The existence of antimatter | Lee Smolin, Sabine Hossenfelder and Tara Shears

Lee Smolin, Sabine Hossenfelder and Tara Shears debate the existence of dark matter.
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/the-anti-univers...
From Star Trek to Dan Brown novels, Doctor Who to Marvel Comics, antimatter has fascinated since it was proposed by Dirac in the 1920s and confirmed with the discovery of the positron a few years later. Heisenberg - the father of modern physics - referred to its discovery as "the biggest jumps of all the big jumps in physics". But there's a fundamental problem. The theory predicts the disappearance of the universe within moments of its inception as matter and antimatter destroy each other in a huge cataclysm. Yet 14 billion years later our universe exists, and scientists still uphold the antimatter theory.
Is it time to give up the idea that for every particle there is an anti-particle or would this be a threat to quantum mechanics itself? Is it right to overlook fundamental flaws in a theory in favour of neatness and buzzwords? Or nearly a century on from its inception, should we stand by the theory confident that a solution will be found?
Founding member at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Lee Smolin, professor of Physics at Liverpool University, Tara Shears and leader of the Superfluid Dark Matter group at the Frankfurt Institute, Sabine Hossenfelder battle over the very fabric of the universe. Hosted by Hilary Lawson.
#SabineHossenfelder #LeeSmolin #TaraShears
Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist who researches quantum gravity. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies where she leads the Superfluid Dark Matter group.
Lee Smolin is a theoretical physicist, a faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo and a member of the graduate faculty of the philosophy department at the University of Toronto.
Tara Shears is a particle physicist and the first female physics professor at Liverpool. Shears is “rapidly becoming the go-to scientist to explain all things CERN” (WIRED).
Visit IAI.tv for our full library of debates, talks, articles and podcasts from international thought leaders and world-class academics.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics.
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

What do you think of this debate? Leave a comment below. Click here to watch Sabine Hossenfelder discuss the fundamental issues at the foundation of physics: iai.tv/video/physics-doesnt-have-to-be-pretty-sabine-hossenfelder?KZbin&

[@elwitkauesa4148]

Transformation & understanding is key. There's limits with structural design in every aspect. The method of transparency & transformation should be kind to the hand. There's so much more that can't fit into this explanation. Humans beings will get bored & dangerous once we completely understand & become stagnant. Transfer... It's in our nature.

[@stephenaustin3026]

May I suggest that in future you either (a) have an actual subject matter expert chair these debates, or (b) have someone who is not a subject matter expert, and who is actually aware of that fact.

[@ZeroOskul]

Molecular positronium is a stable matter/antimatter interface. When positronium breaks down it becomes two or sometimes three photons. That sometimes three gives you a tiny bit more matter than antimatter due to the photoelectric effect.

[@IZn0g0uDatAll]

Your host clearly doesn’t understand the answers, is not well prepared and just keep asking questions based on a wrong assumption (that there is a probl with the « theory of antimatter » while the thing we don’t know has to do with the initial conditions). It’s frankly embarassing. If you decide to invite world class scientists to have a debate, have it lead by someone who is not totally clueless and completely ill equipped to do his job.

[@Sletty73]

The debate is embarassing. I see three great scientists trying to debate on random and incorrect questions made by an host who is clearly incompetent on matters he was supposed to know to lead the discussion.

[@erikfinnegan]

Feels like the host was overwhelmed by the topic and his guests. One example: when Sabine said we don't need larger colliders he appeared to imply she didn't want to experimentally verify at all; but, I believe, we know from her public statements that she believes we need other types of experiments. In general, the host appeared to want to stir a fight, but none of his guests took it.

[@schmetterling4477]

That's not quite what she says about colliders. She is skeptical that building the same large collider is a good use of money. If somebody could give her a hundred times the beam energy for the same money she would take it.

[@AndriiMuliar]

This is because Sabine and Lee Smolin were collaborators and colleagues

[@NorfolkSceptic]

@@schmetterling4477 In the early days of Particle Physics, I remember the 1960s, bigger colliders usually brought forth new particles, and fame :) , but Sabine can see that, with current theories, even a $100b collider is unlikely to produce, well, fame! :) It would also be hard on budding PhD prospects attempting to write their thesis on 'not finding a new particle', as they do now 'not finding dark matter'. A completely different, revolutionary, theory could make experimentation more fruitful as they would, hopefully, have targets that are within reach of human endeavour.

[@owencampbell4947]

I like Sabine's way of thinking, it's an honest way to see, understand, and solve problems, not fitting answers to solve an acceptable theory or explanation.

[@dsm5d723]

I guess y'all really are lower life forms. Where is antimatter coming from? Is it local? Off shell? Hint: solve Dark Matter as bullshit and this falls too. So glad Dollard might be able to USE perfection in math. These morons will TALK about it. I do too, but AS error correction for applied engineering math. This is Cool Stories.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@dsm5d723 Antimatter comes from the same place all other symmetries are coming from. Duh!

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

+Owen Campbell She says nothing new, nothing deep, nothing original, nothing useful. Not every idea has to be new or original or creative to be useful and important. e.g. I like Greta Thunberg's way of thinking: bold and courageous and blasting through bullshit. And Ralph Nader's. And antinatalists', like Amanda Sukenick.

[@gsvenddal728]

Me too. Love Sabine's mind. Grounded and real, direct, unfanciful.

[@flavadave86]

@@theultimatereductionist7592 greta thunberg is an angry teenager being used as a pawn and given a soap box to shout from, there is nothing particularly bold it.

[@dhawkins1234]

The host seemed to miss Sabine's point about initial conditions. All physical theories start from assumptions and all physical theories require externally specified initial conditions in order to make predictions. Those assumptions and initial conditions are justified empirically by testing the predictions of the theory. That is, the proof is in the pudding. There is no deeper justification, and *cannot be*. It may be possible to find a deeper, different theory that reduces the number of assumptions and reduces the amount of externally specified initial conditions, but not all the way to zero. You can't get something from nothing. It's amazing how many people haven't really internalized that.

[@nias2631]

Very Godel thinking. Likely not wrong.

[@hyperduality2838]

Immanuel Kant talks about initial conditions -- The Critique of Pure Reason. Initial conditions = innate or pre-given or "a priori". Noumenal (a priori, rational) is dual to phenomenal (a posteriori, empirical) -- Immanuel Kant. Space/time = synthetic a priori knowledge -- Immanuel Kant. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- target tracking or teleology! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia. Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Bosons or waves (symmetric wave functions) are dual to Fermions or particles (anti-symmetric wave functions) -- spin statistics theorem. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem! "The relation of ideas" is dual to "the matter of facts" -- Hume's fork. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein. Science is dual to religion -- the mind duality of Albert Einstein. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@poll-lie-ticks1776]

You can get something from nothing: virtual particle/anti-particle pairs.

[@dhawkins1234]

@@poll-lie-ticks1776 that's not true. The particle/anti-particle pairs require energy to form. That's all matter is-energy frozen as a localized excitation of one of many fields, e.g. the electron field, the neutrino field, the EM field, etc.

[@dhawkins1234]

@@poll-lie-ticks1776 but more to the point, you were (deliberately?) ignoring the context of what I said. You cannot get something from nothing, i.e. you cannot make conclusions without starting from axioms/assumptions.

[@AngusRockford]

I think Lee and Sabine made clear at the outset that there was no real problem with our current understanding of anti-matter, and the moderator went round in circles just begging the question for at least half an hour. The moderator seemed, at worst ill-equipped, at best unprepared for this discussion. He demonstrated repeatedly that he wasn’t really listening to his guests, or was disregarding their answers to keep chasing a faulty premise. It had been better if he had just abandoned the premise that there was something wrong with the current model and gone a little deeper into the philosophical discussion about whether things like “beauty” or “simplicity” were necessary to scientific theory, or deeper into alternative theories for the matter/anti-matter disparity, like Lee’s Cosmological Natural Selection, but he seemed determined to breeze past all that.

[@AngusRockford]

Also, why was the thoroughly ill-equipped moderator speaking from an echo chamber?

[@aurelienyonrac]

Exactly my thoughts. Though the mater - anti mater problem could also be solved by saying there are two univers one made of matter and the other made of antimater. They are connected at the big bang (like black holes can be though to be connected to a worm hole and a white hole depending on the point of view of the Observer) It's a little mind bending.

[@travisfitzwater8093]

Look, Hillary Lawson is the Authority. Respect his Authoretay!

[@JeremyCaron]

Very well said, it was quite frustrating to watch.

[@xjuhox]

After the Dirac's idea of positron, it was *de Broglie* who first suggested that every particle has its antiparticle. De Broglie was a master of throwing crazy ideas around ^^

[@flippert0]

No doubt, de Broglie was one of the (sometimes overlooked) founding fathers of Quantum Mechanics

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

study de Broglie's Law of PHase Harmony - he said that was his greatest discovery.

[@RichardAlsenz]

It was Dirac's opinion that the entire theory of quantum mechanics needed to be scrapped. He advised all his new students after coming to Flordia to forget about it and come up with a new one. The de Broglie equation is the only physics equation that is consistently observed. What is not observed is a point particle. No one has ever seen one.

[@pihi42]

It's like trying to learn rules of Snooker by observing some middle-game. You discover how balls move, how collisions work, the rules of counting reds and colors etc. But then you try to trace back and find out the initial ball positions. Perhaps with very advanced analysis you manage to do that. Then someone asks you Why? Why are the red balls all in one pack and colors on the spots? There is no way to answer that. There is a specific rule to set up the board; without observing the game from the start you will never be sure of the initial setup, much less why. You can come up with wild metaphysical speculations, even perhaps seeking minima (which initial setup makes for the most interesting, most difficult, fastest, ... game). But you can't know "why" unless you can observe the whole context of players, judges, rules, history etc. which is a completely different level than observing the actual balls and table and shots.

[@Sletty73]

Having an host competent in the matters he should supposedly know for conducting a debate is usually a good idea.

[@nihlify]

You realize he's purposefully asking layman's questions right so they can clarify their points?

[@NuisanceMan]

@@nihlify Yeah, but he could do it a hell of a lot better.

[@DrLogical987]

Erik, how many laymen are convinced that Dirac was the first and last word on antimatter?!

[@sonarbangla8711]

The host and the panel cannot be blamed for physical reality is unknowable, its answer lies in philosophy. As the eastern mystics found out hundreds of years ago, there no fundamental building blocks, reality is fractal [Tao of Physics]. Sabine's 'initial condition' catches the essence, implying it is turtles all the way.

[@BlueGiant69202]

A student is in exactly the same boat if a student could consult these speakers. Layman's ideas are what students are first exposed to. So maybe it's a good thing for the host to be naive and a bit ignorant to bring out the expertise of the speakers.

[@chrihipp]

Following Sabine's arguments requires only basic logical reasoning. She explained that this topic is not an interesting topic and this cannot be solved with the current theories. Since there are real problems in physics, one could even call this a waste of time and resources.

[@christopherbelanger6612]

Fighting ignorance usually is a waste of time and resources. But it has to be done

[@joyecolbeck4490]

Thankyou. This was a pleasure to listen to.

[@Sonnyboy346]

Extremely interesting. Thank you.

[@sipanica]

This video is an example of how to waste the time off three brilliant minds. Very unprepared moderator. Science is not drama or politics.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

AMEN! Agreed. Felt this moderator was trying to manufacture controversy and drama.

[@glintongordon6811]

Lol this is modern science on a whole

[@charc4819]

More people should know of Lee Smolin. A brilliant mind. Philosophically and scientifically mature.

[@reimannx33]

And premature and highly speculative without any basis in data, in his stand on physical laws that change charecter in time.

[@soapprice6494]

@@reimannx33 Sabines ideas are even more illogical . The scientific criticism of Hossenfelders " Superdeterminism " is immense. Her theories are literally against the theoretical predictions of QM and against all experimental evidence. Wasn't she the one who criticized mathematical theories of physics ( like Eric Weinsteins geometric unity etc) . You criticize Smolin, who has made significant contributions in the field of QM and others, while u simp for Sabine, whose hypothesis are literally the most ill received in the entire science community. She is no revolutionary. Hooft and hossenfelder think that reality should behave a certain way. They are not able to get rid of their biases even in the light of scientific evidence. Science is not about our beliefs about reality , it is about reality.

[@MightyDrunken]

@@reimannx33 That is Lee Smolin's idea which he clearly labels as "Natural Philosophy" what others might simply call philosophy or metaphysics. So yes it is highly speculative but I think worth keeping in mind unless we are able to refute it.

[@davidderidder2667]

@@soapprice6494 I appreciate your comment , you do not have to make it personal though. I fully understand that individuals have biases and that we should not accept every notion they utter. But on the other hand you and we should not create a climate where we can not feel free to speculate and use our imagination to discuss and reflect. Don’t be too unkind, if you do, you and killing the scientific climate with a verbal arctic blast.

[@urfinjuice1437]

This is just comical. The host is so confused. He has obviously no idea what he is talking about. And then the noise of his fists bumping on his desk. I feel a bit sorry for him. Someone should have helped him not to make a fool of himself.

[@robmorgan1214]

Meh... it's good for people to see how deep the well actually is. You can't talk physics with people who lack the mathematical prerequisites. You can't explain french poetry in English to someone who only understands(speaks) Chinese...EVER. This is a problem with many facets. Many mathematicians think they can understand this stuff. But they have only studied the syntax and grammar and have next to ZERO grasp of the vocabulary let alone the requisite fluency to have an intelligent conversation.

[@Ni999]

@@robmorgan1214 You also can't talk physics with someone who doesn't listen and keeps trying to repeat the same question with different words. The worst trend of our time is the nonsense where someone self-qualifies as clever and then plows through people under the guiding principle that once they are understood, they will be agreed with and validated. We've always have had a word for that and it's called _idiocy._

[@robmorgan1214]

@@Ni999 you're completely correct.

[@BlueGiant69202]

I would say that scientists on the frontiers are in the same position as questioners of nature not knowing what they are talking about and risking ridicule because of their ignorance of how nature works and how it can be modeled mathematically. Dr. Albert Einstein is one example of a scientist that deliberately stuck his neck out and made a lot of conceptual and mathematical mistakes. Students of Physics and of nature are in the same boat not knowing what they are talking about. What is an electron? What is a wave? What is a particle? What is a positron? What is a boson?

[@gustavderkits8433]

Lee Smolin’s explanation is so good. His citation of C. S. Pierce is fine. Pierce used the neologism “abduction” to describe reasoning to a best explanation.

[@davidderidder2667]

I believe the interviewer means well, this stuff is just pretty complex. Appreciate the patience and kindness shown by the scientists. One day we will discover how to have even better dialogues, but in the meantime, I like this one. It is interesting to see the reflections of these 3 knowledgeable persons upon each others viewpoints is useful for me. To see where they agree is equally important to me right now, that to see where they don’t.

[@fractalnomics]

29:50 Sabine, the 'strong force'.

[@johnnyb8629]

A lot of circular arguments here, but once again, if you want to cut to the chase, relay on Sabine to get right down to it. my take is basically don't worry about the idea that we don't have a theory for antimatter that explains why we don't see any today, because its based on our assumption of initial conditions. That statement seems to make perfect sense to me, why it was taking up so much time in this discussion is beyond me. I like Sabines confidence that the matter will resolve itself if we tackle some other more pressing question that we haven't resolved yet, I agree, many times issues resolve themselves in surprising ways. I like the notion that their is an "element" of natural selection in the universe that may play a role in what we see today, however that eludes to the idea of an anthropic universe though doesn't it. We see what we see because if it were any different we wouldn't be here to see it in the first place. A true but also at the same time dismissive statement. I do beleive we have an element of natural selection in the universe but its based on my own intuition because I'm a big believer in the "mechanics" of the fact of natural selection. to me, if you think about it, the scientific method is a form of natural selection when you bring in experiment. The theory is proposed, it remains only as long as it holds up to scrutiny, only the best theories survive to live on as a building block in an ever grander understanding of reality. I do beleive solving a unrelated problem will give us new perspective of initial conditions that explain the antimatter issue, and I do beleive with Sabine we shouldn't build a bigger collider with out clear evidence its going to help us solve anything. I also beleive we should dismiss any theory that require impossible energies to verify experimentally.

[@noelcollins1072]

Well, that clears that up.

[@beautifulcrazy]

Lol

[@eljcd]

Glad to see they corrected the title!

[@ludfaber676]

I think the point is that not the theory about anti-matter is wrong. Evidences to the existence of anti-matter has already appeared in experiments. The question is why there are more matter than anti-matter today. As Sabine said, it is a question of initial conditions and not of the theory being wrong. There could have been less anti-matter than matter since the very beginning. But the problem is that the host assumed that when we say that there is an anti-particle for every particle in the standard model we mean that there are an equal number of matter and anti-matter in the universe. But this is an ad hoc proposition which is not in the theory of matter/anti-matter. It is simply an assumption based on an a priori notion of "beauty" or "symmetry". It is just hard for some people to think that there are unequal number of matter and anti-matter. This however remains to be proven. I think all the panelists agree that there is no problem in the theory with regards to anti-matter.

[@claudboulanger5067]

Your comment is relevant, have you already explored the JANUS model of professor JP.PETIT?

[@ludfaber676]

@@claudboulanger5067 no not yet. What's it about?

[@claudboulanger5067]

@@ludfaber676 i can not put youtube link :-(, so you need to search "JANUS 29" , ENGLISH version, also JANUS 1 to 29.

[@claudboulanger5067]

And this video title : "Presentation in English of the Janus Cosmological Model." into youtube ;-) (sorry, link not available!!??)

[@Jean-Pierre-PETIT]

After watching this video one must formulate a conclusion. A century after the beginning of the construction of the cosmological model theorists have no theory to propose to justify the absence of observations of primordial antimatter. Lee Smolin has very briefly mentioned the name of Andrei Sakharov who had assumed the existence of two entities to which he gave the name of twin universes. In these two worlds he imagined that the initial situation corresponded to a plasma of quarks and anti-quarks, in the free state, mixed with gluons. The two universes evolving, one would have then in both universes creation of matter and antimatter from quarks and anti-quarks. The key hypothesis of Sakharov consisted in imagining that the rate of production of quarks, in our fold of universe would be slightly faster than the rate of production of anti-quarks. Thus after the annihilation of the matter-antimatter pairs we would find, besides photons, a remnant of antiquarks. The situation is symmetrical in this other fold of the universe where photons, antimatter and a remnant of quarks would exist. This represents a form of answer to the question "where is this primordial antimatter? "The answer given by Sakharov in 1967 was "it is in another universe, connected to ours by this "singularity" that is the "Big Bang. But he added that the arrows of time were then antiparallel, an idea that Niel Turok and other authors are beginning to take up, who envisage the existence of this second fold of the universe, CPT symmetrical to ours. The the Big Bang has a new name. It becomes the "Janus point". At this stage we can consider two things. The first is to fold the universe according to the two-folds cover of a P4 projective space. The image that we can give consists in saying that until now we had considered a 4 dimensional hypersurface with only one family of geodesics, and that this new model is equivalent to endow this hypersurface with a front and a back, each one having its own geodesics resulting from its own metric. We thus have a "bimetric" model. The combined points of these two folds are thus joined and can interact. The problem is how? Here we can think about the meaning to give to this T-symmetry. The quantum theory of fields also contains operators T, of time inversion and P, of space. These can be arbitrarily chosen: -Linear and unitary - Antilinear and antiunitary. This theory chooses, arbitrarily, that P is unitary and T anti-unitary, to avoid the appearance of negative energy states, considered a priori as non-physical. A relatively recent discovery was the acceleration of the cosmic expansion, due to a negative dark energy. So we are led to re-examine these solutions with negative energy and mass, simply by choosing a linear and unitary T operator. This is what the Belgian mathematician Nathalie Debergh did in 2018 by showing that the Dirac equation would then generate such states. The paper, issued in the the Journal of Physics communication : N.Debergh, J.P.Petit and G.D’Agostini : Evidence of negative energies and masses in the Dirac equation through a unitary time-reversal operator. , J. Phys. Comm. 2. (2018) 115012 If we consider that we are in the presence of two populations of masses and energy of opposite signs, then it is normal that we cannot observe the negative mass particles, because they emit photons of negative energy that our optical instruments cannot capture. A recent article : J.P.Petit, G.D’Agostini and N.Debergh : Bimetric models. When negative mass replaces both dark matter and dark energy. Excellent agreement with observational data. Solving the problem of the primeval antimatter. summarizes several previous publications in peer reviewed journals (Nuovo Cimento, Astrophysics and Space Science, Modern Physics Letters A) presents the corresponding mathematical and geometrical background, constructed in such a way as to preserve the equivalence principle in both populations. Then the interaction laws are : - Masses of the same sign attract each other according to Newton - Masses of opposite signs repel each other according to "anti-Newton". The model then accounts for many observational aspects. The energy of negative masses being itself negative, we have here this "dark energy", responsible for the acceleration of the cosmic expansion. The negative mass pushing back the positive mass, it is this energy that ensures the confinement of galaxies. We obtain an interesting structure where we find for example a regular distribution of negative mass clusters, which dictate the large-scale structure of the universe, the positive mass, lacunar, being in the interstitial portion of space. The Great Repeller, discovered in 2017, is then one of these objects. This also answers the question that was asked in this interview. Primordial antimatter exists, and it has negative mass. It consists of anti-hydrogen and anti-helium. The corollary is that the search for positive mass dark matter is doomed to failure. A video presenting the Janus Cosmological Model model can be found. Search « Janus 29 » Sabine Hossenfelder, tried in 2008 (Physical Review D ) to produce a first bimetric model, but without success, knows this article, where her own work is abundantly quoted and debated. J.P.Petit, astrohysicist

[@lindsayforbes7370]

The discussion was excellent. Measured, thoughtful and not combative. Enough has been said about the host. Too often these occasions are set up as debates instead of discussions. I want to be as a fly in the wall when great minds converse about the the big questions. It wasn't a great question. There is no problem with the theory of antimatter. The problem is with the initial conditions assumed in the Standard Model. Fortunately Sabine, Tara and Lee moved the discussion in this direction.

[@schmetterling4477]

There is no problem with antimatter, until you have an accelerator. Then there is.

[@Jehannum2000]

@@schmetterling4477 What is the problem?

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Jehannum2000 It costs a lot of money to make. And I mean, a LOT of money. :-)

[@davidderidder2667]

The bigger problem is that we have too little of such debates.

[@davidderidder2667]

At 34:27: Look if we put in assumptions in any model usually such is done with constructive reasons. And as long as we recognise that we are using assumptions, and what our assumptions are, we should be fine. A real problem begins when we use constructive intention to start to impose assumptions on others as being truths. It gets worse when we start stacking assumptions upon assumptions, after a while you are like an undercover FBI agent working amongst drugdealers for too long. You lose your affinity with good manners and the “real world” in which we all live. 😀☺️ I hope my metaphore strikes a chord. I fully agree with Lee Smolins idea that when many smart people have tried certain approaches, that it is good to sometimes turn matters on their head. We should be much more creative, playful and outrageous, let’s break kick or constructively pull theories apart, we do this in our minds right? We have little to lose and so much to win. There has not been significant progress since Einstein anyways. Ok I functionally exaggerate.

[@davidderidder2667]

I love Lee, a man always dedicated to integrity and kindness in science. In fact all 4 humans in this interview have my respect.

[@JimGobetz]

Ok that was great, always love Sabine and Lee and was nice to hear Tara as well. I'd like to see a new Solvay type conference, maybe funded by Jim Simons, bring folks like these and other luminaries to wrestle out the next great advance.

[@arekkrolak6320]

Sabine is the best, she will destroy mercilessly every bs the click baiting journalist will say to attract attention :)

[@DrLogical987]

Poor physicists. They tried to do their best with the host's deeply held confusion

[@supercheetah778]

I see I'm not the only one somewhat annoyed by the host.

[@serkangunturk6273]

He is clueless!

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

AMEN! Agreed. Felt this moderator was trying to manufacture controversy and drama.

[@robmorgan1214]

People (ie Sabine) who research the measurement problem in QM need to talk to Wojciech Zurek about how he derived the born rule from two assumptions: unitarity and repeatability... spending some time in an qm optics lab would also probably be worthwhile.

[@schmetterling4477]

None of that will teach any new physics. Quantum optics is like LEGO. It's children playing with trivial toys.

[@robmorgan1214]

@@schmetterling4477 the best work on the measurement problem has been done in quantun optics labs. If you want to make progress in the fundamentals of physics that's the stuff you need to know, especially if you want to be able to interpret or understand those experiments.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@robmorgan1214 There never was a "measurement problem" to begin with. We have always known what measurement means in quantum mechanics, some children just didn't like the answer.

[@Robyzed57]

As far as I can understand, in many ways, fundamental physics looks stuck in a sort of swampland made of a lack of either experimental technology or some revolutionary 'paradigm shift, as T. Kuhn would call it. Let's hope those recently announced hints of new physics (namely, the anomalous results in FERMILAB Muon g-2 and CERN LHCb's experiments) can promote some theoretical development!

[@mksensej8701]

No, they are just looking for a new type of boson so they will have other new area of research for some time and some Nobel price to be rewarded.

[@nias2631]

We might be at the limits of human imagination. For what its worth, we will probably need to lean on AI/ML to move forward. The universe works on minimizing energy and action/reaction. We need algorithms that can organize themselves in a similar approximation that we can extract the model and learn from.

[@PsiSubDiego]

I feel so sorry for the host. Smolin, Sabine, and Shears tried to be as charitative as they could, and deviate the discussion to more interesting subjects, but he was just so appallingly ignorant about the subject. Poor dude.

[@robmorgan1214]

Meh... it's good for people to see how deep the well actually is. You can't talk physics with people who lack the mathematical prerequisites. You can't explain french poetry in English to someone who only understands(speaks) Chinese...EVER. This is a problem with many facets. Many mathematicians think they can understand this stuff. But they have only studied the syntax and grammar and have next to ZERO grasp of the vocabulary let alone the requisite fluency to have an intelligent conversation.

[@profcharlesflmbakaya8167]

Reading through some of comments, a note that all discussants are commended for a good debate and I agree. Furthermore, while one appears critical of the moderator, I differ in that he is doing great to push things to the brink of detailed inquiry. He is even probing for the need for a new theory. If you look my comments, I appear to be theorizing!! In a nutshell, I theorize that the universe could have began with a hell lot of matter. It was then banged with radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, creating all sorts of particles, including immobile and mobile anti-matter that are in entanglement. While relation of matter and non-matter is about superposition, that between the two forms of non-matter is entanglement. Hence, superposition and entanglement summarize nature at Newtonian and quantum levels thereby describing reality as consisting of the macroscopic (physical and visible) and microscopic (quantum world's), the back and forth switch between both worlds being at close to infinite speeds; complicating abilities to observe correctly. Thus, while real things are always appearing and disappearing, the component that is visible is only present partially, yet it is perceived to be present all the time; complicating our understanding of reality in the universe. Just some thoughts!

[@raymondswenson1268]

I have a hypothesis that Anti-matter is part of Dark Matter. Dark Matter is shifted in a 4th spatial dimension that transmits gravity but not electromagnetism. Part of Dark Matter is the Anti-Matter that balances out regular matter thst we can observe. Solves 2 problems with one answer.

[@Belti200]

You are smoking something

[@profcharlesflmbakaya8167]

Debate is exciting. What. Sabine says about the initial conditions being key makes a lot of sense to me. My take is this. First there was/is matter which by definition has mass and volume put together by gravity. Then the matter interacts with electromagnetic radiation (light). This then creates non-matter that we probably by definiton also refer to as anti-matter. Now in my KZbin video and a paper in press, I show that the non-matter so formed comprises immobilise (also with properties similar to the new state of matter referred to as fractons that has mass and probably carries gravity/it's components and no volume that tends to be inherently immobile) and the mobile forms of non-matter that carry the quanta from the electromagnetic spectrum that interacted with the initial matter. Thus the relation between matter and anti-matter may be currently be poorly understood and therein lies the problem, so I think.

[@Atmanyatri]

Fascinating debate, Thank you very much for sharing.

[@onderozenc4470]

How would you differntiate matter galaxies from anti-matter ones ?

[@TheCD45]

Here's the thing: the problem with physics is that the grandest theories require the grandest experiments to validate. As societies are limited by economics, we can not just accept that bigger, more expensive colliders are the ONLY way to go. There must be more economic means to experimentally test these theories.

[@margaretneanover3385]

The formula test suggested is during lab burning use weight scale to cross compare deduction. Anti matter. However I've never seen such

[@TheCD45]

I think as scientists, especially the more mature we get regardless of our academic or industry ranking, owe it to ourselves and should have the responsibility of "keeping it together".

[@NesKimStyle]

This is amazing!

[@rogeriopenna9014]

After looking at your profile, I must admit I was a little surprised you not only watched this video as also found it amazing. Your channel doesn´t seem to have any physics scientific content, to say the least.

[@NesKimStyle]

@@rogeriopenna9014 😂 yep thats funny ... I am doing a masters of arts in philosophy but I run a fashion channel weird I know 😂

[@kevinyilmaz1453]

1- Naming it "anti-matter" is not a good choice. Calling it "positron" would be fine enough. Because: Positron is made of matter. 2- We dont't have any clue yet about what makes electron. Most likely a subatomic particle is made of millions of smaller (universal) particles. Probably what makes a subatomic particle different than other subatomic particle is: The way that universal particles wrap around in motion and generates a system. Think about how motions of innocent water vapor build up different weather conditions and systems: Clouds, rain, snow, lightning, etc. Now imagine universal particles binding in different ways while they were in different type of motions.

[@debyton]

The Distillation Of Matter; The LINE hypothesis proposes that the matter-antimatter imbalance that exists in this universe is a consequence of the universal instantiation event (UIE) followed by many cycles of universal expansion and contraction phases. Each cycle is punctuated by a universal transition event (UTE). The UIE and UTE are the metaverse phenomena widely known as the big bang. However, it is the UIE that initially instantiates each verse. As expected, the UIE and UTE do indeed produce an equal quantity of matter and its’ antiparticle. As the new expanding universe gains information and evolves sufficient complexity therein, the universal expansion not only slows as the universal rendering rate diminishes, but eventually may reverse to initiate a universal contraction phase. The dynamics of changes in the universal spatial degrees of freedom (DOF) called dark energy is informed by the universal information budget (UIB). The UIB is governed by the transitions of information in, out, thru, and the universal information load and complexity in this universe. The UIB informs the universal rendering rate of change (time) and of distance (dark energy). Once the contraction of space reaches a critical density which invariably destroys a critical amount of complexity, the contracting universe enters a new UTE phase. This UTE phase is the turn-around phase following each contraction phase as the universal rendering rate rebounds. During the UTE black holes that do not dissipate are the only information structures from the previous cycle that may survive the UTE. Surviving black holes emerge from the UTE as galaxoids that will populate the next universal expansion phase. Initiating each UTE, conditions from the previous contraction phase returns matter and space to the degenerate information state called the solution of state (SoS). Each UTE is initiated by an arbitrary quantity of information as SoS. Matter and antimatter are created within the UIE and UTE in equal amounts. Nonetheless, the remnants of matter and antimatter from each UIE and each UTE is not balanced and the remaining matter will eventually seed the next expansion phase. An imbalance in matter occurs because within the UIE and UTE there is no annihilation of matter as we know it. Annihilation occurs in this universe in normal space-time as a consequence of the normal structure of the Planck Hole (PH) scaffolding of space together with the stable structure of the pyrine and other states of information. During the UIE and each UTE, the PH and the pyrine do not exist, hence, matter and space is no longer normal. Further, the quantity of the SoS, the degenerate state of matter initiating each UTE will transform during each UTE into equal amounts of matter and antimatter. However, without immediate or timely annihilation, the matters are free to not only separate, but to become otherwise involved during the UIE and UTE and also during inflation. Consequently, matter is thereby allowed to enter into other unbeknownst UTE processes and reactions. During these opaque transitions within each UTE, one of the two competing matter states may diminish relative to the other. This imbalance will permit the lesser constituent matter to eventually become negligible thereby leaving the other to dominate the next expansion phase. This leftover matter is the matter that will form the relatively stable tangible reality of the next expansion phase of a universe. This stable reality will not exist until the vast preponderance of one of the two constituent matter particles have been sufficiently diminished by primordial annihilation. Primordial annihilation occurs only when the PH scaffolding of space emerges to support the pyrine and other information states of particles. This cyclical process may evolve to produce the foundation for a relatively stable universe capable of hosting life and observers. This remaining matter seeds the WOF halos around surviving black holes to form galaxoids which in time evolve to become galaxies in this universe. By this UTE process of matter distillation, it isn’t until a quiescence of matter, writ large, is reached in any verse can life emerge. In many verses produced by the metaverse, such survivable conditions never occur, and yet in others, this distillation of matter could eventually evolve into life as it has in this universe. As in any distillation process information is conserved, and yet, information states become separated. The mechanism by which this filtering of antimatter from matter takes place emerges during the dynamics of many UTE. The UTE is a largely metaverse phenomenon the fundamental details of which is scientifically opaque to the physics of this universe. Nonetheless, there are methods by which some UTE properties, the number of UTE cycles that has occurred thus far, for example, can be determined in this space-time. A consequence of the UTE distillation of matter occurring outside of this universe is the reason antimatter is absent from this space while its constituent particle remains. Precisely how this occurs as a metaverse process is perhaps unknowable. Suffice it to say that the laws of conservation of information are upheld during each UTE, and presents one thread of understanding available to nimble minded observers within this universe of this pivotal phenomenon that largely occurs within the metaverse. Further, the LINE hypothesis proposes that one difference between a universal instantiation event (UIE) and any universal transition event (UTE) is the quantity of fundamental elements initially created. The UIE is the instantiating event which may create an amount of fundamental elements that is calculable from a correctly conceived standard model of particles. The UTE is one of many transition events subsequent to the UIE and is driven by circumstances of the prior contraction phase. The UTE phase will not have an instantiating amount of energy as does the UIE. Nor will a UTE express the instantiating metaverse states which produces a UIE equivalent amount of fundamental elements such as hydrogen helium and lithium. The LINE hypothesis predicts that the UTE will produce circumstantially less of the fundamental elements, ergo; hydrogen, helium and lithium than predicted for the UIE. Calculations that estimate the quantity of initial fundamental hadronic elements currently do not anticipate the potentially numerous subsequent UTE cycles which create the current post UTE state of the universe. Predictably, this is because a UIE is more energetic than a UTE. Also, because the UIE involves more fundamental levels of the metaverse information states called the solutions of state (SoS) and their metaverse processes that are not achievable during any UTE phase. These differences create different outcomes. Given that today both the UIE sand UTE are considered to be the same ‘big bang’ event, calculated expectations that assume ‘big bang’ (post UIE-pre UTE) fundamental element quantities, will contradict measurements taken within any subsequent UTE expansion phase. So, if a contradiction between calculated expectations and observation of initial fundamental particle quantities is found to exist within ones’ current universe, The LINE hypothesis suggests that this is the indicator that this is a cyclic universe older than one universal transition cycle. Why would the current calculated population of pre-fusion fundamental particles not reflect the current measured quantity? This is because the calculated quantities may consider universal constants that were forged not during any prior UTE, but during the UIE. There are universal constants that are instantiated during the UIE which may remain unchanged through each UTE. During each UTE, some, not all, universal constants become reinstantiated. Therefore, such indigenous fixed universal constants will yield an accurate calculated particle population created only in the UIE phase. Subsequent UTE phases will not create a fundamental particle population that is consistent with this calculated quantity. Such fixed universal constants may determine the existence of the types of matter (hadronic, leptonic, debytonic etc.) that will exist within the new verse. Such matter types will populate all future cycles of the current verse, in any quantity. Such fixed-constants do not determine the quantity of matter created by each UTE phase. It falls to other non-fixed constants reinitialized during each UTE together with the informational content and circumstances of the prior contraction phase to determine the details of the next universal expansion.

[@davidwilkie9551]

"There's only one Universe, and Time is real". That's it that's all, all the rest is Commentary. Of which, Debating is the "not even wrong" practice of attempting to fill the Dark void of irrelevant No-thing. Antimatter is the entangled, time-timing displaced vortices of spin pairs, as in a boat wake.

[@fractalnomics]

Very good, perfect timing (for me).

[@samurl]

It was a bit painful to listen to the moderator try to make a controversy where there isn’t one in perhaps an attempt to make it engaging. But it was also interesting to hear how Sabine and Lee patiently handled that repeated line of questioning, and how they followed up on and corrected incorrect suppositions by the moderator. As others have said, going deeper on discussing the role of beauty in physics would have probably been the meaty controversy the moderator was looking for, especially with Lee and Sabine on the panel 😅 I would have also liked to hear a bit more from Tara, especially about her thoughts on the current limitations of colliders and whether they are good value, as that only seemed to be touched on… her answer about the potential for colliders to study inflation seemed to contradict the prior comment she just made about the energy levels they can operate with. But perhaps she had more to say on that. Another missed opportunity for some interesting debate there. But overall I enjoyed the debate and even to some extent the flawed line of questioning, as that in itself is also an opportunity to learn.

[@rapragermusic]

I thought so too about the moderator, but if you listen to the debate carefully you do see his point, which the speakers indirectly acknowledge.

[@mitchellhayman381]

I know that Leonard susskind has done a lot of work on this topic. I would have loved to hear his opinion

[@Chillixed]

I like the content, I'll be back for more!

[@Vazhaspa]

It's pity that a brilliant mind like Lee Smolin is getting old to the point that it is sometime difficult to understand his words ... Yet if we read his books criticizing string theorists we understand his unique courage and deep scientific mind not following the herd and where the real fund was/is!

[@markheller8646]

Hey hey 1955 he’s not old!

[@slickwillie3376]

We are in very deep trouble with ideas like these being the best we can do. Very deep trouble indeed.

[@pmhwoodcraft9934]

I was once enamored with Sabine, but I have come to the conclusion that she is her own worst enemy and is one example of an obstacle to finding a clearer understanding of the universe. Her response to questions that she can’t answer is, “It doesn’t matter because our equations only need to predict, they don’t have to explain reality.” She says this to undermine any alternative explanations. Never mind that physicists haven’t made any real progress toward reconciliation between quantum and gravitational theories. And then she declares unequivocally that gravity is quantum and that there are only particles and nothing else. So do her theories explain reality or not? She claims her theories don’t have to explain reality and then turns around and says reality certainly agrees with her claims. Does no one else see the problem here? BTW, if you assume strings or quanta or any other bounded thing IS the basis of reality, you believe in something from nothing (i.e., magic or religion). It reminds me of the story of Einstein and his compass as explained by Brian Cox that Einstein said there is something hidden that he cannot see that underlies our reality. The problem with particle physics and quantum theorists is they cannot see what is hidden beneath the quanta that underpins and makes all of these theories come together in a simple symmetry. They are the new Newtonian physicists saying that quantum physics and general relativity are bunk. Quantum field theory is a close approximation. When they get to simply field theory, they will be on to something. As for the existence of antimatter, I think the term ‘antimatter’ is misleading and the existence of this thing we call ‘antimatter’ simply points to this symmetry I mentioned above.

[@Dismythed]

41:27 - This is what I say regarding reductionist physics. If reductionism can't get you to the final solution, then you have to explore from the other end, using what you have learned from reductionism. Using expansionism, start with an infinitesimal particle, then add more infinitesimal particles to figure out how they would interact. Using this method, I found that those infinitesimals, if you assume their need to cancel each other out, creating a tempospacial momentum we call "energy", (but being incapable of drawing any closer for being infinitesimal) become quarks and electrons, and spacetime and the fundamental forces result, lightwaves are produced by particles moving faster than a flat lightwave, and antimatter and bosons are explained by those particles moving faster than a lightwave folding in on itself, thus powers of magnitude faster than the speed of light. The speed of light is only the maximum limit at which we can observe the speed of a particle. A lightwave that folds in on itself inverts and produces a reflection that appears to move backward in time, creating the illusion of negative energy, thus an antiparticle. Or else it is the exact same particle forced into its antiparticle state before breaking down from the imposed energy. The idea that antiparticles are created at the same moment as the particle is an unsupported assumption born from symmetrical thinking. All this by rejecting theories dependent upon reductionism and symmetry. This is the "needed fundamental shift" Tara mentioned at the end.

[@schmetterling4477]

Nope.

[@Dismythed]

@@schmetterling4477 Thank you. I meet so many helpful people on the internet. It's like 99% of the people are geniuses who can sum up so much with so little. It's almost never a waste of time. I'm so much smarter now for your answer.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Dismythed Yes, you are. You just have to learn to take no for an answer.

[@Dismythed]

@@schmetterling4477 Nope.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Dismythed Nope what? Taking no for an answer is not something we have to learn? You have just created a paradox. :-)

[@biswajitbhattacharjee5553]

This debate is truly reflect the fact that anti Hydrogen is produced in laboratory. Quantum mechanics is succesful upto the level. Dirac's unsuccessful quest to amalgamation results new paradigm of anti particles . But physics is emperical to Nature. A new theory on demand

[@NoName-zn1sb]

Choose _among_

[@bjharvey3021]

Dear IAI. The text description immediately below the subscribe-button says dark matter. This is not the topic of the video.

[@apexpredator1018]

The "best" theory makes the most # of accurate predictions verified by experiment. Only way to unseat the standard model is to be "more right"

[@hyperduality2838]

Making predictions is a syntropic process -- target tracking or teleology! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia. Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Bosons or waves (symmetric wave functions) are dual to Fermions or particles (anti-symmetric wave functions) -- spin statistics theorem. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem! "The relation of ideas" is dual to "the matter of facts" -- Hume's fork. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein. Science is dual to religion -- the mind duality of Albert Einstein. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@darkskies414]

5 minutes in and already two sets of adverts. Not sure if this is down to youtube or IAI but not sure if I'll be watching any more of what should be an interesting talk.

[@davesutherland1864]

I think the idea that there should initially have been equal parts of matter and anti matter is similar to the way physicists solve many problems by starting with the assumption of a perfectly spherical object.

[@rapragermusic]

The panelists say dark matter is real. There is no problem using it in the initial condition. Suppose its amount is substantial. Admit initial conditions are unknown. Say if the theory works then it doesn't mater if its made up because all theories are unprovable with the current model. A new model is needed. Not sure if dark matter survived all that! But in a world of unknowns, dark matter is surely a known unknown (in regards to the initial condition). Great to see such a frank and open debate, the host was pushy but I think he succeeded in bringing out the real talk between the guests.

[@animalfarm7467]

I always thought something was known only if it could be backed by experimentation; experimentation that gave accurate and precise outcomes when compared to the real world. Chasing a speculative theory down a mathematical rabbit-hole; a speculative theory that could never be proven by experiment, is surely a waste of time.

[@gregrice1354]

Interesting subject, but the discussion is about 40 years behind the leading thinkers in physics and the philosophic extrapolations - cosmology (origins of Universe), and evidence for design and/or life in universe. An atheist, Paul Davies, established the physics of this parameter as one of the finely tuned parameters of the physics of the universe that supports life - one of over 23 independent variables. See works by Davies for general discussion and see Hugh Ross PhD for specific evaluation of each variation of the Anthropic principles. 3-18-2022

[@gyro5d]

Space e- >~< e+ Counterspace = Aether. "Plato's Field Theory" Our Space Universe was tunneled from Counterspace. This tunneled Dielectric energy decayed from the Inertial Plane that separates Space and Counterspace. When Dielectric energy decayed from the Inertial Plane, Time started. Inflation. Dielectric energy became it's Dielectric Voidance Field/Magnetism, the Grand Expand. Magnetism gives Magnitude to the Universe. Dielectric energy is Aether's Hyperboloid. It's really two vortices. Gravity is Magnetism decaying back to Dielectric energy, then it's Inertial plane. It's not that light can not excape from a Blackhole/Counterspacial Sink. It's light can not exist in a blackhole. When Magnetism decays into it's Dielectric energy, then only one of the two transverse waves exit. So, No EM waves/light. That's why it's black. Inertial Plane - Dielectric energy - Magnetism = Creation of the Universe. Magnetism - Dielectric energy - Inertial Plane = Gravity is centripetal acceleration into the Inertial Plane. Matter has it's lowest energy shell next to it's Proton. Anti-matter has it's higher energy shell next to it Proton. 1836 Positrons = 1 Proton. A Proton is in Counterspace as seen from Space. There are no particals they are 3D Hyperboloids/8 vortices. Gravity into Vortices and out on the outside of the vortex. Hawking Radiation. Aether's Hyperboloid is really two vortices, separated by it's Inertial Plane. e- >~< e+ = Aether. e- >~~~~~~~~~~~~~...~~~~< e+ = Entanglement. Blackholes/Counterspacial Sinks are Aether's Hyperboloid Inertial plane into Counterspace. Stars are Aether's Hyperboloid Inertial plane into Space. Mediated to center of stars are Protons, in Counterspace. Shells and Orbits are coming from Counterspace. Stars are perfect spheres because they are being pulled to the low pressure vortex of the Proton in Counterspace. Ken Wheeler there's no magnetic attraction. Between the two magnets is a low pressure vortex, that the magnets are pulled into. I have a picture of the vortex between the two magnets, under a Ferrocell. Blackhole/Counterspacial Sink is after a star collapses, its iron becomes coherent and creates an enormous gauss. "The higher the gauss, the smaller it's field." The gauss is so strong, it can not leave it's Inertial plane. Leaving Mass without Magnitude!

[@joemarchi1]

I enjoyed this discussion. Thank you. Personally, I find no reason to believe that the existence of a particle's exact anti-identity presupposes a conclusion that it is necessarily its 'anti-particle' because of some applied arbitrary human antecedence bias. It seems more likely that it is just a coincidental relationship among many in a supremely interactive and complex Universe. I don't believe the Universe is balanced in the way we humans think of it. That balance seems rather too convenient. The particle / anti-particle relationship if it exists is probably something that we have not completely teased from nature. JMVHO

[@hyperduality2838]

Making predictions is a syntropic process -- target tracking or teleology! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia. Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Bosons or waves (symmetric wave functions) are dual to Fermions or particles (anti-symmetric wave functions) -- spin statistics theorem. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem! "The relation of ideas" is dual to "the matter of facts" -- Hume's fork. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein. Science is dual to religion -- the mind duality of Albert Einstein. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@joemarchi1]

@@hyperduality2838 Do dualities exist? Yes. Are dualities are pervasive? Yes. Are all seemingly similar physical dualities related? No. The Dirac equation predicts antipodal particles only out of the peculiar mathematical duality that imaginary numbers inject into the equations governing quantum systems. Dirac himself was oblivious to this implication of his own equation until it was pointed out to him. He famously joked that his equation was smarter than he was. Are the existence of quantum antipodes the direct result of some specific, required order of events encoded within initial conditions at the inception process of the Universe coming into being? Meh. Or are they a result of an evolution of interacting complex sets of initial conditions and as such, simply one realized statistical consequence out of a matrix of possible outcomes, ergo anomalies? More likely. In the spectrum of dual relationships, are antipodal dualities necessarily special? Possibly not. It seems unnatural to me that our existence requires that the matter/antimatter mix existed at the start in equal parts. I think that quantum dualities are a messy, complicated, likely imbalanced, interactive muddled affair. Applying cultural veneers and philosophical biases comes at high risk of forking the wrong way on Hume's forked path. I am not a huge fan of the great physicist Richard Feynman but he was right when he said the easiest person to fool is yourself.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@joemarchi1 North poles are dual to south poles -- magnetic fields, antipodes. Positive charge is dual to negative charge -- electric fields. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations, electro-magnetic energy is dual. Pure energy or light, photons are dual -- wave/particle or quantum duality. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. The conservation of duality (energy) will be known as the 5th law of thermodynamics! Energy duality, duality is energy. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry is actually dual -- universal hyperbolic geometry. "Perpendicularity in hyperbolic geometry is measured in terms of duality" -- Professor Norman Wildberger, universal hyperbolic geometry. Duality is a pattern hardwired into the physics. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@joemarchi1]

@@hyperduality2838 Let's agree that we both are confident that dualities are a pervasive feature of the natural world. You cite giants of science, mathematics, and philosophy to bolster this very general case which I am NOT arguing against. I am arguing that antimatter in its true antipodal sense is a statistically anomaly. It is more likely that it never existed in equal parts in the dark ages of the evolution of the Universe. So let's look at the simplest trope ... Is the glass half full or half empty with the stipulation that the glass can never be completely empty or completely full. It can only exists in some specific proportion of fullness and emptiness. What is that proportion if we add an important caveat? The material that is responsible for the state of fullness within the glass is completely transparent and thus its comparative volume cannot be determined by mere observation. So, we cannot, by observation, know anything regarding the glass's existential state of fullness or emptiness. We can only guess at it using the tools of statistical probability. All that we can say is that all potential proportional ratios of half fullness or half emptiness are equally probable. Thinking about the current proposition that the glass must have been half full and thus antipodally half empty in equal proportions has no greater relevance than the aggregate of all other possible ratios. Therefore against the weight of all other possibilities, the probability of a balanced or equal mix is statistically insignificant. So I do not subscribe to the belief that matter and antimatter as currently defined must have existed in equal parts at some point in the evolutionary past. Secondarily, it calls into question the actual mechanism of equal particle/antiparticle production & annihilation of the vacuum energy. Lastly, it calls into question the narrowness of the current particle/antiparticle definition. Finally, the quantum world is a messy affair that was unappreciated in the relatively distant past. The musings of 19th century philosophers will not convince me otherwise. If I recall correctly, Yoda failed to see through the vail created by the dark side in order to hide its imperial designs. I'm sure some ancient Buddhist philosopher said something like 'To know everything ... you must first forget everything you know.'

[@ZeroOskul]

Molecular positronium is a stable matter/antimatter interface. When positronium breaks down it becomes two or sometimes three photons. That sometimes three gives you a tiny bit more matter than antimatter due to the photoelectric effect

[@philiprose5895]

5 even, depends on whether ortho- or para me thinks. Ure on to somethinks. Better than those turkeys.

[@TrakThora]

It sound you have seen some.

[@albert6157]

i think you misunderstood photoelectric effect, because photoelectric effect just describes how photons with specific wavelengths can stimulate and ionise already existing electrons from already existing atoms. That has nothing to do woth matter and antimatter pair production tho

[@ZeroOskul]

@@albert6157 I think you misunderstood positronium.

[@albert6157]

@@ZeroOskul positronium is just an exotic atom where positron orbits an electron. Am i missing something?

[@johnkechagais7096]

The questions is not where the anti mater is but when, another way of understanding anti mater is mater traveling backwards in time. If matter and antimatter separated in time at the beginning then they cant meet to annihilate each other.

[@hyperduality2838]

The future is dual to the past -- time duality! We predict the future (syntropy) and remember the past. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- target tracking or teleology! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia. Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Bosons or waves (symmetric wave functions) are dual to Fermions or particles (anti-symmetric wave functions) -- spin statistics theorem. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem! "The relation of ideas" is dual to "the matter of facts" -- Hume's fork. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein. Science is dual to religion -- the mind duality of Albert Einstein. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@dominicestebanrice7460]

My friend Paul saw anti-matter at the bottom of his Guinness glass when he stared into it after returning from the bathroom. The glass was empty but he swore there was at least one gulp remaining when he realized he needed to pee. He also swears he saw some Higgs-Dobson particles in there but I think he just made that up.

[@profcharlesflmbakaya8167]

To complete my comment, there is the issue on why matter and anti-matter have not annihilated as predicted by the current antimatter theory. My take is that matter interacts with electromagnetic spectrum; prosecuting all matter of excitations and transitions and breakages of bonds to create many particles and sub-atomic particles. Notably, this process is in some sort of equilibrium. The reason we don't quite see the mobile and immobile antimatter is that they lack mass and volume, respectively. Furthermore, because of the entanglement, the mobile and immobile antimatter pair up back and forth and at phenomenal speeds and accelerations to make matter by releasing assorted quanta and process repeats over and over. Thus, when the mobile and immobile forms of antimatter pair up, they don't annihilate. They form back matter. This is where the current antimatter theory gets it wrong, if you know what I mean. Hence, put together, my comments make up a new theory, so I think.

[@hyperduality2838]

Making predictions is a syntropic process -- target tracking or teleology! Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Bosons or waves (symmetric wave functions) are dual to Fermions or particles (anti-symmetric wave functions) -- spin statistics theorem. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem! "The relation of ideas" is dual to "the matter of facts" -- Hume's fork. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@tommylakindasorta3068]

The moderator seems to enjoy false dichotomies.

[@hyperduality2838]

Dichotomies = duality! Making predictions is a syntropic process -- target tracking or teleology! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia. Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Bosons or waves (symmetric wave functions) are dual to Fermions or particles (anti-symmetric wave functions) -- spin statistics theorem. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem! "The relation of ideas" is dual to "the matter of facts" -- Hume's fork. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein. Science is dual to religion -- the mind duality of Albert Einstein. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@jonathanhockey9943]

What kind of a debate is this where all the participants agree on the point under debate?

[@trescatorce9497]

charged particles undergoing acceleration at the beginning of the universe, created magnetic fields, and vice versa. Statistical fluctuations in the distribution of matter caused anisotropies in the microwave background, hence the COBE and WMAP missions. Therefore, matter/antimatter were not evenly distributed. As far as I know, the spectra of an antimatter star should be identical to a matter star of the same size, age, brightness and distance. Who can say, beyond reasonable doubt, that galaxies far away are NOT composed of antimatter, and that the distribution of matter/antimatter in the universe in very close to 50-50?

[@philiprose5895]

When the Tevatron collided antiprotons with protons or LEP corresponding electrons and positrons, they did not disappear in a flash of light. Their interactions produced hosts of matter particles. Perhaps these type of accelerators simulate the "initial conditions" as they were/are? Give Tara her super collider & she with her colleagues will find the answers! Sabine & Lee are still stuck in the "Foundations". We should remember steam engines came 150years before thermodynamics. Theory follows facts, the rest is philosophy. Neil Turok seems to have the best inkling of what triggered it all.

[@hyperduality2838]

Immanuel Kant talks about initial conditions -- The Critique of Pure Reason. Initial conditions = innate or pre-given or "a priori". Noumenal (a priori, rational) is dual to phenomenal (a posteriori, empirical) -- Immanuel Kant. Space/time = synthetic a priori knowledge -- Immanuel Kant. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- target tracking or teleology! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia. Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Bosons or waves (symmetric wave functions) are dual to Fermions or particles (anti-symmetric wave functions) -- spin statistics theorem. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem! "The relation of ideas" is dual to "the matter of facts" -- Hume's fork. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein. Science is dual to religion -- the mind duality of Albert Einstein. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@dallasjackson8301]

Wow, fassanating, fantastic, thank you,

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could some antimatter turn into quantum wave with non-local information, while some matter turns into classic particles with local information?

[@erikjohansson4275]

no

[@maxwelldillon4805]

Great talk

[@david203]

I disagree with the point of view that considers the current bag of speculation as a problem. When the inconsistencies in theory and observation are as numerous as they currently are, intelligent and knowledgeable speculation is exactly what we need to transcend the limits of current standard theory.

[@JerryMlinarevic]

There is a kitchen in which reality is created and in this kitchen there is red dough and blue dough but which are mixed together and yet they are separate as well. Two cooks, one red cook and one blue cook, come into the kitchen alternately and continuously one after the other. Each one has two hands that are mirror images of the other cook's, and each can only cook with the dough of their colour. Every time a cook comes into the kitchen he kicks the other cook out and makes his cookies. Magically all the matter in this universe is created from these simple cookies, and all the anti-matter is created by the other cook with mirror cookies. The two realities exist side by side separated by moments of annihilation which are moments in time needed for intelligent self-observation.

[@ewthmatth]

The first sentence of the video description says dark matter instead of anti-matter

[@jonathanhockey9943]

The issue is not resolved either by anthropic principle or by evolution approach. The latter may have some outside chance, of being part of a genuine explanation, but the problem with applying evolution ideas to universe as a whole, is we have no other universes to compare it with. And the problems with the former approach are very obvious, given its little better than putting ones hands up and saying, well it just is that way...

[@sourcecode-thelastquestion847]

Love the idea of the universe learning.

[@gyro5d]

The Universe is alive.

[@colintidwell8902]

I wish this moderator spent more time listening to the guests. It felt like he had his own philosophic or scientific idea he wanted to talk about and even though no one agreed with his idea he can’t just let go of it.

[@nfineon]

Jesus Christ I'm tripping balls watching Lee Smolins screen, it's like hes surrounded by antimatter and phasing in and out of reality. Someone needs to get him a nice wall size print of the bay area and a bottle of CBD/THC oil! Big shout out to Sabine, my favorite physics skeptic/realist on KZbin!

[@HumbleBasse]

dont take drugs baby

[@davidderidder2667]

At 34:27: Look if we put in assumptions in any model usually such is done with constructive reasons. And as long as we recognise that we are using assumptions, and what our assumptions are, we should be fine. A real problem begins when we use constructive intention to start to impose assumptions on others as being truths. It gets worse when we start stacking assumptions upon assumptions, after a while you are like an undercover FBI agent working amongst drugdealers for too long. You lose your affinity with good manners and the “real world” in which we all live. 😀☺️ I hope my metaphore strikes a chord. I fully agree with Lee Smolins idea that when many smart people have tried certain approaches, that it is good to sometimes turn matters on their head. We should be much more creative, playful and outrageous, let’s break kick or constructively pull theories apart, we do this in our minds right? We have little to lose and so much to win. There has not been significant progress since Einstein anyways. Ok I functionally exaggerate.

[@jainalabdin4923]

If you start with the assumption of equal amounts of matter and antimatter as an initial condition, so that there is complete annihilation, then there is another assumption implied of perfect mixing of matter and antimatter that evolved through time to result in complete annihilation. Since we observe mostly matter, either one or both of these assumptions are incorrect.

[@tonywells6990]

The current idea is that there is a tiny difference between how antimatter and matter behave, probably via the weak force. Matter and antimatter were thought to have been created in equal amounts (maybe produced as the particle fields interacted with the changing Higgs field), but some of the antimatter may have decayed or changed to normal matter before the annihilation started (maybe due to the symmetry breaking of the force fields).

[@hyperduality2838]

Immanuel Kant talks about initial conditions -- The Critique of Pure Reason. Initial conditions = innate or pre-given or "a priori". Noumenal (a priori, rational) is dual to phenomenal (a posteriori, empirical) -- Immanuel Kant. Space/time = synthetic a priori knowledge -- Immanuel Kant. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- target tracking or teleology! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia. Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Bosons or waves (symmetric wave functions) are dual to Fermions or particles (anti-symmetric wave functions) -- spin statistics theorem. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem! "The relation of ideas" is dual to "the matter of facts" -- Hume's fork. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein. Science is dual to religion -- the mind duality of Albert Einstein. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@Jehannum2000]

@@tonywells6990 Couldn't the tiny difference just be down to the Uncertainty Principle in some way?

[@tonywells6990]

@@Jehannum2000 Probably not. If that were the case then there would be antimatter and matter regions which there is no evidence for (not in our observable universe at least). It's more likely that there is some imbalance between how matter and antimatter behave: maybe antimatter decayed quicker than matter, all this taking place for only a tiny fraction of a second at every location in the universe.

[@KaliFissure]

Time is a compact dimension one single Planck second long. This creates temporal plane of NOW. Negative charge is inflow/divergence and positive is outflow/convergence. This is why fundamental mass unit is positive charge, both are convergences. Neutrinos are mostly in plane but wobble a bit. This membrane is why baryon asymmetry and chirality. An inflow to here is an outflow from there. Clockwise away here is counter clockwise towards on that side. Neutron decay cosmology. The neutrons which invert at moment of neutron star collapse into black hole are transported from highest energy density situation to lowest energy density points of universe, deep voids. There they travel 14ish light minutes then decay into amorphous atomic hydrogen. This decay process causes a volume increase of 10^14 times. This is expansion, this is Lambda. This process is how balance is maintained. The amorphous hydrogen not having orbital electron can’t emit or absorb photons. The Ricci curvature is lopsided temporally. The future is more dense. Event horizons act like one way pressure release valve allowing flow from highest energy density to lowest. The flow of forever falling eternally. The cmb is energy surface of visible universe but nothing more. This is why Schwartzchild radius of universe from mass is same as age of universe says Big Bang. They have been confounded. Hubble Doppler is artifact of the gravitational curvature of space. EinsteinDicke isn’t it called?

[@angelr3003]

Is there a relation betwin Antimatter and antigravity ? there is a clear interaccion betwin matter and gravity.

[@fast_harmonic_psychedelic]

All we know is that the matter in the SOLAR SYSTEM -- and probably galaxy, is mostly matter. We DONT know whether other galaxies are entirely composed of antimatter. as far as as i"m aware, they'd look exactly the same in a telescope, since photons are both and are emitted from both irrespective of the direction of spin of the source particle. All we can say is that LOCALLY, it is mostly matter. But other galaxies could be composed entirely of anti-matter. Given that we barely know what gases exist in the atmosphere of the nearest planet, its very arrogant to assume we KNOW that the entire universe is composed of matter rather than anti-matter -- has the host confirmed that statement himself? Is there anyway to confirm that? A star made of anti-protons -- how would you know if it was or not unless you witnessed it in conflict with non-anti-proton star?

[@dailysmelly9756]

I need to fall asleep so let me press play and I'll see you in the morning 😴

[@mertonhirsch4734]

What about this proposition to maintain symmetry. What if the gravitational attraction between matter and anti-matter was very slightly less than the gravitational attraction of matter for matter, and anti-matter for anti-matter? Then we may have surviving anti-matter and matter generally blown away from each other in the universe so far apart that we can't observe most of the anti-matter.

[@schmetterling4477]

Anything that impacts the equivalence principle completely destroys general relativity. Theoretical physicists don't like to go there.

[@albert6157]

From what we observe, gravity attracts everything with energy and mass, including anti-matter, especially since antimatter has opposite charge which makes it even more likely to attract to matter. So regardless, matter and antimatter is bound to attract, as far as we know and observed.

[@reimannx33]

Lee smolin wants to know the origin of the laws of physics. I want to ask him what would give rise to the laws that give birth to the laws of physics now, and this will give rise to infinite regression. Smolin is asking more metaphysical questions that leads to infinite regression, and makes for an interesting philosophical paradox. Wittgenstein's last sentence in the Tractatus is better heeded to in this regard. Physics is about formulating the best mathematically consistent testable theory among competing ones until it is falsified ( popper,khun), or incorporated into a deeper, more predictive, and experimentally verified theory. The philosophers can get up hung up on metaphysical issues like absolute truth, free will, causality, induction etc that may or may not have any meaningful answers, while physics can primarily focus on phenomena, with an open ear to metaphysical issues, but not getting hung up on the finer philosophical interpretation. If we got hung up on the complete philosophical understandng of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, we would not have lasers, electron microscopes, computers just to name a few. The framework works with the most accurately testable predictive properties even though philosophically there are open foundational puzzles regarding semantics.

[@hyperduality2838]

"Philosophy is dead" -- Stephen Hawking. Immanuel Kant talks about initial conditions -- The Critique of Pure Reason. Initial conditions = innate or pre-given or "a priori". Noumenal (a priori, rational) is dual to phenomenal (a posteriori, empirical) -- Immanuel Kant. Space/time = synthetic a priori knowledge -- Immanuel Kant. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- target tracking or teleology! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia. Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Bosons or waves (symmetric wave functions) are dual to Fermions or particles (anti-symmetric wave functions) -- spin statistics theorem. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem! "The relation of ideas" is dual to "the matter of facts" -- Hume's fork. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein. Science is dual to religion -- the mind duality of Albert Einstein. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@schmetterling4477]

You clearly didn't listen to what Lee Smolin actually said.

[@reimannx33]

@@schmetterling4477 smolin likes to hide behind pseudo-philosophical verbiage. He, nor you, have answered the question of infinite regress, because you guys cannot without kicking the can down the road. Without a shred of empirical data to back up, he writes of changing laws of nature over time. Moreover, he glosses over the infinite regress question. Why don't you try to answer that, instead of trying to sweep it under the rug?

[@schmetterling4477]

@@reimannx33 You clearly didn't listen to what Lee Smolin actually said.

[@reimannx33]

@@schmetterling4477 .....and you keep avoiding answering my question about infinite regress, and empirical evidence of physical laws of nature changing. Guess what, two bit schmuck, there is none, just like your intellectual capacity ! Case closed !!!

[@08wolfeyes]

I wonder if perhaps Antimatter doesn't last as long as matter, maybe something about it makes it less likely to survive for long. Perhaps Animatter becomes dark matter or dark energy under some kind of condition?

[@ParameterGrenze]

People not investing into proper microphones, or cams with proper microphones in the information age, and especially after covid, is just embarrassing. Don’t tell me there isn’t up to 100 bucks as a one time investment in your budget as a scientist

[@richardgreen7225]

Much confusion is due to careless language about *class* versus *instance*. Dirac's theory is that for every "*class* of particle" there is a "*class* of anti-particle" (where *some* descriptive parameters have an opposite sign). This is not the same as saying that for every existing particle *instance* there is (or was) an existing *instance* of an anti-particle.

[@Jehannum2000]

I think the host thinks that "for every matter particle there exists an antiparticle" means that each time a matter particle is created, the associated antimatter particle is always also created at the same time. This would certainly lead to confusion.

[@schmetterling4477]

If we demand perfect charge symmetry, then that would have to be the case for all charged fields. The problem is exactly that under perfect symmetries nothing interesting can exist. If we want to create "dirt" (stars, planets), then the universe has to be "imperfect".

[@sonarbangla8711]

None of the comments and none of the panel, mention the dual nature of reality, while we want to understand the non-dual.

[@amarshmuseconcepta6197]

🤔"illumìnsmarti predictif triffid programming 🤯"comes to mind 🤯"Yikes"a💩

[@Seagaltalk]

please explain more of this dual reality. Sounds intriguing

[@sonarbangla8711]

@@Seagaltalk Surely this isn't the first time you are hearing of the dual nature of reality. Hegel gave his theory 200 years ago (simultaneity and sequential, is my favorite). ADS/CFT correspondence is the new duality that made Maldacena the new Einstein. QM enables us to conceive the non-dual.

[@Seagaltalk]

@@sonarbangla8711 no this is the first time i have seen the words and ideas you have used arranged in that kind of order. You really packed a lot of stuff in to your synopsis of your theory. i think maybe it would be more clear if you expaneded on what you mean exactly and maybe provide some sources or evidence as well.

[@sonarbangla8711]

@@Seagaltalk Central to QM is what Copenhagen claims as the 'measurement problem', Hawking showed that the quantum fields (with nonzero ground state energy) produce virtual particles pairs, one of which falls into the BH and the other is expelled as a real particle. Assuming the quantum recipe is correct, we need a conscious intelligent observer, collapsing the QF into particles, leading to production of elements, molecules, organic molecules...and on to life and human consciousness, complementing the cosmic consciousness, implying divine design/purpose. This in short is my theory. However, quantum state of a photon, electron etc., needs to be defined, along with an algorithm of how the macro world can be described to have the unitary evolution of the Schrodinger's wave function. I think it just might belong to the divine domain (the mind of god), though Susskind proposes a finite gate quantum circuit, but the algorithm remains illusive.

[@bouhschnou]

why? We have not yet understood the real symmetry of matter, probably made of 'opposite' parts, probably phased. Proof is to say that matter and anti-matter don't annihilate but into energy (photons). Universe comes obviously from a local zero-sum process, with a phase between two localities, these phases constituing the initial energy

[@KipIngram]

Knowing how things behave now does not explain the initial conditions. We don't know how to explain the initial conditions - just because particles and antiparticles are create in matching combinations, and vanish in matching combinations, today does not mean that the universe had to start out with equal amounts. Assuming those two things are equivalent to one another would be a gross error. The bottom line is that there is a lot more matter than antimatter in the universe today. That imbalance exists, so it came from somewhere. We don't see any process that's happening now that accounts for that - so we are ignorant about this aspect of reality. Full stop. If there's a "problem" it's not that anything is wrong with our understanding of the laws currently "firing" in the universe. We're laws about how the initial conditions got set up.

[@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668]

10:55 for as the back ground to this is it right to say that the antimatter theory predicts that for every particle and potentialy the all combinations of particles thheere is an antiparticle to me that is right and make sense like say the stars that orbit near in our galaxie center is our side say top or north so to say and as one in our side goes up the other goes down, if one in our side goes left the other goes right, if one is white sure there is black one for each other in the above.

[@irajrahimi]

I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT ENERGY RESULT FROM MATTER AND ANTIMATTER IS WHAT WOULD HELP MATTER TO SURVIVE AND CONTINUE FOR... . FOR EVERY MATTER THERE WOULD BE A CAP AND TIME TO CREATE ITS OWN ANTIMATTER, THEREFOR THAT CAP WILL EXPAND THE UNIVERSE AND SPACE AND CREATE TIME FOR CHANGE TO NEW OR RENEW LIFE.

[@Samsgarden]

Lee is so performative 😀

[@hqs9585]

Tara, how can you say that we can get to reproduce energies so high as the initial Bing Bang time, my understanding is we way below that and possibly not doable. What assumption you make on that Initial boundary condition ??

[@1pedalsteel374]

As long as the money keep rolling in, stand firm.