Sheldon Glashow: The Power of Useless Ideas! (099)

[@DrBrianKeating]

*Please join my mailing list; just click here 👉 **briankeating.com/mailing_list.php* You'll get access to free resources, notes, and cool giveaways. Someone just won a signed copy of Sean Carroll's *FROM ETERNITY TO HERE*! Don't miss out!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Wonderful.

[@stormtrooper9404]

Wow,what a wonderful and lovely person is Dr.Glasshow. This may very well be my favorite interview thus far!

[@Achrononmaster]

Absolutely. It warms my heart to hear great scientists talk about how cooperation beats competition.

[@physicsforever4793]

Really excited for this video. Was waiting for a long time.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Very impressed with the lead joint wiping, the top qualifying for Plumbers before PVC. Astounding, Worlds of IF, ANALOG., etc., then Scientific American and New Scientist and so on.

[@PearlmanYeC]

enjoying the program, excellent guest and interview.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much Roger!

[@timjohnson3913]

It is very interesting that Shelly didn’t think lack of super symmetry at LHC was a hit to string theory. It would be great to learn more about Shelly’s point of view on this as well as the opposing viewpoint that lack of super symmetry is part of the reason string theory is dead on arrival. Eric Weinstein might be a good person to shed some light on both perspectives.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Yes Tim. I was surprised by that. It may have been because it was late in the interview. But i was pretty shocked!

[@timjohnson3913]

@@DrBrianKeating You did a good job with a follow-up question to give him room to elaborate. It is understandable that he didn’t want to get into it at the time though.

[@EmergentUniverse]

BK : “ You never know how valuable they are until you need them.” Greatest dead pan statement ever.

[@earthexpanded]

Dr. Keating, I would like to follow-up on a question I asked during this podcast. Specifically, I asked "if weak interaction is said to be the cause of radioactive decay, where an atomic nucleus decays and always releases a set amount of energy, can this be related to supernovae mechanisms?" and you replied, "yes, SN are sources of neutrinos as is the beta decay. both are examples of the weak force in action." I appreciate your response and would like to elaborate further and hear your take. What I was getting at is, are both examples of *supernovae?* "In truth." Meaning, are they the exact same mechanism on a different scale? In a way where we can actually unify processes? The observed differences being *scale-dependent* rather than "fundamental." Where scale-dependence is not just volume, mass, and other physical properties but also time-scale. A benefit of supposing such is that if it were to be the case then it would drastically simplify the mechanics of all systems on all scales by indicating that all systems function the same. Thus individual systems, such as the long list of fundamental particles, atoms, planets, stars, black holes, and so on,...would all be seen to function equivalently. The difference, then, would be observer dependent. Specifically, the mass ratio of the observer's largest "building blocks" to what is being observed would determine *how* a given system is seen. Thus, we may see something as a star where another observer may be composed of larger building blocks and see the exact same system as an atom. And when we see it supernova, they see it radioactively decay. But this is due to the relative mass ratio of the observer's building blocks rather than an inherent characteristic of the observed system. If this *were* to be the case, it would be universally observable. For instance, planets would mechanically exhibit characteristics that are observed on different scales such as stars. In other words, we could search to see if the Earth has some form of "sunspots", a "photosphere," , a "solar spectrum," and "solar flares." Interestingly, when lightning strikes upward, known as sprites, to the edge of the air glow of the ionosphere, it will go through a disc structure known as E.L.V.E.S.. It is possible that the edge of the air glow of the ionosphere is equivalent to a photosphere, that E.L.V.E.S. are equivalent to sunspots, and sprites are equivalent to solar flares. And Earth's emissions in the infrared spectrum are equivalent to the solar spectrum. On a different scale, but mechanically the same. And observably the same if the observer has the same mass ratio building blocks to Earth as our atoms to the sun. And then there would be similarities such as the asteroid belt and Kuiper belt vs. the inner and outer van allen belts. The heliospheric current sheet of the sun and the spiral arms of a galaxy. Supernova and radioactive decay. Supernova type 1a and nuclear fusion. (Which would essentially mean that gravity causes "strong and weak interaction"--which makes sense since they are *not universal in scale.)* This type of analysis can be carried out across a wide array of different systems and, supposing the parallels truly exist and thus can be drawn indefinitely (albeit at times not as readily apparent and sometimes so unapparent that we have abandoned and buried the approach entirely), would seem to form as an actual process of unification where all systems known in physics are mechanically linked in an underlying fundamental way, each shedding light onto the other. For instance, to consider supernovae further, if all systems function the same then electrons can supernova as well--but then we currently would view this process as an excited electron. And it could apply even outside of physics, since it may be that *all* truly means *all,* in terms of the hypothesis (let's call it) that "all systems function the same." I know that this type of fractal structure has been claimed to be disproven, however it may also be that the calculations were too great of approximations, not accounting for enough, and that we jumped too quickly to conclude definitively that certain concepts and ways of analysis were false. For instance, the concept that the solar system is an atom would directly follow from what I am suggesting, and has been said to be disproven, but the calculations did not account for the infinite nature of the universe where there are infinitesimal particles--ever smaller--that fill space in such abundance that they form the "ether"--also said to be disproven. Thus, it may be that the electron does not spin into the nucleus when there is ether forming an unaccounted for pressure between the two systems. In these instances, it may also be that they did not understand the systems they sought to analyze sufficiently and thus their analysis was too great of approximations that they came up with null results or what at first glance appears to have disproven a particular concept. For instance, Michelson and Morley assumed a stationary ether that the Earth moves through, but the reality may be that the ether moves in the directions of gravity and magnetism because the ether's motions literally causes these mechanisms. The speed of light in a magnetic field has been shown to be directionally-dependent. Thus, when we attempt to measure ether's influence on light traveling parallel to the ground, the influence of the ether on the light in each direction would be the same because it is not some stationary goo but is alive in motion (especially as the flows known as gravity and electromagnetism). Gravity functioning according to Le Sage's gravity specifically with an infinite ether rather than some particular "elementary corpuscles" which lacks recognition of the entire *spectrum* that gives rise to the macroscopic observation of gravity. Electromagnetism being caused by flows of ether that are gravitationally locked in a Figure-8 orbital type pattern about a system that those particular ether particles are able to physically pass through unabated. Sorry, I know I went on a bit of a tangent, but I would propose the simplicity of an analysis that shows all systems function the same, particularly if it is actually showing that to be the case, at least deserves an earnest rebuttal from the scientific community at large (not you particularly of course, and I appreciate you humoring me and not completely ignoring my occasional but persistent efforts.) :D But I would definitely appreciate hearing your take on this. Thanks for your time, Steve Scully An article I wrote on "The Observer Assumption": steemit.com/science/@stevescully/the-observer-assumption

[@chriszachtian]

Brian, you are surely the most underrated channel on KZbin! Please do a talk with Brian Greene, this mlght be immensly inspiring.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Hi Chris. Thanks that’s an amazing comment. I’ll try to get my fellow Bri

[@jayaramanganapathi9385]

Grounded views, it was such a pleasure to listen to Dr Sheldon Glasshow. Great minds are so scarce. I was thinking about Dr Glasshow's views on multiverse, I am sure he does not mean we should not predict. He probably has a deeper meaning which I did not understand on the 'observable'. It has nothing to do with my belief in multiverse. I also strongly believe humankind may not last 1000 years, may be less. We are incorrigibly ambitious, we may self destruct, even if nature does not.

[@kmeson]

Dr. Brian Keating, Spiderman on the pitcher's mound. Winds up the question, throws it, and just before it crosses the plate, yanks it back for another wind up and different pitch. Conversation between the catcher and pitcher must be strange.

[@MasterWestt]

+1 for not forcing researchers to be professors. Maybe covid can showcase this more than ever, I bet the researchers lived happily this year. I'd say at least 60% of my profs clearly didn't give a damn about teaching at all. EVen if you could make the argument that ONE TEACHER may become better at their research due to teaching, well 10's and 100's of bright brains aren't being properly nourished and inspired. In elementary school and high school you must go to teachers college and pass, I can't believe this is not required for advanced education that costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. This video was amazing though, love this podcast and the guests are very inspiring!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thank you, very much ! Stay tuned

[@BoRisMc]

Yeah more good stuff, thanks!

[@DrBrianKeating]

My pleasure!

[@stockinvestor1]

Give them the ending questions in advance or make them see some videos before coming on... so they can answer... its too much to think about on the spot.

[@InquilineKea]

I met him in his BU office - he gave me his autographed book.

[@DrBrianKeating]

What was he like?

[@davedouglass438]

"If UNDER 90% of your basic-research projects FAIL... "Then you're not doing basic research." --Lee Smolin's "Problem..." (quoted from memory).

[@alisonwalker7372]

How does FFT and the the 2nd law of thermodynamic dance in a sofar channel at the isothermic edge? You and your guests inspire lots of googles and fun learning

[@stockinvestor1]

I hope you ask your guests to not only do one on one but also come on in discussions and debates and so on :) You can be the psychics channel hosting all the debates and discussions! OR really the most important channel on the KZbin.,,,

[@DrBrianKeating]

I’m trying. Not everyone is comfortable debating. Even Sabine said she won’t debate Eric again... 😢

[@gilbertanderson3456]

@@DrBrianKeating That's a shame, because I thought Eric made an effort (for him) to earnestly seek understanding. You're on a tremendous interview streak here, keep it up! 🤗 ?s For Barry Barish: 1) Of course, What are the latest tidbits from LIGO? (IMBHs?, NS mergers / MM events?, Kagra integration!) 2) Any update on Cosmic Explorer? (If not, then any community gossip about progress on ESAs LISA project?) 3) If he's up for a tough one: How are we going to fund Big Physics, cognizant of the demands of an ongoing pandemic? ? for Kip Thorne: It seems like Spacetime has a semipreferred orientation: at rest with respect to the CMB. I've heard Dr. Thorne mention Frame Dragging before. Why not be brave and posit Frame Ripping? GR denys that Spacetime can have any structure or entangle with itself, but this may not be true. Recent papers attempting to explain away information loss seem to have BHs growing hair. If a BH owns the effect it has on the region outside the Event Horizon, couldn't a rotating SMBH and deep time result in a co-rotating spacetime that explains anomalous rotation curves, with the vacuum energy of a rotating spacetime providing the mass equivalence for lensing, explaining dark matter?

[@DrBrianKeating]

These are awesome! Thanks. Will get to some of these for sure.

[@stockinvestor1]

@@DrBrianKeating I sort of understand Sabine.. I like Eric, but he needs to describe his theory in written form so people can get a full sense of the whole thing and not only parts and pieces of it.

[@holysquire8989]

@@DrBrianKeating sabine said that to you? That's a heavyweight match.

[@alisonwalker7372]

The potential of potential - that’s a topic

[@MrDelta747]

Power of useless ideas - by Sheldon Glashow - reminds me of Kepler's idea for reasoning the planetary motion. I read the description of Kepler's idea in Richard P. Feynman's famous book, part I only, no where else. According to Kepler, behind a planet there is an angel beating his wings and thereby driving the planet ahead on his orbital path. However, I don't consider this idea as a useless one but an ignored one because John Warren's investigation of comprehension of circular motion among students of engineering shows that in the *surprise* test students ignore the centripetal force acting on a car and attribute it to the forward force of engine. Please read, JohnWarren's paper in Physics Education, UK, March 1971 and my comment on it in Physics Education, UK March 1984. Feel free to contact me for any clarification.

[@alisonwalker7372]

6g needs we gotta pick a lot every 4 years with global dynamics with ty for this Love this guest. He feels kind humble and fun

[@alisonwalker7372]

Humility alert aweeee

[@drbonesshow1]

Sheldon Glashow hated String Theory whereas Sheldon Glasgow (the Scottish-Jew) loved it.

[@EmergentUniverse]

@45:15 Dr. Glashow talks about how so many discoveries in particle physics are 'useless' because they have no practical application. This is 100% incorrect. The discoveries by these giants established the mathematica patterns of nature at new levels. These patterns absorbed in my brain then led to my discovery of how nature really works. The flip side of what creates all that emerging structure is so incredibly simple. A Euclidean void. Two flavors of energy carrying, charged, immutable particles, the electrino and the positrino, each spherical with a Planck radius, and obeying Coulomb's Law and Maxwell's equations. No mass exists at this level. Everything else emerges. Spacetime is a construct of these particles. Imagine an electrino and a positrino, -1/6 and + 1/6 e respectively, approaching with velocities and distance that allowed Coulomb's law to establish a stable orbit. There is one of your first constructs in the universe (I also think it is the tau neutrino, but we can save that for later). So this spinning dipole is an emergent form of motion and energy storage. Now imagine many of these dipoles at energies from near 0K to the Planck temperature. How do they behave? What are the parameters for their elliptical or spherical orbit? How do those vary with energy? What are the interactions? What new structures form? So basically, the universe has two free parameters, 1) the average density of electrinos and positrinos (I am presuming they come in equal numbers at large scales) and 2) the average density of the energy carried by those electrinos and positrinos. Stir and wait. You get a steady state universe that recycles locally through SMBH and cause each galaxy to experience inflation/expansion/transmutation to standard matter/gravitation of standard matter towards the crunch/which is the SMBH and then the Planck core (which is just electrinos and positrinos packed as tight as possible, and probably not moving and zero entropy because the Planck core is one microstate)/and something happens and the Planck core can escape, probably by reconfiguring the event horizon with spin and you get enormous jets of Planck plasma and the cycle starts again. Let's go back to expansion. Every galaxy expands into one another. Yes the universe is expanding as a whole, but in place. as new spacetime is generated in each galaxy and standard matter eventually percipitates (reacts) out of spacetime solution. There is so much more. I've already found most of the low hanging fruit. Nearly all of the big problems in physics and cosmology will obviously fall. Check it out on jmarkmorris.com. Don't buy it? Respond with links to the body of research on charged immutable planck radius particles. Why on earth would anyone research string theory before just starting with the basics that physics already points to thanks to Planck, Maxwell and others? Hey Brian - I'm in San Diego too. Happy to talk if you are interested in my ideas.

[@alisonwalker7372]

Lol doing my part

[@tubalcain1039]

You may think you are great at physics...until you meet Schwinger.

[@holysquire8989]

All these religious atheists are so humble.

[@janoycresva276]

It’s remarkable how lucid he is when you consider he’s 10 years older than Joe Biden.

[@alisonwalker7372]

What is a quantum dot ?

[@alisonwalker7372]

Sir, please do it!:)

[@alisonwalker7372]

🐙🐛🦋🐣

[@alisonwalker7372]

Familiar with wilber’s holon! With ya

[@alisonwalker7372]

I get so curious about science becoming global

[@alisonwalker7372]

Whatever- says the man who values peace :) which reminds me of solitons lol

[@alisonwalker7372]

Come on man- Instragram diagrams

[@alisonwalker7372]

The more we see- the better we learn to discern truth

[@alisonwalker7372]

Potential in great - great in potential- how to smell a buzz 🐝 in science

[@alisonwalker7372]

Never! Emergence forever!

[@alisonwalker7372]

Ha lol I say 104 - 2 I n the Mayan calendar

[@alisonwalker7372]

Ha what is it? The manager of self?

[@alisonwalker7372]

This video on sofar channels and climate change interest me!

[@alisonwalker7372]

OK do we think smith from the matrix is good or bad LOL just kidding kind of

[@holysquire8989]

can you prove that physicists are human beings?

[@alisonwalker7372]

People can say whatever they want- the KZbin channel the matrix explained lol it is fun foddle for me

[@alisonwalker7372]

What f he could dream up one answer to a problem that interests him, what is it?

[@alisonwalker7372]

Colorado! We just voted them back! I support it for the eco system more than humans