On the Current State of Fundamental Physics

[@OrphanRed]

"Physics has become a high-tech sport which does not ask the fundamental questions any longer." This is absolutely brilliant!

[@gcrady]

Alex is a brave intellectual thinker. Good to see someone within-the-inner-circle challenging the lack of progress in physics, and laying the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Noble Prize community.

[@uberobserver]

"You are either a rational person, or you believe in constants in nature." What amazing timing when I found this talk. Just last week I was pondering this and thinking about how they've relativized the definitions of various things circularly, such as mass, the speed of light, and how these are all being defined in such a way as to hide their fundamental variability.

[@jaycorrales5329]

@16:47 "Either you're a rational person, or you believe in the constants of nature." Great stuff!

[@Gringohuevon]

People aren't rational

[@nafeesaneelufer5023]

Only little bit of known matter but universe is full of dark matter and dart energy. It very well matches with the quote ' Known is a drop and unknown is an ocean' .

[@aubreydebliquy8051]

Check all the heads looking around for the reaction of their colleagues to this attack on the comfortable science of consensus and the stifling tyranny of peer review.

[@RohitSharma-mi8gt]

There are fundamental questions not just about physics but about the nature of valid knowledge itself. People from all communities should think about this. I’m confused why the particle physics community ignores Mr Unzicker. He’s raising new questions, challenging some existing notions which is what Physics is all about. He might be wrong but being wrong is not a crime. Not being open to debate May we’ll be.

[@jonathanhockey9943]

If they pretend people like Unzicker don't exist or if they just keep smearing any counters to the "standard" model they hope they can hoodwink people that they have all the answers. It's a sad and desperate state of affairs. Also because there are a lot of people out there, a big audience for simple answers, look at how well Kaku and Dawkins sell their popular science tripe books. Unfortunately there is an audience for simplistic tripe science.

[@user-yd4nk4lm6s]

The agitated responses at the end are really just symptomatic of a total and complete refusal to accept that their life's work might have just been totally useless. It's ego. This is why modern physics is so troubled; follow the leader, do not question!

[@radiofun232]

Dr. Unzicker I have 3 questions. A) I have learned that in a vacuum electromagnetic waves of different frequencies (say between 20 KHz and 1 Gigahertz or higher) all move with the speed of light. In an atmosphere (say: earth) there is damping (frequency dependent). My question is: is there a explanation why this happens? I mean (correct me when this sounds stupid): why do all this different frequencies move with the same speed in a vacuum? Must we merely accept this as a nature (measured) constant? (I have watched many of your video's). And (B): are all these different frequencies (waves) effected by gravity in the same way? C) when white light bends in a gravitational field, does this effect the waveform (s), is there (say) a kind of “distortion” or change in “phase” or whatever. Does this differ from frequency to frequency, because white light (as I have learned) consists of more than 1 frequency. I hope you find time for an answer.

[@TheMachian]

You correctly point out that the properties of c are a big riddle. There is no dispersion (dependency on frequency). The same holds true for gravity influencing light.

[@radiofun232]

@@TheMachian Thanks! Food for thought again.

[@someone1059]

Several hunderd years ago it was mere philosophy then mathematics blended with it a little and then more and more but for explanations and prediction purposes now mathematics has hijacked physics and philosophy has been dumped down and thrown into the garbage bin recently.I think it is not fair I mean the physics that is done nowadays is knowing what just happens (that also usually in a wrong way) and we have lost interest and courage to ask why exactly does this happen and what might be the secret.I wish badly now that we can return to the scientific enthusiasm of the early twentieth century.You are a great person sir.Thanks alot and I hope that we realize that physics is the combination of mathematics and philosphy not any single one of them.

[@MrEolicus]

I find this exposition highly interesting. 6:54 There might be a problem with the expression of the Rydberg constant, specifically with the factor associated with the reduced mass. I think two indexes, 'e' and 'p', one in the numerator and the other in the denominator were swapped. I'll check it myself later. Cheers.

[@BartvandenDonk]

I like the oversight of the history of physics. Very informative and interesting. 😁😏

[@philipsinger1291]

The more I hear Unzicker's Real Physics, the more I am convinced that the $20 billion (or more) spent at CERN, and all those talented physicists’ time, should have been allocated to nuclear fusion research at ITER. If so, perhaps we would be closer to nuclear fusion on earth, and perhaps we would be closer to solving our energy and environment crisis. Instead, all we have now is a standard model with 18 parameters, with prospects of additional parameters in the future.

[@TheMachian]

While CERN is certainly a waste of money from a fundamental perspective, I am not sure either whether ITER is such a good investment. Too many failed promises from that field.

[@ToddDesiato]

ITER is also a waste of money. If God wanted us to have an unlimited supply of clean, natural energy, he would've put a giant fusion reactor in the sky. Oh wait...

[@johnm.v709]

Only half $ for ABS one kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk

[@Gringohuevon]

Small fry..US defence annual budget $1trillion..wrong focus

[@alihenderson5910]

@@Gringohuevon At least the military uses real physics.😜

[@slickwillie3376]

These lectures in classrooms have a distinct echo, which I feel detracts from the message. I only say this to help get the message out, but I doubt if there is anything you can do about poor acoustics in classrooms. Perhaps there is software that could clean up the audio.

[@TheMachian]

Back then, my equipment was lost during the trip... I will think about how to improve future videos.

[@richroylance4630]

I really enjoy your work expounding the work of the great physicists who built the foundations of modern physics, but when I learned more about the personal conduct of Erwin Shroedinger I was sickened. It certainly can't diminish the greatness of his work, but my personal regard for him was shaken.

[@Vlad.the.Inhaler]

Was he a bold boy?🤔

[@keredine]

Excellent presentation. I came to very similar conclusions.

[@archi124]

haha you know nothing

[@EtherDais]

Look into kelvins knot model, and then think about applying it to the particle zoo. You may be surprised what you notice. Protip- prime knots are close but missing our favorite lepton

[@brendawilliams8062]

Enjoy your work. You have a path. After all. It was meant to be enjoyable.

[@nafeesaneelufer5023]

Fantastic presentation Sir. As in case of PLANETS if we stand on Earth and on Mars we have different weights because of two DIFFERENT values of ACCELERATION due to GRAVITY which is decided by mass of the particular planet. So if there are several other UNIVERSES in addition to ours each made of different types of matter , DIFFERENT CONTENTS , it's own SHAPE and it's own dark matter content can we predict this as the reason for having PARTICULAR VALUES of G, c, h in our universe. Or else is it true that all the universes have SAME value of G, c, h as we are having. If different Universes are having DIFFERENT values then is there any AVERAGE of all these numericals.

[@TheMachian]

Well I can see the planets, the unisverses I am still waiting for.

[@mksensej8701]

Well, there are constant but why they can't be a sort of local invariant variables? . You can name them constant as they are an expression of empirical formula that has to fit with experiment .

[@jacobvandijk6525]

Testing, testing and testing. Anyone seen a stray quark yet? ;-)

[@Tom-sp3gy]

Nope and never will thanks to the sort of theoretical assumptions imposed at the microscopic level

[@Tom-sp3gy]

It’s either 3 quarks or 2 quarks in isolation but never a single quark, how convenient

[@jacobvandijk6525]

@@Tom-sp3gy Indeed, we won't. It's "a bit" too hot for us to experience quark-gluon-plasma.

[@jacobvandijk6525]

@@Tom-sp3gy In the case of 2 quarks: a quark + an anti-quark

[@TheMachian]

I recommend Andrew Pickering's book, very insightful.

[@commonsense1103]

I have a very simple fundamental theory of my own that explains much without math Could it be? Nah, too simple.

[@brendawilliams8062]

I agree. You can run with 31251 till the cows come home

[@sharynguthrie4643]

A few thoughts on the need to know why the speed of light is a constant ---why nothing can travel faster than light. There is just the chance that Romer thought he had a time lag in his measurements of IO's orbital time that was due to the Earth's increasing distance from Jupiter, when, instead, he had a time lag due to Earth's increasing proximity to the Sun. This would most likely mean that he had not measured or calculated the speed of light, but had stumbled upon the gravitational time dilation of Earth as it moved in orbit from aphelion to perihelion. This would reopen the possibility that light speed might be infinite as had previously been thought. Unfortunately, I am neither a mathematician not a physicist and cannot do the work to confirm or disaffirm my thoughts regarding Romer's measurements, but I hope someone will. If the speed of light is instantaneous/0/infinite, then it becomes clear why the speed of light is a constant, possibly "the" constant, and why it is the speed limit of the universe, why nothing can go faster (also why the speed of someone running with a flashlight cannot be added to the speed of light to get a "faster than light" total speed!). An infinite speed of light seems to be needed to set limits on matter (& mass), and so on all of its properties, and on anything related to it ( gravity, time). It seems that an infinite speed of light allows for the universe as we know it---a universe where matter(& mass) are always in motion and cannot stop moving, an astounding universe where light arrives instantaneously and once arrived interacts with matter in time, delivering amazing and beautiful gifts. Physics has a wondrous universe to explore.

[@sharynguthrie4643]

@Robert Hunt I think that infinity can be, at its extreme,designated by 0, but am not certain of this as I am not a mathematician or physicist. If it can, however, be designated as 0, then it would be a constant.

[@RohitSharma-mi8gt]

@@sharynguthrie4643 how would you calculate anything with it ?

[@sharynguthrie4643]

@@RohitSharma-mi8gt Only a true mathematician could answer your question. I would not be surprised if there is some mathematician out there who could find a way!

[@RohitSharma-mi8gt]

@@sharynguthrie4643 pure mathematicians are pretty useless.

[@sharynguthrie4643]

@@RohitSharma-mi8gt I would just say that mathematics, though a tool, is quite an excellent one. It does, however, need to be used within the broad framework provided by other disciplines and to be set within the framework of the reality of life to be most useful.

[@cymoonrbacpro9426]

Free parameter (Constants of nature) are actually necessary specifications specific to working blueprint of nature, theoretical physicists are insisting that everything has to be derived from a simple beginning. This notion comes from the idea of evolution (the gradual development of something) this is in fact a ‘bottom up’, reductionist concept. But this Approach might be totally wrong.

[@JanicePhillips]

Mr. Unzicker! I have a new theory! What if the "proton" IS the fundamental particle and everything else is the aether?

[@wendlt]

Dr. Unzicker. I've read your book Einstein's Lost Key with great interest. The idea you describe that a flat space where light slows in a gravitational field is equivalent to the view of General Relativity (GR) with deformable space-time seems quite plausible. But as you point out a variable light speed (VSL) in a flat geometry has very different implications for Cosmology, namely no expansion of space is needed for the interpretation of the red shift. So clearly a testable means of distinguishing between the two paradigms would be highly desirable. I believe there may be an observational way to do this. The idea is a little lengthy to outline in a comment like this. But it is based on the idea that in GR light travels along geodesics and that therefore no energy is lost when passing through gravitational fields; light is just traveling along the path of no resistance. No alteration of its spectrum should be observed. In contradistinction in the VSL flat space paradigm, light bending in a gravitational field slows and hence losses energy. This should show up in observations of, e.g., a star passing by the Sun's limb as a (small) red shift in the star's spectrum compared to observations of the same star when it is observed far from the Sun. Would this idea work to distinguish between the two paradigms?

[@TheMachian]

I don't think standard wisdom would accept that, since it has been accustomed to too many excuses such as "expanding space" etc. For cosmological implications, see kzbin.info/www/bejne/aH_HhpaIadqhj9U

[@wendlt]

Unzicker's Real Physics: Yes, I am sure you are right. My question would be, nevertheless, would such a test as I suggest, actually serve the purpose logically of telling the difference between VSL and GR?

[@EugenethePhilostopher]

A fundamental question: why do you think the world is simple? Who guarantees that?

[@TheMachian]

Simplicity is not my personal fancy. There is historical evidence that scientific revolutions always came along with simplification, that means fewer free parameters.

[@EugenethePhilostopher]

@@TheMachian I'm just saying that the requirement of simplicity of a theory is essentially an arbitrary requirement. It is of course understandable (we want a theory to be convenient, so simplicity would be nice), but it's not guaranteed that such a theory can be found. It is entirely possible that as we move farther and farther away from everyday experience (to the world of particle physics or cosmology), our evolutionarily derived concepts (which so far helped us to sort the experience out on "our" level) would fade, and our theories would require immense overcomplication to keep corresponding to observations. So your position is understandable, but somewhat short-sighted, I believe. Finding a simple theory would be great, but we may never find it.

[@EugenethePhilostopher]

@Protophanes the question of why you get that impression and not another should really be addressed to your therapist, not me.

[@christoskettenis880]

@@TheMachian Dr. Unzicker, please provide us with the historical evidence you are referring. As an engineer I can attest to simplicity, but NOT simplistic explanations/theories. Everything have to be measured and proven before we start deconstructing theories that work. And lastly, science is not a democracy, it's a court!

[@johnm.v709]

@@christoskettenis880 Fundamental Particle kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk Universe (Basic state) IJSR vol.7, issue 3 Pages 273 - 275

[@lachezarkrastev7123]

Could you make a video about the Higs fake?

[@TheMachian]

Here is something: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Zn-ykoyrYqarqas kzbin.info/www/bejne/p3rbmJyBdtJ4n7M kzbin.info/www/bejne/mKXYYZmJp9RpZsk

[@khhnator]

I'm not scientist (well technically i am, but not a physicist), but i don't get it i mean, sure, historically things turned out to me just emergent properties of more basic systems. it is a good guide but it doesn't mean it has to be so, there is nothing that assures us that the universe is innately simple. all it needs is to be self consistent. and that's probably still open to debate. newton laws are simple... but they are wrong, GR is ugly, very Ugly. even math is not simple when people tried to break all math to simple axioms they ended with inane walls of symbols to axiom even the simplest things

[@brendawilliams8062]

I enjoyed it but done.

[@WalayatFamily]

The uncertainty principle is wrong , it's not uncertainty it's probability.

[@Gringohuevon]

Centralised analysis of data?..Lies

[@tonibat59]

Again another dumb camera guy who prefers to look at the speakers back rather than at the board that's being discussed. Shall we make the club of video-operators in love with backs and hair cuts?

[@TheMachian]

Would be nice if you are not that harsh with what is indeed not perfect. On my flight to Prague, my camera got lost, thus I was greatful the organizers could provide at least this.

[@tonibat59]

@@TheMachian Apologies for the rash wording, but in the midst of a discussion where you need to read the screen and all you see is the speakers face, its frustrating. And it happens so often.

[@mkklmann]

I like turtles! Gods wlth a big G, I c what u did ther!

[@archi124]

Wie er einfach Werbung für seine Bücher macht, bei einem wiss. Vortrag.