Spacetime Versus the Quantum

[@cherriedquat]

Awesome. I like to listen to Joseph Polchinski. Especially when he answers question. You can hear, almost see, how his brain is evaluating different possible threads of answers simultaneously, which then sometimes makes him switch from one thread to another during the answer. Totally awesome, and I'm looking forward to the continuation of their work on the conflict between the equivalency principle of relativity and the key tenets of quantum mechanics.

[@KultrunAus]

100% agreed

[@grindupBaker]

What you all don't understand is the black hole cartoon at 15:31 is just an analogy of what cannot be shown. You see, it is theorized, though never observed, that beyond the 2 dimensions that we are all familiar with here on ootoobs there lies a mysterious 3rd dimension !!!

[@radwizard]

This is amazing! I hope I can get to this level.

[@Nehmo]

44:00 Best visual of the video.

[@carolscabinas]

What we is know that there is a lot we dont know. And its great that we are blessed with lots of imagination and theories. We will never get bored as long as we have puzzles to solve.

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

Could space and time be properties of quanta and not the other way around? Each photon vibration only occurs once, but the process of energy exchange is continuously forming the ever changing world of our everyday life that we measure as a period of time.

[@Regalert]

Thinking about loss of information on black holes event horizon... There is an experiment of teletransportation. Some holland phisic entangle 2 particles, separetes them, and put a third in entanglement with one of the firsts. What happens is that one of the three simple vanish! So, you got 3 and end up with 2. Conclusion: You've lost information.

[@MrHenkfromHolland]

It's a shame, I can hardly see the presentation on the video wall

[@nicholastaylor880]

Professor Polchinski certainly has an individual style. When I first gave presentations I was warned not to look into the eyes of the audience but over their heads. Maybe he finds even that too intimidating. Compare the very personable style of Andrew Dickson (oceanography), but the other standard advice, to "tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you've told them" can stretch things out too much. Then there is the nightmare of running out of time, or worse ending up with ten minutes to spare and no questions just blank stares. Both these presenters are experts in their fields. If you find fault with their style you have as ask whether you could do better.

[@charleswood2182]

The salient issue in both classical and quantum mechanics is a tautological definition of time. Relativistic description of time would recognize that distance around a clock face is still distance even if you state travel around a clock face as degrees of travel. In order to have a complete description of clock hand motion, the relation between the clock face and the hands must be recognized as fundamental. Any description of the cosmos, necessary to a theory of everything, must be based not on time defined for computational convenience: the condition now which is unrecognized by physics. Physics, for having a tautology at its root, isn't science. Relativistic definition as the stasis of the clock face makes physics a science and not what it apparently is today: a technology whose description of existence is incomplete because of tautological definition of time. I hope someone takes this to heart and asks me about that seriously. Note, flow for time is simply the quale of motion, just like red is quale for a rose. And note, see Purves et 2015 for a discussion of how there is no time for the brain to process the classical visual imagery we experience in sensation. The only rational explanation for that fact is that quantum collapse is what Coppola and Purves 1996 observed when measuring instant presence and perception of visual imagery upon action potentials arrival at the visual cortex from the photoreceptor sheet, 80 msec. That means that any neuronal correlates between consciousness and brain activity is not processing of visual images, where visual images strictly define as predicating on stimulation of the retinal. Optical illusions in the form of visual imagery are not visual images in origin. Coppola and Purves 1996 did not recognize that its subjects did not see shadow images (strictly, no such thing) erased instantly, but saw a fill in the gaps optical illusion instantly. That isn't possible to explain by causality.

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

I miss Joseph Polchinski

[@eklim2034]

I like Tom Holland's fireball particles/antiparticles entanglement question

[@_.-._.-._.-_.-._.-._.-_.-._.-]

thank for very nice lesson , I've learned a lot ( in fact I can tell you where and when math physic and all merged 💕░

[@egidijuskuprusevicius4225]

of cause that the light quantum is a particle like and a human, but it can behave like a wave and you can describe normal walk as a wavelike behaviour

[@albertgerard4639]

that first question made my cringe, but joe's answer was very respectful

[@kenmcgovern2414]

In the Cosmological Inflationary Epoch, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Doesn't this violate Einstein's law that nothing can go faster than light?

[@aantoniou96]

Ken McGovern Information cannot travel faster than light. Space expansion does not involve information transfer.

[@kenmcgovern2414]

Αλέξανδρος Αντωνίου

[@kenmcgovern2414]

Thank You.

[@666perlakig]

No it is not. In inflation space itself expands and this can happen at any speed. In relativity an object moves in space at max speed that is the speed of a particle with no mass (this is the quantum of light, the photon).

[@colinmaharaj]

Close your eyes, Listen, everyone likes raymond

[@shirleymason7697]

Colin Maharaj ......Actually I never did like Raymond.

[@qwertzasdfg8576]

a bit like kermit d frog

[@hawkkim1974]

what is light?

[@alexandrugheorghe5610]

Hawk Bokdol Kim baby don't hurt me... don't hurt me... no more! what is light? bis.

[@obergssin]

"If I can't directly observe it I make up a bunch of math to prove its existence! The great thing about this is that I can do it with any kind of wild theory as long as it has nothing to do with spiritual concepts because obviously they don't exist so says me."

[@justin60222]

Lots of things in the universe we're predicted with math and then later proven with observation. Another thing to note is that our human eyes are a horrible tool to observe the universe with. Ingenious methods must be used.

[@l8tr597]

thats arguable, i see beauty in the cosmos when i look at Hubble’s pics, granted we need tools to see better, and our visible wavelength is tiny, our eyes are wonders in themselves

[@justin60222]

l8tr597 Yes you're exactly right but I'm talking in the sense of seeing electromagnetic fields, gravity fields, etc. Your eyes will never be able to do that hence sophisticated math and machinery.

[@l8tr597]

Justin Baker you are correct also in what you said, I was just pointing out the obvious. Your statement is actually True, we could have a "bullet Shrimps" eyes even would be much better then our own for space watching.

[@RajkumarDgupta]

why big bang happened? why one big bang?

[@marvinchester]

Poor videography kills the presentation. No point in putting camera on somebody pointing to a chart. Camera should be on chart

[@shirleymason7697]

marvin chester I don't agree, necessarily. I like to see the speaker usually, both, actually. Back and forth.

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

My sentiments exactly!

[@Catman7442]

Marvin Chester and Shirley Moon are both correct. The human brain wants to see the human in action. 80% of communication is body language, not the words and pictures. In such a technical talk, perhaps it’s closer to 50%/50%. Surely, we’d all prematurely fall asleep if the whole thing were Power Point images, probably in 3 minutes. These physics talks are improving as to their videography and direction (choice of what to show). The audio is generally fine. If you present your subject as done here, at the very least, someone needs to invent a graphic system showing a large, easy-to-see on-screen arrow that follows his laser pointer. Then we could see on our KZbin screen what he’s pointing at. The other problem with this way is the graphics are inevitably blurry. To fix that, we should see a high-resolution graphic filling the video, jpg, figure, drawing, or power point slide, directly when figures are being analyzed by the speaker. Not as shown at some distance in a dark auditorium. This HRG must be shown when the laser pointer is in use and also show the arrow-icon I referred to since we can’t see the red laser dot on You Tube. This is demanding of the director, availability of cameras, editing time, and money which is probably why it’s never done. I like the detail of the graphics. I always pause the video to read the small letters and equations, so I understand, but they are often too blurry, anyway, which is why a specify “direct” graphics. I would then sometimes have the full shot as in this presentation, but when a graphic is being referred to in any detail have the HRG with a little inset of the presenter at the lower left, say, as I have sometimes seen. Then to relax the brain, humanize the situation, revert to full screen, presenter and screen as done here. When and how often you change would be part of the art and skill of the directing and cinematography team, but don’t neglect the direct, view with the moving, highly visible arrow slaved to the laser dot. And sometimes, fill the screen with the presenter, as done here.

[@Be1More]

amen

[@veroupp5801]

What I see the problems today, is that we lost the philosophy which gave the idea of quantum mechanics but left only the equation. Until we got the correct philosophy about the universe included the life, we may find the solution or have the physics/science "revolution"

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Just b/c you can not predict does not mean reality is fundamentally random. Bad logic! Law of Phase Harmony proves otherwise.

[@rameyzamora1018]

Why hasn't anyone realized that there's no such thing as "never"? Wish science were a lot more open minded.

[@SOULRELIEF22]

St John 3:16! 💗

[@semontreal6907]

Good questions from the audience. I think people are starting to realize what a bunch of nonsense this is. He has no answers just formulas and stories

[@herculesrockefeller2984]

Yeah, but what about G-Time and the Catholic Time Terrorists?

[@KultrunAus]

Only hearsay

[@AlbertoLopezisnotit]

;

[@Noodles.FreeUkraine]

Good grief, this is such an interesting topic, but the presentation kills it. I seriously don't give a hoot about the videography, but the stutterfest is mind-numbing. Nevermind the occasional "uhm", but he keeps repeating words up to five times in a row. Without the repetitions the video would've been half as long. Not mocking him, just stating the fact. And I doubt it's the stuttering we all know medically, this sounds like something of a bad habit. TL;DR: If you're a public speaker, tape your stuff and watch it yourself afterwards for a clue how it could be improved.

[@SOULRELIEF22]

SO seems to be his favorite word. SO sad to be so brilliant and yet be so ignorant. When he said "big bang" and "randomnesses" with his eyes shut... he looked SO silly to me. "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Timothy 3:7! When/how the big bang occurred?...the theories don't go back that far...he said. But WE KNOW... "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1! Black holes...Hawking radiation very disturbing thing. Then, when theory of black holes become nuclear...THAT makes it all clearer. But they are basing THEIR belief on "educated" guesses. "Through faith WE understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3! JESUS is the Word of GOD! Nothing disturbing. JESUS is the Prince of Peace! 💗