A Bet Against Quantum Gravity

[@QuantaScienceChannel]

Read the full article at Quanta Magazine: www.quantamagazine.org/the-physicist-who-bets-that-gravity-cant-be-quantized-20230710/ Explore similar coverage: www.quantamagazine.org/tag/quantum-gravity/

[@ModernProjectManager]

Listen: Gravity is the probability matter will interact with any other matter. The closer two objects, the more probability they will interact with each other. The further bodies are, the less pobability it's phantom particles will interact with each other.

[@PetraKann]

Randomness does not necessarily imply that a system obeys Quantum Mechanical laws or is indeed stochastic. The antithesis of determinism is not randomness.

[@robhappier]

Hi @QuantaScienceChannel! Good channel! Gravity = The Spaceless and Timeless Vacuum Energy State of Matter!!! :)

[@PetraKann]

@@robhappier So you content with imposing the existence of matter without any dimensions or dimensional constraints? Good luck!

[@ScienceQuanta]

How much brain power has been wasted with wrong theories. I have faced so much discrimination from scientists. They will not even bother responding to you. It has been so much rejection that now I am expressing my frustration. I mean look at the Big Bang, the universe was the size of an orange after a few seconds? What fairy tale is this. There are so so so many facts against the Big Bang yet they somehow seem to make an explanation up to stay stuck in their belief system. Current scientists are stopping the advancement of science and this is stated after reaching out to hundreds of scientists who cant be bothered with when you reach out to them. Dark Matter is really probability clouds of neutrinos that have a very very small negative charge and are fermion leptons. There is nothing indicating that Neutrinos cannot have a charge and it is possible they have a very weak charge. They also have half spin and are similar to electrons since electrons are fermion leptons and also have half spin and thus should behave as such, which include behaving like probability clouds and also emitting and absorbing whatever excites it which may be gravitational waves. These Neutrino probability clouds can be seen in the axis of evil in the CMB which include the Quadrupole which are exactly the same shapes as 3d electron orbitals. This is likely the Neutrino probability cloud of the Sun. Electrons inside the Neutrino probability cloud will be repulsed from all directions from this Neutrino probability cloud and accelerate towards the side with the least repulsion upon the electron. This is gravity. Repulsive forces from all the Neutrinos in the probability cloud adds up over distance to repulse the electron. These Neutrino probability clouds will also have a positively charged Dark Matter probability cloud at their nucleuses which attract electrons immensely. Black holes reside in these positively charged Dark Matter nucleus clouds and are an electron soup which suck in electrons. Galaxy clusters have Dark Matter Halos that also have electron orbital shapes when observed indirectly via lensing. Neutrinos may be a solution to the Strong CP problem. The flyby anomaly acceleration curves have the same shape as the radial probability distribution curve of the 1s electron orbital indicating a 1s electron orbital shaped Neutrino probability cloud around planets. The time dilation curve around a planet will be the radial probability distribution curve of the Neutrino probability cloud which will be the same shape as the 1s electron orbital radial probability distribution curve if the Neutrino probability cloud has a 1s electron cloud shape. This is seen in the flyby anomaly graphs. These neutrino probability clouds can emit and absorb gravitational waves meaning gravity can change and is quantized. The Great conformity or the extinction event of dinosaurs may also have occurred due to the Neutrino probability cloud of the Earth transitioning into a higher energy state by absorbing the correct energy gravitational wave resulting in a stronger gravity. Neutrinos and Gravitational Waves are the only thing that we have measured that is all around us. Use Logic, they are both related to gravity and Dark Matter. Gravitational waves to Neutrinos is electromagnetic waves to electrons.

[@johnsports_iii]

All we need is a physicist named Oppenheimest and we're set.

[@ChrisTuckerCarlzyn]

Final evolution

[@WishAAAProductions]

Best joke I’ve seen in a while 😅

[@noureddine7729]

We also need closeheim,closeheimer and closeheimest ..

[@powahfulgameplayer]

​@@noureddine7729 How strange that even in 2023, there is no dance move revealed by some Oppengangnamer Steil person which can make an entire large audience have heart attacks.

[@Farmer1188]

Great joke 😂

[@BlackShardStudio]

This is exactly the kind of thinking that, even if it's proven wrong, in doing so it will have contributed massively toward our understanding of the universe.

[@studentjohn]

That is exactly the attitude that, frankly, all branches of science and engineering need more of, and a lot of folk (commercial and industrial concerns especially, and definitely political ones) need to suck that up: This is not a football match, being the team that properly shows an approach doesn't work isn't losing, and honestly stating 'I don't currently know' is not a failure. True, that attitude ain't what people instinctively see as confident, cool or sexy - but it is infinitely more grown up, honest and ultimately effective in producing useful models of the world. Confident sounding, cool and sexy are, bluntly put, vastly overrated, and people need to grow up, get done with wanting them, and embrace reasonable uncertainties and doubt as part of any science, part of life, and even damn useful if approached right. Wow, that set something off I've been sitting on since my days in industry funded research. Sorry for the rant, but I'll leave it up - it's something I feel needs saying to a lot of people.

[@Berlynic]

​@@studentjohncouldn't agree more! Very very well said👍

[@drchaffee]

Exactly. It makes me think of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Success or failure equals progress.

[@dizont]

Dude that's literally how technically science works. Scientists usually try to assume something and then find a way to disprove it in order to show that the assumption is false.

[@MrDino1953]

“contributed massively”. Were you being stochastic?

[@thequestion3953]

This guy taught my Quantum Computation course a long long time ago (2012). So cool to see him pop up here.

[@VeteranVandal]

He's solid. I read a few of his papers in the past and hope this last one turns out to produce an experimental test.

[@Mono_Autophobic]

Which university

[@Llooktook]

UCL@@Mono_Autophobic

[@jessstuart7495]

Measuring the noise in the gravitational field around a 1kg mass sounds incredibly difficult.

[@mikemines2931]

About 110db if it drops on your foot.

[@theguythatcoment]

The point of this is to avoid locality, if i understood the theory right, the space time fabric at our perceived scale acts consistently, which would't be the same at smaller quantities like micrograms. Gravity doesn't act the same way everywhere at the nano scale but if you add up all these random solutions you would get a consistent gravitational measurement that aligns with Einstein's the more mass you survey.

[@jacob2236]

​@@mikemines2931fantastic

[@thstroyur]

... Did my comment get randomly deleted? Weird...

[@ywtcc]

I think he used the 1kg number as a hypothetical example, though it was probably a poorly chosen example number. Something like a GPS network would probably provide the data to do a better job.

[@tristanwegner]

Describing an experiment, whose outcome will restrict the possibilities how the universe fundamentally works, is a big scientific accomplishment.

[@taffinjones8641]

​@@Tert-Butylno, they don't, but the reality that experiments describe can often be incongruent with the ACTUAL reality we live in, especially when pressed to the limits. Magnetic monopoles are mathematically and scientifically valid, although there's no proof of their existence. Certain theories predict tachyons, axions, and gravitons, despite none being discovered(unless I'm forgetting something). What they're saying is that a theory that patches up holes in our current theories, by explaining why certain phenomenon that seem to be theoretically possible but don't occur, would be significant.

[@Sinzari]

@@Tert-Butyl They restrict the possibilities, as OP said

[@Tert-Butyl]

@@Sinzari they do not in fact restrict the possibilities of how the universe works as OP said.

[@Tert-Butyl]

I appreciate your clarification of what OP was trying to say. That is not however, what they said.

[@das_it_mane]

@@Tert-Butyl regardless of what you're implying OP said, you know very well what they mean so what's the point of this?

[@concernedspectator]

"What we were able to prove is that any consistent theories of coupling between classical degrees of freedom and quantum degrees of freedom have to be fundamentally stochastic." Huge. So exciting to see what these experiments reveal

[@yakuzzi35]

yeah I wasn't sure if I understood correctly cos that sounds like such big deal

[@kylezo]

there's no proof or publication. his group is simply attempting to build testable hypotheses and design experiments to that end, they have most certainly not succeeded, it would be bigger than relativity and you would have definitely heard about it. This is what they're working on. I'm surprised he was so loose with his language there.

[@neond8902]

He is still false though. Randomness can't exist, if it would, nothing would exist. Easiest way to understand that is, when you have an apple and the internal state changes to "peach". This will never occur, because everything has its set and its state predetermined. The past, present and future doesnt exist. The future is the superposition of atoms which is determined by the past and the present is only the transition from past to future. Time is the 0th dimension, because the first dimension is a point which is should have coordinates (x-axis) in space cant exist without time, therefore time cant be the 4th dimension. You could say time was created first, then space bound to it. I am no phyiscist, so there's that.

[@abhishekshah11]

I have this feeling that gravity is in essence an emergent phenomena, a classical observable and hence, trying to quantize it seems like trying to fit something in a box that doesn't fit. Kudos to him for daring to try this approach.

[@0MoTheG]

If it is emergent then it needs to "use" energy and minimize that usage. How does it?

[@arnold-pdev]

emergent from what? if it's emergent from quantum mechanics, wouldn't that make it necessarily quantized?

[@zackyezek3760]

@@arnold-pdev Not necessarily. Gravity would be emergent in the same way that temperature or superconductivity is emergent. That is, the effects we currently model as warping of space and time would be macro states of the system arising from many different underlying micro states like Loop Quantum Gravity’s spin networks or String theory’s strings. The point is that it is the quantum or classical nature of those underlying things that would then determine if gravity is ultimately quantum. The ones in LQG and String theory are, but in principle you could have an alternative that ISN’T- a classical stochastic or statically mechanical (AKA like thermodynamics) gravity where Einstein’s theory arises as the macroscopic limit of a deeper but still non-quantum theory. That may not be exactly what this guy is proposing, but it IS a logical possibility that’s been largely ignored until now.

[@Sizifus]

Recently I was of the same idea, but apparently the hypothesis of an emergent gravity didn't work out as experiments didn't fit the model.

[@Self-Duality]

Penrose (paraphrased): “The trouble is that we’re trying and trying to quantize gravity, but we really need to gravitize quantum mechanics.”

[@0MoTheG]

Isn't it strange how there is a t in the Schrödingergleichung? Just like that as if time is a continuous variable.

[@Cosmalano]

Yeah Penrose is a jackass

[@Cosmalano]

@@0MoTheGwhat does that have to do with anything? You can quantize fields, theyre continuous too. READ DIRAC. READ FEYNMAN.

[@dankurth4232]

@@Cosmalanoyou miss the point. It’s not about that gravity or rather space time is continuous but that it ,acts‘ stochastically and not according to quantum rules or to put it another way: gravity causes decoherence but it doesn’t become decoherent because it isn’t quantum in the first place

[@Cosmalano]

@@dankurth4232 yes I know what Oppenheim’s idea is, that’s not what the guy I was responding to seemed to be implying by smugly calling t a continuous variable. Seemed more like he was saying t *obviously* shouldn’t be discrete, which is not necessary to talk about quantum gravity, and so it’s mocking something nobody actually thinks. I hadn’t heard these claims revolving around decoherence however, where did you get that?

[@protocol6]

I hope he defined the 5,000 items better than that, otherwise someone's going to give him 8.3e-21 moles of elemental hydrogen and call it done. They might even try giving him a quarter of that, counting the electron and quarks separately. We can only hope they don't start trying to count the gluons. It'd probably be easier just to radically overpay with a glass of water.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

This isn't about the winnings, that's just a symbol. The result of the bet will likely be published somewhere if and when it happens.

[@protocol6]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn All the more reason for it to be something absurd like 5,000 positrons in a Penning trap.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@protocol6 That sounds like it'd be worth a lot. Antimatter is very expensive iirc.

[@protocol6]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn Hypothetically, it's expensive on the order of grams or even millionths of a gram. 5000 individual positrons? Worthless, but it'd cost you the banana and the penning trap.🤪

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@protocol6 Lol, fair enough. 😅

[@greggary7217]

I’m a huge fan of turning problems on their heads and it’s pretty much a fundamental tenant of human behaviour that over time (what passes for) knowledge becomes tied up with dogma, which is often confused with strings. Whether ultimately right or wrong this gets a standing o from me on that basis alone.

[@AtheistEve]

tenet

[@greggary7217]

@@AtheistEve auto correct. I can’t be bothered. Really.

[@AtheistEve]

@@greggary7217 Usually I don’t bother to mention. Just thought you, and maybe others, would appreciate the info.

[@HerbalMCFC]

I agree. No matter the outcome we shouldn't be afraid to try. It only has to work once, so to say.

[@Amethyst_Friend]

I prefer my o's lying down

[@TheBiomuse]

If evidence for noise in gravitational fields is strengthened, it will mean either that 1) gravity may harbor substantial nonquantizable stochasticity; or 2) that we are presently underinformed regarding the abundance and/or energetic states of gravity's discrete units. I'd bet on the latter. Thus far, it sure looks as though the history of physics is that stochasticity is always apparent only until those units are better understood.

[@mikemines2931]

If time is quantized what is the frame rate of the universe.

[@ab8jeh]

1/Plancktime

[@thomasbradley2916]

@@ab8jeh ahhaha 1/ 5.39×10−44. This means the universe wouldn't have updated since its beginning

[@Amit-kumar-gg]

60 fps

[@thomasbradley2916]

@@Amit-kumar-gg it dips at night time

[@Prof-Joe-H]

@@thomasbradley2916: Much to the contrary - it would update so frequently that we can’t imagine (to the order of 10^43 times per second). 🤓

[@badlydrawnturtle8484]

What catches my attention is the throwing out of the information paradox. The notion that information is some sort of fundamental conserved quantity rather than a human-centric descriptor of what we can know has always rubbed me the wrong way, so to see a hypothesis that just chucks it out the window, at least in part, is refreshing.

[@milmundos]

True, I also struggle to understand where is the paradox.

[@thomasspeer1388]

It’s refreshing to hear a different take on gravity for once

[@arctic_haze]

I like this approach. In General Relativity gravity is not even a force. In this approach, locally it is a fictitious force just like Coriolis force or centrifugal force. But we do not quantize fictitious forces. So why should we attempt that with gravity?

[@arctic_haze]

@@aryamanmishra154 Yes. It would make distance emergent and gravity is all about distance. This is what I believed for a long time but recently started to look at this a little more from GR point of view and wonder why do we need to quantize this very emergent thing. Maybe it is just a side effect of something much more fundamental, like entanglement, as you said.

[@thstroyur]

It is and isn't a force; the Newtonian limit is really more of a headache in GR than relativists let out. I'm not a teleparallel (TP) guy, but even that I think is a better framework for gravity. In my own approach (don't worry, I'm 99.996% sure you won't as much care what it is - I get the psychology there), one has the freedom to interpret gravity as "pure force" - which I do because I see no reason throughout all of modern physics not to.

[@arctic_haze]

@@thstroyur I do not see why the Newtonian limit is a headache. If you assume Carthesian space, any spacetime curvature must manifest itself as force. It is similar to the 15 degree per hour Earth rotation. If we assume the Earth is not moving (and this is what we assume most of the time) we get the Coriolis force which is simply the result of choosing an non-inertial frame of reference.

[@ashdiamondjunior18]

@@thstroyur can you elaborate what you mean by "teleparallel (TP) guy"?

[@thstroyur]

@@arctic_haze "I do not see why the Newtonian limit is a headache" That depends on how much GR one studied. Free tip: check out section 3.5 of the arXiv e-print arXiv:1710.02105 [math.HO] "If you assume Carthesian space, any spacetime curvature must manifest itself as force" Well, that's a matter of interpretation. If by "curvature" you mean the Riemann-Christoffel tensor, in my theory one can set that to zero, and still have curvature (and torsion) as a field strength (and hence, forces). The word is ambiguous, and misleading: the EM field is, technically, a curvature in the U(1) principal bundle of QED - but this is never even mentioned to popular audiences - probably because they'd get confused by the depictions of "curvature" in the deformed bedsheet demo, and so on.

[@purplenanite]

I like how there's already tests of this math - I do think gravity will be quantum, but I cannot wait to see what happens here

[@VCT3333]

As a rank amateur, I feel the same; that Gravity should also be a quantum field. The reason for that is we've now discovered and shown the existence of Gravity Waves. As every other thing that carries energy, photon, electron etc have been shown to possess wave particle duality; I think that Gravity is also a quantum phenomenon. Maybe stochasticity is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics, due to the linearity of time.

[@purplenanite]

@@VCT3333 Ideally, you're right. But if it was that simple, i presume it would be solved already. One interesting thing - electromagnetism etc - those waves are all linear, as in they can superimpose with no issues. But spacetime geometry is very *non*-linear. maybe in the limit of low-amplitude, maybe? I do not have the knowledge to test this, or understand the math, but I'm getting there! with regards to stochasticity, I don't think the second law has anything to do with that?

[@JohirulIslam-vm9xwyfhg]

Halp

[@sayyamzahid7312]

​@@purplenanite❤

[@assguard..8018]

​@@VCT3333linearity of time breaks when you treat gravity as what it is, a direction not a force ..

[@GeoffryGifari]

when it comes to experimental measurement in the "randomness of gravity", how can we distinguish a random (but classical) gravitational noise from quantum fluctuations stemming from quantum gravity?

[@flambambam]

If I'm understanding where he's going with this, his experiments sound a lot like a question I've had for a few years. If an electron cloud is just a probability density function, then we should expect its electromagnetic field to be dispersed throughout this cloud (instead of a point-charge all the way down). If gravity is fundamentally quantum, then we have good reason to believe that its gravitational field should be dispersed in the same manner. The only issue is that gravity is extremely weak, so we have to either get creative with how we would measure something like this, or wait until we have technology sensitive enough to make these measurements.

[@willcowan7678]

When/where are the experiments happening?

[@slo3337]

Random is that which cannot be predicted. So even if something were deterministic, it ramains random as long as you cannot measure it accurately. So basically as long as we dont know everything there will be randomness. And if the universe has true randomness in any form, we cannot know everything.

[@lastchance8142]

Right at the end he mentions the "squeeze theorum". Love the squeeze theorum! Finding an exact solution where there is no direct path to a solution is so satisfying.

[@qbtc]

How will you differentiate between gravitational noise and noise from experimental uncertainty?

[@4Shaman]

"We need to quantize because that’s how we do everything else" Brilliant ontology

[@danielballard3364]

I suspect at one point in time we are going to find out gravity is, after all, a classical emergent "feature" and not quantifiable..

[@thebirdhasbeencharged]

Gravity doesn’t exist, quantize the fundamental space time deterministic properties and you will see that the stochastic coupling devolves rapidly. Formulated with string theory and the fluctuations and dilations when time slows across p bodies and you will see that it doesn’t really exist.

[@YoutubeHandlesSuckBalls]

It is. To use gravity in reference to things on the quantum scale is a category error.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Well, that's General Relativity: we should not talk of "gravity" anymore except for implying that it is exactly that: an emergent feature that operates as curvature of space-time. But still, how does matter/mass/concentrated energy cause that curvature of space-time? That has not been solved yet and most physicists, trapped in a quantum "dogma" or "hegemony", don't even look for it anymore but rather cling to the burning nail of the extremely unlikely "graviton" instead.

[@aaron8862006]

To whoever did the edit, the b-roll cut at 5:47 was incredibly satisfying.

[@docstevens007]

Cool and good luck with it, but wondering how you know the noise is not just measurement error?

[@plurisdesign3210]

Excellent video, inspiring beyond imagination

[@AurelienCarnoy]

The smalest quantum wave is a pair of virtual particles recombining with an other pair. To simpify think of two row of perl neclace. The perls recombine with its neighbouring antiparticle. That edg dislocation (similar to movenent of atom in a metal under stress) is a quantum wave. That is the bending of space time.

[@notmypresident4066]

Interesting. This is my intuition too, which is that "time" does not really "exist" like physical matter does. Rather it is purely a mathematical property that emerges as a derivative of motion and geometry of particles/waves governed by quantum mechanics and electromagnetism. So it seems intuitive that a such a derivative, untethered by the requirements of physicality could just as well be modeled as a continuous function. Looking forward the the experiments!

[@SystemsMedicine]

No… in physics, ultimately, you model what you measure. Quantities derived from quantized fields will, therefore, also be quantized. [Of course, if you find a working (physics) theory, then many will be interested.]

[@LuisAldamiz]

Some sort of Time exists even in Wolfram's model: sequentiality (iteration), even if synchronicity (another type of Time) is emergent in his system. The electron has a time when it has not yet absorbed a photon, a (usually short) time when it has and is energetically hyped, and then a third time when it has emitted ("re-emitted") a photon and gone back to its lowest energy state. When you wrote "Interesting", the "I" was typed before the "n", etc. (unless you edited for typos or whatever, which also had a sequence anyhow). Everything that happens happens in a sequence and that sequence is Time (at least some sort of Time).

[@danteschaos7852]

Its like there's this pot that grows and grows as we go around the table making bets. Some having folded, some doubling down. Considering the location of the table i think the safest strategy would be to have an empty open mind. We're probably all too full of ourselves by now to be objective

[@TheEmmef]

What if we can somehow redefine the stress-energy distribution used in GR to determine space time curvature in terms of the probabilities used in QM? In that way, GR can still be the space time "canvas" on which QFT happens, but its curvature is also probabilistic, while events are not points but distributions. My physics in decades back, but I can imagine that Heisenberg could circumvent some singularities here, stuff would pan out for classical scales of action. And I can imagine that the mathematics would be … scary. And if events have no meaning for very small amounts of time or distance, what does that mean for relativity, that is all about events?

[@colinhiggs70]

Does anyone know what the current upper and lower bounds set by those experiments are? Was that the range 10^-1 -> 10^-40 which was being scribbled onto the board in the video

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

This kinda feels like giving up (on the idea of a Theory of Everything). Then again I suppose science has always been about giving up on pleasing ideas in favor of more accurate ones. Plenty of people didn't like Kepler's science of planetary motion simply cos ellipses feel less 'perfect' than circles, and yet the ellipses turned out to be right. Even the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, annoying as that is to find out.

[@carlbrenner7078]

He might be Oppenheim, but Robert was Oppenheimer.

[@denizkacan8007]

nice

[@Abmotsad]

"If you don't find randomness and noise in a gravitational field, then you can rule out a classical theory of gravity." That's wrong. In these circumstances, failure to find something is NOT proof that it's not there. It could mean simply that the effect is one decimal point smaller than the sensitivity of your instruments.

[@MichaelBishop-uw6wx]

I want to learn more about this. One hears this phrase now, "The post-Quantum-Gravity World." It's exciting to think there are new ideas being explored at last. One other area that still needs attention, in my view, is quantum entanglement. We know what QE is. We know that QE is real. But we really don't know how it actually works. And by that I mean, how does QE apparently skirt around Special Relativity? That is, a quantum object, whose paired parts are separated by some distance, seemingly interact with each other faster than light. This implies an additional dimension(s) of space-time that we do not directly observe, or an unresolved issue with SR - which opens a big can of worms with respect to cause and effect. In any reconciliation of GR and QM, I think better understanding QE will be one of the keys to getting there.

[@Spectacurl]

I know he is more humble than the average professor because of how many times he said “Me and my students”. Most of them are like “me and my giant ego”

[@SamsaraRevolves]

Is there any more work being done to show how magnetic fields and gravitational fields behave similarly?

[@Menanddragons]

I lean towards the idea that space time is classic. I’m not physicist, but here is my reasoning. Gravity is a function of spacetime, and spacetime is infinitely divisible as far as we know. All quantum forces can be quantized, they have discrete units; however, no matter how many times we divide time there is never a point that the progress of events becomes discrete. Imagine an infinitely high frame rate camera. If time was discrete then you would have a measurable number of frames where the progression of events did not happen. Time would for that period appear to be frozen. Perhaps this could be said that it’s just that time is in a wave because we are not directly overseeing it. But there isn’t anything to observe. Since gravity is a direct manifestation of time then it makes sense that gravity as well exists on an infinite gradient. Again just lay person, curious to hear your thoughts.

[@Cosmalano]

Spacetime could be discrete, with the breakdown of smoothness occurring at scales so small we have no instrument presently capable of probing it. This distance scale, where general relativity is no longer expected to describe what’s happening, is called the “Planck scale”.

[@Menanddragons]

@@Cosmalano That is possible, but from a a brief google search I saw that the fastest camera is able to record at 70trillion frames per second and since I haven't heard about any completely shifts in our understanding of time, I feel safe to assume that time progressed smoothly and linearly there too. They have divided the second up to such a ridiculous degree and not seen a breakdown of the time continuum. How much smaller can the planck scale be? And even if it is smaller than 70 trillionth of a second, can't we at least say it is for all practical purposes infinitely continuous?

[@Cosmalano]

@@Menanddragons a trillionth of a second is 10^-12 seconds. The Planck time is 5.391*10^-44 seconds, which is 32 orders of magnitude smaller. That is an unimaginable difference, and that’s how far we expect spacetime to be reasonably described as smooth. So for all practical purposes and well beyond, spacetime is perfectly described as smooth. But this is physics, not engineering. “Practical purposes” aren’t the concern.

[@Menanddragons]

@@Cosmalano Thanks for that clarification. Now you have me very curious about he derivation of that number. I'll have to start looking that up.

[@Cosmalano]

@@Menanddragons no problem. I would tread lightly as you trek towards quantum gravity, you might find resources that are easy to understand but at the cost of being wildly speculative if not just downright inaccurate. The number comes from the idea of Planck units, a set of units composed entirely out of physical constants. The Planck time is given by the gravitational constant G, the speed of light c, and the reduced Planck’s constant ℏ, arranged to give a quantity with units of time, √(Gℏ/c^5).

[@TridTV]

What does it mean to quantize gravity?

[@mastershooter64]

essentially "chopping it up into super tiny bits" into indivisible units of "gravity". You can take the electromagnetic force as an example. When people "Quantized" the EM field we chopped up light into indivisible units of the EM field called "photons", and we got QED! quantum electrodynamics!

[@EN_Lee]

From my limited understanding. They are trying to understand how gravity works on a really small scale. Currently gravity is best described on massive objects like stars. For things like atoms and smaller, gravity as we know it normally doesn't work, so they want to get gravity to work on the quantum level, in other words, quantize it

[@OchiiDinUmbraa]

For a long time people believed that you can make an electron orbit an atom at any distance from the atom you want. But Neils Bohr proved that the there are only a few ways in which the electron can orbit the atom. There is a short list of possible distances an electron can be apart from the atom. We call what Neils Bohr discovered "the quantization of the electron orbits". Now people are trying to quantize gravity which means they want to show that there exists a particle called the graviton and that there is a finite list of ways in which this particle can behave.

[@nickwilson8119]

So there are a couple of interpretations of gravity. If it's a force like electromagnetism then it should quantise and have force carrying particles analogous to the photon. However the other way to view it as a curved surface where objects in it are simply following a particular path on the surface rather than a force actually existing. This would remove the need for quantum gravity at all. There's a really good explainer on PBS space time which shows how time leads to gravity which this video references.

[@InTrancedState]

It's similar to how we can quantize how gay you are

[@isobaric]

Beautiful explanation of the black hole information paradox!

[@juanausensi499]

My bet is that not only black holes destroy information, but others fundamental processes also do, and we should find them experimentally. That would imply that, not only physical processes are statistically irreversible (par the second law) but also fundamentally irreversible. That would explain time and change, as a function of information conserved minus information destroyed plus new information added.

[@ronin123958]

Indeed! Can't bear listening to some self-important boffins like Susskind go on and on how it MUST be that information is preserved.

[@MrConstiii]

Can someone explain why these videos are so interesting to me even though i don't understand most of what is said?

[@Power_to_the_people567]

Perhaps a hidden passion waiting to be discovered. Always entertain your curiosity

[@krox477]

Because the editing perfect

[@williamzame3708]

The entanglement experiments seem to demonstrate pretty conclusively that particles really don't "have" certain properties until those properties are measured. Before that, the properties are essentially random. Given this - and lots of similar evidence - why do "a lot of physicists still have a hard time believing that Nature is essentially random"?

[@darkwoodmovies]

I'm not a physicist, but from everything I read it seems pretty convincing that the universe we can physically observe (basically down to the atomic scale) is an incomplete picture. Whether it's a projection from a higher dimension, or there are some forces or particles we don't know about yet, or it's a simulation, or some god-like thing, whatever... and once we figure it out it will either completely break or substantially change all existing theories and even mathematics. I mean, consider all the loop holes in gravitational theory (explained by dark matter nobody confirmed exists), black holes, the existence of reality itself... all things that cannot be explained just by looking at the surface and observing.

[@christopherlocke]

I believe the black hole information paradox already has a proposed quantum solution that uses replica wormholes.

[@rtg_onefourtwoeightfiveseven]

There are plenty of proposed solutions. String theory, for example, gives you 'fuzzballs' which act essentially identically to classical black holes (from the outside, at least) but preserve information.

[@curiousuranus810]

Brilliant. I hope you win your bet and I wish I'd had a tutor like you.

[@77Fortran]

The explanation for the origin of structure in the universe in the standard model of cosmology is via the quantum fluctuations of a field that includes part of the gravitational field. I think it will be a struggle to explain the same data (specifically the spectral index of the matter power spectrum) in a model where gravity is fundamentally non-quantum.

[@oldones59]

What I got from Mr. Oppenheim's talk is that particle physics is still relevant and needn't be ignored.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

We need to go back to r² and the Inverse Square Law of gravitational and EM fields. Could the outward momentum of light form the potential for the inward motion of gravity? The spontaneous absorption and emission of light photon ∆E=hf energy is forming potential photon energy into the kinetic energy of electrons. Kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy is the energy of what is actually happening. An uncertain probabilistic future is continuously coming into existence with the exchange of photon energy.

[@VeteranVandal]

This fella has some papers in quantum information that are really good. I like his idea because it's a proposal with an experimental test in mind unlike all of the string theory guys and big unification guys, which never propose experiments at all.

[@jjwhittle8873]

It isn't really down to the theorists to propose experiments though.

[@alphalunamare]

@@jjwhittle8873 They must of necessity make predictions that differ from the assumptions built into their models else their theories will be self fulfilling on a par with String Theory and Biblical Creationism.

[@jjwhittle8873]

@@alphalunamare not being rude but it doesn’t sound to me like you really understand how that all works.

[@alphalunamare]

@@jjwhittle8873 My sarcasm is a bit pointed I guess, it does tend to get me into trouble. I know how Biblical Creationism works ..God waved a magic wand. As for String Theory, a mathematical extravaganza, I see it as a well woven masterpiece of the imagination, a Science Fiction analogue of The Bayeux Tapestry perhaps. I find it difficult to understand your forgiveness of Theorists for their absence of responsibility in the experimental arena, that is all.

[@adamnevraumont4027]

String theory proposes lots of experiments. As yet none have distinguished string theory from not string theory. But lots of experiments, like measuring gravity on cm scales, have been proposed. And had they turned out differently we'd have some evidence for specific string theories. The problem, of course, is that string theories all predict QM/relativity in the low energy limit. And higher energy experiments are hard. We don't have black holes to experiment on directly, and we can't reproduce force unification energy levels, nor can we probe the Planck scale. So we try to find the string theories that do admit experimentation at our current level of capability. Ie, where gravity has 4 space dimensions at cm scales. Then we test if that is the case. But in string theiry, the scale at which gravity becomes 4 dimensional is *not* predicted by the theory. It says what it would look like. So we can only do experiments to try to see if it is happening. All such experiments have failed to detect anything at energy scales we can reach. Now, GR and QM and SM at energy scales we cannot reach give us nonsense predictions. So we KNOW they are inconsistent. But we can't reach those energy scales to see what actually happens! The difficulty of theoretical models is that they (a) need to not produce nonsense at the scales our existing models do, and (b) to be tested, need to generate some difference at scales we can test! This is an experimental failure. But people blame theorists. The theorists can have dozens of theories that solve the problem and predict different results at the high energies experimenters cannot reach. And any of them could be correct. But the poor abilities of experimenters means they are forced to warp their theories to have low-energy quirks so experimenters can test them. The correct theory may have no low energy quirks at all. And nothing experimenters can do could test it.

[@KaiseruSoze]

a deterministic model can contain stochastic processes/models. The converse fails. You lose information in QM and as a result, deterministic statements are no longer possible. I.e., determinism make the better model in principle, but because we are unable to measure anything perfectly we have to introduce statistical mech to make testable predictions.

[@Cicero_Phoenix]

While watching the video I thought for a second what gravitational field will produce the massive cube with a mass of 100 of Sun. Will it be spherical or cubical in time-space?

[@Chinchuchwei_sr]

Does our current understanding of the universe include anything that ISNT quantum at its core?

[@bhangrafan4480]

It would be interesting to hear what the experimentalists say about this.

[@schmetterling4477]

"Meh.". Experimentalists will tell you that there is no there, there. ;-)

[@inamortz2372]

Great content, but the hyper editing (scene change every 1.5 seconds) and constant music make it a bit too much.

[@Erik-pu4mj]

Intuition has taken us far and, for many, it still points to quantum gravity. We have been able to quantize everything else with great success; it makes perfect sense to explore that possibility. But if quantum mechanics has taught us anything, I think it is that physics can and will defy our intuitions. I am glad Oppenheim is exploring the potentially unintuitive.

[@pauljones9150]

This way of exploring such a boring physics experiment in such an enthralling and entertaining way, i love it!

[@Rose_Harmonic]

I like to think of it as having always been interesting, but the proper lens or presentation was missing.

[@das_it_mane]

Funny that it's boring to you because to me it's the most fascinating thing

[@brennanlawson6108]

Awesome idea, shocked I've never seen this proposed. I am just a layman but I consume a ton of physics content and I've never heard this idea mentioned.

[@declandougan7243]

If you had it would have already been tested. His will more likely than not prove false, but, in doing so, will further knowledge by putting strong bounds upon possible theories.

[@0MoTheG]

​@@declandougan7243We keep hearing about untested even untestable ideas all the time.

[@KrisPucci]

Is this part of a larger documentary?

[@studentjohn]

One thing worth noting is that quantum mechanics and general relativity, for all their successes, are just models. All models have limits, and are useful only in those limits. The black hole information paradox is only a paradox if you insist that quantum mechanics must not have limits, and also extend to gravity. If you keep the idea that it's still a model with limits in mind then the information loss, and the broader inability to quantise gravity, cease to be a paradox and just become a sign that this is the limit of that model's usefulness.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

I feel like Professor Openhimer is trying to bypass Space-Time altogether and pushing it to the background. I'm no physicist. But I bet resolving this issue need going deep into the relationship between Quantization and Space-Time, and more importantly, the very nature of quantization itself. Why we see quantization in the first place, from where wave-particle duality comes from etc.

[@cris-1001]

What if gravity is not a force, it's an effect? So you can't quantize it like another force. What's if an effect of something we haven't studied, or figured a set of relations for yet? What if the equations we have for gravity, while seemingly accurate to many degrees of precision, are just an approximation, in the same way that temperature is an emergent property quantized particle kinetics, temperature is an approximation, what if gravity is an approximation that arises out of something more fundamental, that we haven't started picking at yet? If you look far enough out, and far enough back, doesn't gravity start to break down? Isn't that why we need to invoke dark matter and energy, to explain, or rather, to correct the approximation that is gravity?

[@CACBCCCU]

Best explanation for entanglement in matter, and a cyclic universe, is to allow cold temperatures to geometrically enhance retro-reflection of gravity spin information flows, so please continue selling the idea that entanglement has nothing to do with quantized gravitational energy as well as with long distances or with a light speed increase due to cold-focused gravity flows, that is the ticket to continued fame and fortune with advanced extradimensional wormholery firmly founded upon supreme intercontinental royal colonial word-based technology. Actually, it looks like gravitational information flows depend on the sub-nucleonic reflective geometric nature of the source, even for molecular sources. So much shared state resonance and environmental diversity for GR to brilliantly ignore. Roughly diamond-shaped Bennu and Ryugu both offer retro-reflective flow clues there, maybe??? I'd suggest thinking about it, hard. Gravitational induction (frame drag) without matter radiating and exchanging "virtual" particles of gravitational kinetic spin information between nuclei across any space, even regardless of distance, requires a non-trackable information-pasteurizing classical middleman that is overdue for elimination. Spin induction seems more cosmologically influential in forming sheets and filaments of matter than dark sector experts want to admit. I mean maybe, just maybe, solid temperatures matter very deeply with gravity? Like, I don't know ... increasing temperatures strongly resembles inflating configurations of flattened quarks in baryons? Crazy, right, chaps? Pure abstract non-hyper-dimensional whack-a-doodlery, I mean. Someone doesn't know their gravity place in hyperspace. Massive quarks in different pebbles coordinating on something? Remote pairings of uncanny mirror-like spinning plate actions? Concentrated gravity maybe generates an effective vacuum light speed increase? Eh?? Duh. Retroreflectors are known attention attractors, with pulls or pushes both equal and opposite. So very Hebbian in appearance too. Yet other forms of pseudo-intelligence may forever remain firmly uninterested, absorbed with various creatively dark matters. Another wrinkle - this one concentric - gravity could carry intrinsic quantum galactic rate longitudinal spin reflected in ubiquitous placid-flat galactic size clustering along with characteristic concentric darkly mass-minimized rings where that stationary resulting wavelength is merely classical proton size upscaled by the 10^+36th force-ratio of "virtual" electric and gravity carriers between the particles over non-nuclear distances. Something similarly quantum could easily be forming dark rings dividing up galactic cluster parts, as if the two halves of the "bullet cluster" can spin together. There is a sharp picture of cold super-flat super-large Malin 1 that is just so rippled. It's just another dimensionless number concept where gravity is just another force, like Dirac suggested for cosmological horizons of electron effects with his own misguided "Large Numbers Hypotheses" before galaxies not confused with nebulae were known. Despite all the hype, deSitter space is likely not serious in addition to being too "local" (read as: too "flat lightspeedish" not to mention lacking in reflective focus and so being basically lame), neither is anti-deSitter space.

[@SystemsMedicine]

No physical clock can be constructed which can measure time in a continuous fashion, since all the components of any physical device must ultimately be described quantum mechanically. Thus time, as measured in any physical laboratory, will automatically be quantized in character. Injection of noise into a field will not change this, unless the noise precisely models the effects which would have otherwise resulted from quantizing time. [ps Recently published ‘double slit’ experiments support a quantized interpretation of time.]

[@galaxywanderer4608]

What a strangely beautiful idea. It will be fascinating to see what experiments show regarding it.

[@timothy8426]

We know that frequency vibrates towards the weakest point of resistance, which is the greater mass of neutralized resistance. Time is the distance traveled in occupational space as mass. Aging or decay is determined by resistance to forward maximum momentum velocity in resistance. Conservation of maximum momentum velocity in resistance in and out of entanglement of mass is constant. Spheres are proof of equalization of pressure in resistance. Energy of thermaldynamics is redirected trajectories reducing distances according to their cycling circulation patterns as mass. As mass decays, distance increases. Space vibrates from resistance to thermaldynamics. Repulsion to propulsion from repulsion. Perpetual motion. Cold resistance of space itself and thermaldynamics coexist as space itself. Cold resistance expands thermaldynamics outward force into weight or density. Density can't exceed resistance within it. Occupational space is neutralized resistance within mass.

[@Trizzer89]

All we have to do is assume there is a maximum density. What other discrepancies are there?

[@stephenzhao5809]

1:38 ... 2:16 ... you're essentially quantizing the speed of time, [yes, the quantum is INS ( = 0 )! And the clock stopped, so it doesn't make any sense.]

[@SteinGauslaaStrindhaug]

2:50 I really don't understand why physicists should be uncomfortable with the idea that the world is fundamentally not entirely deterministic... Everything measurable has some randomness to it; why should it be such a leap to think that it's not just a limit to our equipment but fundamentally how the world actually is? And doesn't even most physicist accept that anything beyond the observable universe is fundamentally inaccessible to us; isn't the event horizon of black holes just another such horizon?

[@djayjp]

2 observations: 1) Copenhagen is random so I'm not sure why he's saying physicists are uncomfortable with non-deterministic processes. 2) Randomness isn't possible in math, so it probably isn't in reality either (?).

[@posthocprior]

Noise in signal processing, say, is the difference between the signal that's being measured minus a quantity that's correlated to the measured signal. In other words, the signal plus the noise is the maximum power of the signal. So -- assuming this applies to the definition of gravity -- what is the maximum measurable quantity of gravity?

[@wellesmorgado4797]

Any relation to Irwin Oppenheim (Chemistry-MIT), by any chance?

[@MichaelNiles]

My money is on Oppenheim - that Gravity is not like the other forces, is not quantum, but something else entirely. There's something more fundamental to dimensions, their spatiality and temporality, that gives way to what we call gravity, and something in how the quantum world "communicates" is influenced by gravity. I like Penrose's quote "The trouble is that we’re trying and trying to quantize gravity, but we really need to gravitize quantum mechanics."

[@lepidoptera9337]

That can and has been done, but it doesn't yield much. You get Hawking radiation and the Unruh effect out of it and not much else, if I an not mistaken.

[@alphalunamare]

Ramp up the mass and amplify the sophistication and precision of The Cavendish Experiment. Introduce random perturbations into the apparatus and then look to see if there is any significance in the variable noise in the outcomes.

[@Usrnet]

If mass depends on the velocity of the particle I figure a kind of descent as a result which attracts in superposition the particles around is quantum gravity. For me clocks tick relativ to the mass as to the velocity of the particles. Does that make any sense?

[@karthikeyanak9460]

I thought time is an evolved property of quantum world. Say in a place where quantum particle needs to do a lot of interactions, those interactions slow things down, so the n+1 interaction takes longer than it would in free space. Thus, time appears to flow slow in densely populated regions of interaction as time is just a measure of rate of change.

[@diniaadil6154]

I couldn't help but giggle when he said his name was Oppenheim

[@j121212100]

I doubt they can make background EMF quiet enough to dectect such minute gravitational noise. Technically speaking virtual particles popping in and outnof existence should create gravity. Insofar as the gold blob is concerned we already know matter has a wave function. I think were the gap is not that we live in a quantum world where things are inherently quantized, only the transitions in energy are quantized becauase that transition occurs through the absorption of quanta.

[@maxanimator9547]

Why would the matter radiating from a black hole be random ? Could it not be previous matter from long ago getting ejected as new matter feeds the black hole ? The transformation of that matter could then be described, assuming we ever figure out the process it undergoes within the celestial body

[@LuisAldamiz]

Nice to hear that some physicists like Oppenheim are challenging the "quantum dogma" because it should be clear that it's a dead alley by now. My personal (and admittedly amateurish) take would be that quantum mechanics is the one that needs "relativization" or at least some revision. It's not that it doesn't work as it is but maybe it could be simplified and revised in some aspects that are mostly "legacy" and understood in different ways, for example accepting that quantum fields are properties of space-time (or at least of space in time)m because space or space-time is clearly the "field of fields", the "master field", too central to ignore. I'm growing skeptical of quantization of light (EM field) because it's clear (photoelectric effect) that light is quantum or quantized in its interaction with matter (electrons essentially) but not so clear that it is actually quantum on its own right (photons are extremely elusive unless in the aspect of electron absorption/emission, which seems rather a property of electrons and not of light, otherwise behaving as a wave all the time). En fin, lots to dig about. More relativization of quantumness rather than quantization of Relativity is probably needed. The maths may be harder however...

[@lepidoptera9337]

Quantum field theory has been fully relativistic since the 1930s... you are tad late, kid.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@lepidoptera9337 - Not at all, you're just being pedantic here. QFT is only "relativistic" in the sense of Special Relativity, a particular and very limited case of General Relativity. There's no General Relativity in QFT at all.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@LuisAldamiz There is no need for general relativity in QFT. We have not seen a single general relativistic phenomenon at the quantum level. You need to read up on the definition of science, kid. ;-)

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@lepidoptera9337 - You probably have seen it in the very same "spooky action at a distance" that so much spooked Einstein himself (at the limit of c, speed of light or causality, time doesn't happen and space is always "here and now"... although it's arguable that Einstein would object to that). That includes the Delayed Choice Quantum Entangled experiment surely. But regardless... General (not Special) Relativity is a scientific fact, the most demonstrated theory ever. Quantum or not is something less relevant, an issue to be addressed and "solved" somehow but not the basic issue. The basic issue is that GR works and it works perfectly well, so, if anything it is the more patchy and arguable other theory (or set of theories rather) that is Quantum Mechanics, which has to seek how to adapt to this hard fact of science. QM has many "holes", it's not a well finished theory or system, rather a phenomenology. It's OK, it does work, but it's not the Holy Grail of Physics, and can only be true for as long as it fits General Relativity somehow, which so far it doesn't.

[@ross350tube]

2:18 The inverse square rate of gravity's effect on the flow rate of time prevents any absolute 0 though doesn't it?

[@IllusiveMan343]

Trying to quantize gravity seems like a classic case of overthinking and trying to force something in a box that doesn't fit. I feel gravity is probably an emergent property, the result of interactions between mass and spacetime. Their shared interaction manifests into gravity.

[@phazix6529]

Great video!!

[@byrev]

The effects of gravity are indistinguishable from the effects of acceleration and the equivalence principle says that there is no way to tell the difference between these two situations by using only local measurements... but, we can say that acceleration and gravity are related by the curvature of space-time. Acceleration can be quantum in nature, in the sense that it can be influenced by quantum mechanical effects such as uncertainty, interference, and tunneling (Bremsstrahlung radiation, Zeeman effect and maybe Schwinger effect) So basically, in order to find the nature and the truth about gravity, we have to understand why the two phonemes are so similar!

[@HenriCORNIERE]

That' is not true. There are several ways to observe some differences in the two situations given by the equivalence principle. You can put instruments like gravimeters in the observers' cabin on Earth. They will record subtle differences of the gravitational field due to the moon and the sun influences; it's called tides. A thorn in the foot of that principle invalidating it.

[@bpaperu]

Does the amount of randomness remain the same or change over time?

[@sirusable1]

Hi thank you for the information. I have some theory about the spacetime which is kind of weird but it could be right and if I am right then so many things changes in science, but I don’t know who to contact please help me not to be wasted. Thanks

[@claudiomarcelo4444]

Muy interesante, cambiar la perspectiva de cómo se observa “Los gravitones, la energía de la masa oscura del universo, (la mezcla entre la fuerza de la gravedad con la emergía nuclear; transmutadas por el burbujeó de espuma cuántica del horizonte de sucesos del borde de un agujero negro); transformarse en una especie de gravedad cuántica, dirigida a membranas de diferentes dimensiones.

[@md.abdurrahman1592]

Lover of this chanell. ❤❤ From Bangladesh.🇧🇩🇧🇩

[@david_porthouse]

I am interested in incorporating a random number generator into a computer simulation of quantum mechanics. If your ideas on this are better than mine, then could you please tell me what they are.

[@mikefinn]

The highest concentration of interconnected quantum entaglements has the highest probabilty of collapsing. Reality unfolds as these entanglements collapse creating a flow of mass in the background of space-time. This flow is the force we call gravity.

[@verslalchimie5824]

Answer the question why the concentration of energy or mass draws in surrounding quantum fields and you have a theory of gravity. Standing on earth it’s like standing in a river as the water flows past us, the water being quantum fields. Just standing still, we experience time dilation. We also experience force. Floating in the river is like freefall - no force. But with our feet on the ground and the river/quantum fields flowing through us, we must experience force on our feet to hold us in place

[@Finkelthusiast]

Very interesting idea but I am confused as to how the stochastic manifests in this theory? Is it that when one tries to couple quantum and classical theories there is a necessary noise in the classical field which results in a stochastic radiation profile for Hawking radiation?

[@LuisAldamiz]

Hawking radiation is unproven and it is theoretically dubious as it is a quantum-dominated "hack". Without a unified theory first such speculation can only be a highly educated guess. To me General Relativity is less "classical" than Quantum Mechanics, which could never integrate a curved space-time and very specifically a "flexible" time in its equations. It remains "classical" or Newtonian in some key aspects for that very reason. GR is absolutely non-classical, it's also non-quantum but still non-classical in every aspect (time is not strictly lineal, space is not an immutable empty scenario, etc.)

[@sarayusarayu832]

Listening to this physicist talk about his theory: Breathtaking.

[@kylebowles9820]

How do you get a continuous stress energy deformation out of quantized lumps of mass/energy

[@heywayhighway]

What’s the point of a quantitative theory of gravity if gravity isn’t a force?

[@spaceyote7174]

I don't think his description of the information paradox is correct. He says that it comes from physicists being 'uncomfortable' with black holes producing stochastic noise like it's just some kind of aesthetic decision, but the simple fact is that black holes *can't* do this because operations that act on quantum states have to be unitary and reversible, so can't obliterate information about those states. It's a necessary consequence of QM, not an arbitrary decision by physicists.

[@KieranLeCam]

Accepting "randomness" as some fundamental phenomenon is like accepting the shape of a house as enough to describe its contents. Randomness is not a concept. It's a crutch to fill in what we do not know. So is probability. All evidence points to probability coming from geometry. But perhaps doing those experiments will yield something interesting. Just be careful to not interpret any "noise" as randomness. It should be a determined geometric effect. Having a cause with no cause is like discarding physics. Looking for a solution by halting your search for an answer. Don't rush to conclusions! Good luck!

[@robertburton432]

Where does classical and quantum mechanics interact?

[@Hagen-HenrikKowalski-z5c]

Time does not freeze when you quantize gravity. Technically this already happens when you just write down a hamiltonian formulation of gravity, you get a constraint.