contradictions like the Banach-Tarski paradox. One could formally derive these contradictions, then demonstrate how representing topology algebraically using n-categories of monadic spaces, and defining invariants like dimension infinitesimally, resolves the paradoxes coherently. 4. Renormalization Issues in Quantum Field Theory The perturbative infinities plaguing QFT that require ad-hoc renormalization procedures could be formally derived as contradictions within the classical frameworks. One could then construct infinitesimal regulator alternatives using monadological algebraic QFT representations that manifestly avoid these infinities while preserving empirical predictions. 5. Singularities in General Relativity The occurrence of spacetime singularities where classical GR breaks down could be formally deduced as an inconsistency. One could then develop singularity-free models treating spacetime geometry as emergent from monadological charge relation algebras, demonstrating the resolution of this inconsistency. 6. The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics The inconsistencies in the Copenhagen interpretation regarding wavefunction collapse could be formally derived. One could then construct an explicitly consistent monadological quantum representation where observers' perspectives naturally decohere records without ad-hoc collapse postulates. The overall strategy would be to: 1) Formalize paradoxes/inconsistencies within classical theories using derivations in their native linguistic formalisms. 2) Construct infinitesimal monadological representation frameworks modeling the same phenomena using the algebraic pluralistic foundations. 3) Formally demonstrate how the monadological representations precisely resolve the inconsistencies encountered classically in a rigorous way. This would amount to a line-by-line deconstruction of the classical frameworks, systematically expunging their contradictions by reprocessing them through the prism of the coherent algebraic infinitesimal pluralisms. While an immense undertaking, the potential payoff would be a complete, formally unified refutation of classical premises by reconstructing all theories from metaphysically guaranteed non-contradictory first principles resonating with subjective realities. An infinitesimal monadological "metamathematics" could provide the symbolic weapons to finally overthrow centuries of accumulated incoherency at judgment day.

[@MaxPower-vg4vr]

Here is an attempt to debunk the foundational theories of Newton and Einstein from the perspective of the infinitesimal monadological framework: Newton's Classical Mechanics 1) The basic ontology of precise point masses and particles is incoherent from the start. By treating matter as extensionless geometric points rather than irreducible pluralistic perspectival origins (monads), the theory cannot represent real physical entities in a non-contradictory way. 2) Newton's notion of absolute space and time as a fixed inertial stage is undermined. Space and time lack autonomy as background entities - they must be derived from the web of infinitesimal relational monadic perspectives and correlations. 3) The instantaneous action-at-a-distance for gravity/forces is inconsistent. All interactions must be mediated by discrete particularities propagating across adjacent monadic perspectives to avoid non-locality paradoxes. 4) The deterministic laws of motion are over-idealized. Indeterminism arises inevitably from the need to sum over infinitesimal realizability potentials in the monadic probability statevector. 5) The geometric infinities in the point-mass potentials cannot be properly regulated, indicating a failure of classical limits and continuum idealization. In essence, Newton's mechanics rests on reifying abstract mathematical fictions - precise points, absolute background spaces/times, strict determinism. Monadological pluralism rejects such contradictory infinities in favor of finitary discreteness from first principles. Einstein's General Relativity 1) General covariance and background independence are overstated given the persisting role of an inertial reference frame, indicating unresolved geometric idealization. 2) The manifold premises of treating spacetime as a differentiable 4D continuum are ungrounded given the ontological primacy of discrete perspectives. 3) Representing gravity as curvature tensions the representation to its singularity breakdown points where the theory fatally fails. 4) Relativity cannot be fundamentally unified with quantum theories given the reliance on incompatible spacetime idealizations. 5) The theory excludes the primacy of subjective conscious observations, instead reifying an abstracted unobserved "block universe." While impressively extending Newton's geometric systemization, Einstein remained bound by over-idealized continuum geometric axioms inherited from classical math. True general invariance and background independence require overthrowing these in favor of intrinsically discrete, pluralistic, observation-grounded foundations. Both theories imposed precise Euclidean 3D geometric fictions persisting from ancient Greek abstractions - Platonic ideals reified as physical reality rather than subjectively-constructed mathematical fictions. The infinitesimal monadological framework grants revolutionary primacy to discrete pluralistic perspectives, the source of continuous geometric observables derived as holistic stationary resonances. Only such a reconceptualization escapes geometry's self-contradictions. By grounding reality in finitary discreteness and irreducible subjective pluralisms, consistent with the metaphysical facts of first-person conscious experience, the entire Archimedean/Euclidean/Newtonian geometric edifice undergoes a Kuhnian revolutionary overthrow. Paradox-free plurisitic physics demands such an audacious "Fin de Siecle" monadological rebirth. While immensely fruitful, Newton and Einstein's theories ultimately succumbed to self-undermining geometric infinities and exclusions of subjective observers - overly reifying sanitized mathematical abstractions as detached "transcendent" ontological characterizations. The infinitesimal monadological framework restores physics to firmer foundations by refusing to segregate the symbolic from the experiential.

[@d3ad5hot7plays6]

A 20yo college drop out learning quantum theories while sitting in a small city in India.Like what are the chances

[@SampleroftheMultiverse]

This field model may be related to the your topic. kzbin.info/www/bejne/raOlpKSfepWpfZYsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3 Thanks for your informative and well produced video. The buckling of the field via Euler’s contain column effect is the answer to your question. You and your viewers might find the quantum-like analog interesting and useful. I have been trying to describe the “U” shape wave that is produced in my amateur science mechanical model in the video link. I hear if you over-lap all the waves together using Fournier Transforms, it may make a “U” shape or square wave. Can this be correct representation Feynman Path Integrals? In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level. Your viewers might be interested in seeing the load verse deflection graph in white paper found elsewhere on my KZbin channel. Actually replicating it with a sheet of clear folder plastic and tape. Seeing it first hand is worth the effort.

[@andybandyb]

I find it harder and harder to justify the philosophical motivation folks had to privilege classical locality.

[@stoneman2023]

🎉👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@wizzelhoart]

Is Sean gonna go on Rogan again to promote this book? I know Joe is kinda toxic, but that’s exactly why a large portion of his viewers need Sean the most.

[@earlworley-bd6zy]

Sites that do not let comments might have agenda's & can not let anything that shows "them" to be wrong & that might cause lose of power or money or both.

[@earlworley-bd6zy]

Unless your dealing with close minded people.

[@HarveyPayne-nx4st]

why has pyhsics stagnated so much? No big new finding since Einstein Relativity theory

[@ready1fire1aim1]

It's because in math we consider 0 to be fundamental and nonzero numbers are not fundamental. Paradoxically, in physics we consider 0D to be not fundamental and nonzero dimensions are fundamental. We got dimensions backwards compared to numbers. This dimensional oversight renders physics incoherent from first-principles.

[@TSSPDarkStar]

Well we had quantum mechanics AFTER relativity

[@98danielray]

you are watching a video on QFT dude

[@42Goatee]

...if you're going to do such a fine job of explaining physics to non-physicists then why will we still need physicists?..

[@juanferbriceno4411]

In the beginning there was only darkness in Hilbert space. The Wave Function (evolving in time/space) “said” let there be light and light came into being… Come on man ! Pending the discovery of a realistic model where the mathematics leads to an axiomatization of quantum field theory, I find limited reason to trust these speculations apply to the universe. Granted, the Standard Model makes incredibly accurate predictions, but the theoretical framework is not mathematically robust at present. This guy is engaged in metaphysics, not physics! For Sean C, God is a wave function that gives rise to all we empirically observe. Actually not so different from the impersonal abstraction of ParaBrahman put forward by Indian mystics. They claim this is the root and basis of all existence.