The Loop Quantum Gravity Debacle: Carlo Rovelli Strikes Back

[@TheoriesofEverything]

New Substack! curtjaimungal.substack.com/p/the-interpretations-of-quantum-mechanics Follow my Substack content that I don't have anywhere, like this one covering Carlo Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit www.economist.com/toe

[@hollowrobert2661]

Gravity is nothing but the current of space falling into massive objects. The smaller the object the lower the current.

[@_John_P]

And again it's all down to the measurement problem. I'll side with Einstein as he was adamant that if you could measure or observe without interfering, then the results would be deterministic, no superposition or weird interpretations.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Well given the fact that dark matter is everywhere even in the vacuum of space there is no true vacuum of space... Therefore light passing through the vacuum of space in a higher density dark matter region would slow down just like it does when going through water...

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Keep in mind that all everything that we observe is three-dimensional... We fundamentally cannot observe anything that is not three-dimensional and everything that exists in our universe is three-dimensional... Therefore it is not just Planck length it is Planck width and Planck depth as well...

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

19:28 the probability does not go to zero! it goes towards zero... Major difference!

[@johncouture3890]

I am constantly amazed/impressed at how conversant you are on all of the various theories and your ability to ask such relevant and insightful questions. Thanks for providing such fantastic content.

[@humptyslick]

Same here Curt your knowledge is expanding in leaps and bounds. Very inspiring.

[@etc4xg]

I strive to be as up to date on theoretical physics as this man

[@freedomeppo]

Hey Curt, your channel is unmatched. Very much appreciate what you do. I wonder if Gerard 't Hooft would be willing to do an episode

[@Lolleka]

Gerard would be dope

[@Aisubstraction]

@@Lolleka Doctor Hooft is the real deal,

[@monty3854]

He seems like such a gentle man. He's really a burning furnace of ambition who will bite the head off of anyone who stands in his way.

[@roderickbeck8859]

Tell us more.

[@monty3854]

@roderickbeck8859 He loves long walks and coffee.

[@NoahWolfe]

Thank you Curt for these incredible discussions with our greatest minds. I could listen to Carlo read a dictionary and somehow come away feeling enlightened. What a treasure.

[@Achrononmaster]

@11:30 I think you should fact-check Rovelli here. Angular momentum is not quantized at all. If anything variables are more continuous in QM not less (due to superposition allowing continuous state transitions). For *_bound states_* there are quantized eigenvalues, but they arise from steady state solutions, an equilibrium _resonance_ phenomenon. The only other type of discrete angular momentum numbers are in Stern Gerlach type experiments, but that is a filter effect, not a quantized _L_ effect, and this is obvious to anyone who has numerically solved the Dirac equation and examined the streamlines for all solutions, they "split" smoothly into two streams, depending on the imposed magnetic field orientation - a filter effect, not a discrete spin-current (magnetic dipole) effect.

[@omftata]

Exactly! He tries to get out of the contradictory proof of his concept. LQG is unfortunately dead.

[@BracaPhoto]

Also, consider that we have never "imaged" a particle while it's alive -- We only know what it looks like in Death We made the same mistake looking at the bullet holes on the WW2 planes that made it back.... It's the info we CAN'T SEE that's important. You will not SEE the truth. Viewing the system absolutely changed it - that should be INSTINCTUAL to you... But physicist DEMAND visual proof or they won't budge. You can't worship math and also have creativity. We don't know what Pi is actually "doing" - Science says it's a "concept" - it doesn't actually do anything - ok maybe Light can SEE its environment and make decisions - that may not be TRUE, but it is easier to understand that way Good Luck Students ! I'm just as confused as the rest - I just admit my confusion easier than most

[@pokerandphilosophy8328]

I'm unsure why you think Rovelli would disagree with any of this. Rovelli's point merely was to illustrate that the eigenvalues of the angular momentum operator for a half integer spin particle (which may indeed be in a bound state or may have been filtered by passing through an inhomogeneous magnetic field) are quantized consistently with the rotational invariance of the theory.

[@pokerandphilosophy8328]

@@omftata Why would Rovelli be trying to get out of an alleged "contradictory proof" in a KZbin comment that he hasn't read? The point made by Achronmaster is different from Sabine's point. Rovelli addressed specifically Sabine's argument because it was the argument that Curt asked him about.

[@sunaramsardar3191]

Why there is need of state transitions when all informations are superimposed.bound state arises bcs of measurement.and so it's values.

[@johnnyliminal8032]

Good two hours. C-Rov, Sir, you have been my favourite theoretical physicist for years. Glad to see you, and thank you for your time. OP (C-Jai?), I’m impressed that you paced and got good answers out of Carlo.

[@jacksourlis4151]

Always enjoyable to watch a gentleman such as Carlo

[@williamjmccartan8879]

Its cool when your guests show their appreciation for your questions, Curt

[@Achrononmaster]

Can I disagree with your genius friend? Or is that risking ridicule? @3:00 I'd say most "quantum gravity" theories predict there is a minimal length _which can be measured._ But not all predict there is a minimal length in nature. Just because a thing cannot be measured does not mean it does not exist. In a CPT symmetric Big Bang the evolution goes through a conformal zero, and there no good reason to suppose the Weyl invariance cannot hold indefinitely to absolute zero conformal time. Remember, at the Big Bang the conformal time is not physical time, physically the universe just keeps going down in scale forever (by "clock" time that is). Personally, just for the aesthetics alone, I rather like this view as opposed to clunkiness and discrete metrics. It is still discrete in the sense the massless particles still imply nontrivial spacetime topology.

[@briansiddon2255]

entirely agree. the process of measurement in itself acts the same as any random intervention on wave function collapse. to try to differentiate between random collapse and measurement collapse is insane. digitization is irrelevant. thats why movement and position dont correlate. thats why people should be looking into is the difference between analogue and digital existence. the analogue universe is a process of reaction with the bulk. the bulk is the container. thats why entanglement is instantaneous. because everything inside is connected to the outside. eff Youngs slit experiment. irrelevant. we live inside a Kline bottle created before the big bang. existence depends on the non functional or functional difference. the power of something against nothing. your conformal event had to have a time element in order to occur. the dimension of time is not created or destroyed, only variable in response to any wave function.

[@notanemoprog]

OK could you please translate that to Dumbese so that I could try& understand it

[@Achrononmaster]

ok, @15:30 he gets to what I am saying. So fine.

[@hanochlivneh771]

There is a big difference between a genius and a science speculator

[@pokerandphilosophy8328]

What a fantastic interview! When I saw this video in my feed, I looked at the time stamps and jumped straight to the "Lorentz invariance" topic. I'm so glad Curt chose to quote Sabine's argument about the expected value of the area operator in LQG. It should be noted that a couple days after posting her video, Sabine edited it and removed this part of her argument. It's possible that she has had an epiphany and doesn't stand by it anymore (as she indeed shouldn't). But it would have been better if she had issued a correction, of course.

[@notanemoprog]

Hope somebody saved the original video!

[@pokerandphilosophy8328]

@@notanemoprog I didn't save the original video, but I had saved a chunk of the original transcript that includes the part that was thereafter cut out: "It’s nothing to do with reality anymore. I don’t understand why people get paid for doing this, and I say this as someone who once got paid for doing this. So my video goes out and of course a day later I have both Brian Keating and Carlo Rovelli in my inbox. Brian complains because he thinks I accused him of being wrong when really he was just summarizing somebody else’s paper, and now Carlo is telling him to take down the video. And Carlo complains to because he thinks I don’t understand his genius and tells me his story about the angular momentum operator. Meanwhile there are like five thousand other people who think I didn’t notice that someone else had previously done a reaction video that supposedly already explained why Brian was wrong. Of course I saw that video. I just decided to ignore it because it dumbly repeats an obviously wrong argument that Carlo has peddled for decades and that I’m fucking sick of hearing. I can’t believe that this is still going on! I recently heard Eric Weinstein say in a video that we are seeing the beginning of a collapse in the foundations of physics, because it’s so obvious now that string theory was a huge mistake. I think you’re wrong Eric. This will keep on going and going until physics is entirely dead. What we’re seeing now is just that the senior people are handing over to their students. Ok, I think I need to explain why that argument is wrong because quite possibly you’ve indeed never heard any of this discussion. About 20 years ago, Carlo wrote a paper together with Simone Speziale - that’s the guy who yelled at me at a conference, just for context - in which they claim that Loop quantum gravity doesn’t have an issue with Lorentz Invariance - that’s a symmetry of Einstein’s theories -- because of an analogy with the angular momentum operator. Oh boy, lots of technical terms, but don’t despair, it’s not as difficult as it sounds. You see, the issue is that in loop quantum gravity, areas of space become quantized. They take on discrete values. There is a smallest possible area that you can have, which is proportional to the square of the Planck length, and the Planck length is something like 10 to the minus thirty five meters. Just for comparison, that’s much smaller than a giraffe. Now what I said in my previous video is that a minimal area isn’t compatible with Lorentz-invariance. It just isn’t. Because length contraction should make that minimal area smaller than minimal. Proof by contradiction. Maths 101. Cue Carlo who says that if you quantize the angular momentum operator, then the spectrum of eigenvalues is discrete and that doesn’t violate rotational invariance, and it works similarly in Loop Quantum Gravity with Lorentz Invariance. But it doesn’t. If you calculate the expectation value of the angular momentum operator, then that will respect rotational symmetry, yes. But that’s because the eigenvalues, here comes the relevant part, take on both positive and negative values, so they can average to zero. The eigenvalues of the area operator in LQG, in contrast, are all positive valued and have a lower bound. Consequently, the expectation value for the area in loop quantum gravity is bounded from below. It can’t transform under the Lorentz-group. Mathematical fact. Of course Carlo knows this. Everyone who works on this stuff know this. They just repeat this angular momentum story because it sounds superficially plausible if you don’t know anything about quantum physics. Now you can say, alright, the area can’t transform under Lorentz-transformations. So maybe there’s some quantum stuff going on and weird things happen. Yeah, actually Carlo and Simone said that in their paper. And that’s also why some people in loop quantum gravity said there ought to be deviations from Lorentz invariance. I tried to tell them long ago that this can’t work because these deviations would inevitably be so large we’d have seen them already. They didn’t want to hear that. There are still people writing papers about this nonsense. I just decided at some point that if I can’t stop others from wasting time and money, at least I myself can stop wasting time and money. So I’ve tried really hard to ignore this. But it’s so frustrating to see that this is still going on. They’re still discussing the same nonsense as 20 years ago! You can fix the problem with Lorentz invariance and restore the symmetry exactly. But then you will get back areas of size zero. And then you’ll have to show that in this case you still have all the great regularizing properties that supposedly come from having a minimal area. And for all I know no one’s ever done that. What happened instead is that everyone who works on this just repeats arguments that they all know to be wrong to keep the money coming. Because let’s be real, these people sit on cozy tax-paid positions with no other task than producing useless papers that no one understands and therefore no one dares criticize."

[@notanemoprog]

@@pokerandphilosophy8328 Oh, that's not from her first reaction video, but from "This is why physics is dying", very good that you have saved the captions. I just checked and she did indeed cut the video at 4:23 (a very visible cut) and removed this part: "But it doesn’t. If you calculate the expectation value of the angular momentum operator, then that will respect rotational symmetry, yes. But that’s because the eigenvalues, here comes the relevant part, take on both positive and negative values, so they can average to zero. The eigenvalues of the area operator in LQG, in contrast, are all positive valued and have a lower bound. Consequently, the expectation value for the area in loop quantum gravity is bounded from below. It can’t transform under the Lorentz-group. Mathematical fact. Of course Carlo knows this. Everyone who works on this stuff know this. They just repeat this angular momentum story because it sounds superficially plausible if you don’t know anything about quantum physics. Now you can say, alright, the area can’t transform under Lorentz-transformations. So maybe there’s some quantum stuff going on and weird things happen. Yeah, actually Carlo and Simone said that in their paper. And that’s also why some people in loop quantum gravity said there ought to be deviations from Lorentz invariance." It's really disappointing to see her engage in this sort of stealth editing.

[@MichaelWMay]

I'm still not understanding if negative values are used in creating the average and if this is normal in quantum field theory calculations. He doesn't mention negative values in his response here one way or another. He mentions zero itself and the smallest nonzero but not negative values.

[@pokerandphilosophy8328]

@@MichaelWMay Sabine mistakenly thought that all the values of the area operator in loop quantum gravity were positive. Rovelli points out that she overlooked that 0 also is an eigenvalue of this operator. This oversight means that her argument was unsound. This may be why she edited her video to cut out the whole argument.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Of all philosophers Forrest Gump understood the Nature of gravity best: '..Gravity is as gravity does..' We shouldn't think too complex when dealing with fundamentals. To understand, we should just notice what gravity does. Curt shortly mentioned the crux; It is BOTH the static contraction of spacetime AND the effect of an accelerated contraction of spacetime and anything in it. This dual working is crucial. It forms a contradiction; How can something that is contracTED also be contracTING? Moreover; each effect of gravity separately violates what we call 'conservation of energy'. Because a continuous contraction of spacetime is a perpetual effort to counter re-normalising of spacetime towards its un-contracted state. Likewise, the force aspect, causing a perpetual acceleration of spacetime and all in it, likewise suggest a source of unlimited energy over time. We can unify both effects back into accepted conservation of energy when we suggest that the one effect is the (inverse) compensating effect of the other. We kind of know a similar concept in math; complex numbers. So the contracTED spacetime is the real effect of gravity (actually a result of Einstein's Special Relativity) whilst the contracTING effect is its inverse 'imaginary' effect. These are the 'loops' in which spaceyime is wound up in like a standing wave around the speeding objects (or 'restmass' which is made of countless speeding subatomic speeds) . And in these quantized loops, the grid is defined by energy and clock by mass and as a result speed is defined by -J/kg there. -J/kg to be translated back into [-Nm/kg=-m2/s2] in spatial terms,. This is our virtual accelerating effect as per each loop, mach like a crowd surfing over an audience....

[@gteichrow]

So funny to hear Carlo mention that maybe Sabine “didn’t read the paper” and just yesterday I streamed a “debate” between Sabine and a philosopher (can’t recall his name) where the the philosopher is basing his position on likely the wrong paper. It’s all wonderful of course to simply listen to either of these great minds and have fabulous moderation like you provide Curt ❤

[@charlottesimonin2551]

facinating discussion. His verbal presentation is similar to his books.

[@isedairi]

Seems next in line is Lee again to give his perspective on this

[@Robotwesley]

YES PLEASE 🙏

[@danielhiram6469]

@@isedairi absolutely!

[@omftata]

I would like to know how Smolin turns around the Chinese experimental findings... Hope he gets better. A great mind, but wrong.

[@SrValeriolete]

He doesn't need to, in the past podcast with Curt he implied he moved away from LQG.

[@Robotwesley]

@@SrValeriolete ya… but we just wanna see Lee again because he is the best!

[@ARJ-Richard-Arendsen]

Carlo Rovelli argues that we use vague words when it comes to consciousness. I think most physicists use vague words when they talk about information in physics, especially in combination with black holes. Information is a construction of human intelligence and has no meaning without human consciousness and no human will ever experience the sensations of a black hole. I argue that physicists are not the most qualified scientists to advance our understanding of consciousness.

[@yeetdatcodeboi]

A stone hitting a stone is what we consider a simple physical interaction of a thing with mass hitting a thing with mass resulting in that thing moves a bit. A human talking to a human is a crazy amount of intricate physical interactions and forces creating sounds that travel and hit the other human and affect them, sometimes enough to move them. but its still just one thing moving in a way that it affected the other, but with vastly more complexity.

[@isatousarr7044]

The exploration of hidden laws of gravity and theories like loop quantum gravity offers intriguing possibilities for understanding the fundamental nature of black holes, including the concept of anti-gravity. Loop quantum gravity, which attempts to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics, suggests that spacetime has a discrete, granular structure at the Planck scale. This could potentially alter the way gravity behaves in extreme environments, like the intense gravitational fields around black holes. Some theorists speculate that these quantum effects might create conditions where gravity could be counterbalanced or even reversed, leading to the concept of anti-gravity. Understanding these dynamics could reshape our knowledge of black holes' inner workings and the nature of spacetime itself.

[@GentleBreeze-kr1hy]

ChatGBT?

[@lucabertini5209]

Excellent conversation, I have learned a lot. Very interesting the profound analysis proposed at the end of this video regarding the so called querelle between loop QG and string theory. Echo chambers can exists also in theoretical physics.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad you enjoyed it Luca!

[@Khashayarissi-ob4yj]

👏👏👏 So beautiful video. Thank you professor revolli. May god bless your life. Thank you Doctor. Hoping for more videos. Dear doctor, I would be greatful if you would make great videos in the fields of philosophy of science, scientific philosophy, Logic, Mathematics and computer science with the same seriousness as the great physics videos. I wish you success. With thanks.

[@monkerud2108]

You could have a medium for light propagation that does not produce this sort of effect depending on wavelength quite easily, you just don't assume the medium is dielectric, rather a different medium which doesn't interact with light, but which light manifests from, you can make the frequency dependence 0 or negative even if you want, all sorts of things are hypothetically possible, it matters more whether you can do that and produce a plausible model of the physics at the same time.

[@JerryMlinarevic]

On comment about light energy and speed: Imagine two caterpillars one with ten pair of legs and the other with 100. The legs move one pair at a time for both caterpillars. No matter what distance they travel they will arrive at the same time..

[@michaelkohn883]

Could not one say we “create” a “virtual” partial by measuring that particle at higher and higher frequencies. In other words the particle doesn’t exist until we create it by measuring it. Thus every time you make a measurement - despite the frequency - you find a particle.

[@user-bv1qy9ck2k]

Standar cosmological model + "Kerr to Schwarzschild to white transition during the thermal death"= CCC

[@corenno16]

I'm so curious to know what Carlo makes of Jacob Barandes' generalisation of Quantum Mechanics as indivisible stochastic processes, and if the same correspondence between stochastic-quantum correspondence applies to Loop Quantum Gravity.

[@lightlegion_]

Wow! Your work is fantastic!

[@ekekonoise]

Carlo vs Sabine, old pride rules: fight!

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

55:50 It's not so hopeless here. 0. Within the framework of “SR/GR was an overlooked QG”* there are no contradictions between relativistic effects and quantized spacetime. 1.Here there is an expression** rm=2m(0)r(pl), where m(0) is the own mass of the body (=invariant), r is the radial distance from the center of the body, m is the quantum of its total mass (M), as well as the mass defect (“mass” of the gravitational field) 2∆m: m(0)=M+2∆m. 2.That is, λ(0)=h/mc, where λ(0) is the wavelength of the quantum of the “static” gravitational field of the body. 3.Obviously, with a characteristic body size of l(0)~2r, we have l(0)/λ(0)~[m(0)c/h]r(pl))~ l/λ~ const(=inv). It follows that with relativistic length reduction, body size and wavelength are mutually reduced. 4. This is already clear from SR/GR: the concomitant relativistic increase in the inert mass of a body leads to an increase in its gravitational influence according to the equivalence principle. 5. Thus, the reduction in the length of the size of the bodies does not affect the value of the quantum of space/time r(pl)=cт(pl) in any way. 6.Length reduction and time dilation are two sides of the same essence, and both effects occur in both longitudinal and transverse cases. 7.Then l(0)^2/[λ(0)]^2~S(0)/S[λ(0)]~m(0)^2/m(pl)^2~{m(0)^2c^2/h^2}S(pl)~S/S(λ)~const(=inv): this means that the minimum area {S(pl)~r(pl)^2} is also “untouchable". 8. As for the relativistic volume, in SR it is an invariant quantity (see Pauli, RT). ------------- *) - Einstein. Relativistic theory of the non-symmetric field (General Remarks, D). The Meaning of Relativity. Fifth edition. Princeton, 1955. “One can give reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory for the description of reality. But nobody knows how to obtain in basis of such a theory.” **) - According to the final formula: ф(G)=-(1/2)[w/w(pl)]c^2, where ф(G) is the Newtonian gravitational potential, w is the frequency of vibrations of the quantum of the gravitational field. Can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment. P.S.One of the important regularities that the formula reveals is the quantization of not only the orbit, but also the wave itself (obviously, the problem of particle/wave dualism disappears at the same time): πr=nλ=(n+n')2r(pl), that is, λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl), where n' (=0,1,2,3…) is the orbit number, n (=0,1,2,3…) is the number of quanta. In other words, mc^2=ħw; where m (=M/n'=2∆m/n) is the quantum of the full mass [M

[@Cosmiccuriosity__c]

Wow, lets go!

[@jmanj3917]

1:48:09 There's no Way you guys can be wrapping up this conversation so soon...I'm not thoroughly confused yet! 🤣

[@mikhailfranco]

54:50 It would be nicer if area in LQG was signed area (oriented area, bivector). Then the area spectrum would be symmetric about 0 and expectation could be zero. Perhaps the magnitude is as given, but the orientation is introduced by helicity/chirality (spin circulation of area, spin along normal, some oriented aspect of the measurement). An helicity might be a Lorentz variant (usually _chirality_ is used for Lorentz _invariant_ spin/polarization of massless particles). Then it might be possible to combine oriented areas into space volumes, which may be scalar, or oriented (e.g. a determinant is often interpreted as an oriented volume). Then... 'combine' these with time for a measurement in any frame, to get Lorentz invariant space-time volumes, which is the correct answer. The benefit is that we want chirality to be built into the substrate of our fundamental laws, because we know the weak force is maximally parity violating (only interacts with one spin). Also see your pod with Woit about 'space is right-handed' which he derived from spinor/twistor theory of GR.

[@monkerud2108]

The vacuum could have no preference for any wavelengths of light with regards to propagation speed without an issue, or the dependence could be arbitrarily close to 0 until you get to frequencies to ridiculous that no cosmic ray in the observable universe will ever get close to it. Whatever floats your boat, and it could also have a cutoff where smaller wavelengths than a certain size simply doesn't exist, and becomes a random shock wave of sorts instead, but that could also be everything from how billiards bounce off each other to something mediated by deeper structure that non the less would behave like waves. The nature of granularity is up for grabs pretty much, the simple familiar wave mechanics of dielectric media and charges is a wild assumption to make. Even, of such a prediction turned out to be right for a specific frequency dependence, it wouldnt nail down the dynamics much at all.

[@Leadfoot70]

There is no theory of everything, I believe we are only iteratively broadening our understanding of the impossibly complex. Still love the show & appreciate the conversation. ;)

[@Orion15-b9j]

"They" actually want you to believe that there is no TOE. I am happy to inform you that TOE exist. Just go to Amazon, eBay or others book shops and type the title - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@BM-rm7vr]

I have found a surprising link between GR and QM that I wanted to share with you. I have a paper. I think you will like it because it shows that Carlo is correct in a way. Here is the key, use Landauer at Hawking temp. Using Landauer at Hawking temp shows a value on a 1KM black hole to be 1.74 x 10^-30J. GR per Planck Area = 1.261 x 10^-30J. A difference of .724. Then I wanted to see where the 1.7% efficiency came from and found it’s due to the negative curvature of the event horizon. The Landauer limit expects flat space but the lens effect adds that 1.7% regardless of scale of the relative cosmic event horizon. Gravity is an expression of ST uncertainty. When an object leaves our relative observable universe there is a casual disconnect. The system no longer knows the position of the particle so gravity is encoded at Landauer Hawking T x .724 to reflect this loss of information making sure energy isn’t created nor destroyed. If that object comes back across that relative horizon then the uncertainty is no longer there so the gravity bits are turned to quantum information and the relative cosmic event horizon shrinks by the number of quantum bits that used gravity bits as a stand in for uncertainty. The same thing applies in measuring spins of entangled states. When A is measured, B is non-local so a bit of gravity is encoded as a wormhole and then when A and B become local from the wormhole there is no more uncertainty and the wormhole evaporates. I see a strong connection to uncertainty is being the reason why nature uses gravity to mark an uncertain bit. Here is how an entangled measurement happens. A is measured and say Up emerges. Then the unused portion of A’s wave function, the counterfactual bit, A’s in the case down portion becomes the wormhole at the value of 1.261 x 10^-30J on a 1KM radius BH because B is non-local. Then A and B are made local and the wormhole is no longer needed and spin is used instead at the same energy as the wormhole. Then when B is measured, B’s unused portion of its wave function becomes a photon, for a 1KM black hole at an energy level of 1.261 x 10^-30J. It goes Spin, Wormhole, Spin, Radiation. It works for Fermions because Fermions are Spin 1/2. They have 720 degrees of rotational information, an emerged state and a counterfactual state. There are a total of 4 bits in the system U/D, D/D, U/U, D/U. But two are constrained, U/U and D/D. Those bits become the wormhole and the emitted radiation. Also, notice that A’s counterfactual could cause a clone state in B, except that it’s turned to a wormhole so A and B can be made local. It’s a perfect form of error proofing so cloned states can’t emerge.

[@SkyDarmos]

"We are not there by very far". He seems to think that such a theory would have to be found gradually, but we know from history that this is never the case.

[@PanthaAhimsa]

Loved this thank you!

[@danielash1704]

Just imagine going abo😅the black hole and look at light coming in and around it bends down or upwards depending upon your position in the mindset of what's above or below it will change many things in structure nice to see the striations longitudinal coherence of divisional seperations

[@Achrononmaster]

Hey Curt (just for Curt). @31:40 I'd say this is begging the question, what do you think? We have all sorts of evidence superpositions of particles is real, it is practically the _sine qua non_ of QM to account for superposition, and we'd say interference is the main evidence. But no one has ever seen nor provided any evidence for all of spacetime being in a superposition. So I'd _provisionally_ reject whole clothe this _myth_ that QG is about quantized or superposed spacetime manifolds (or spin networks, or whatever you like for the base marble). It is like Supersymmetry dognabit! No evidence, unnecessary, unseen. However, it is worse, since in SUSY at least one gets some curing of path integrals in perturbation theory. But in superposed spacetime the sum over topologies is completely untamed, and I would suspect untameable, and invites pathologies (such as non-renormalization, or no well-defined non-perturbative limit). No one even knows if 4D manifold topology can be classified. So allowing any wild 4-manifold is going to, I suspect, be unphysical (like String Theory swampland rubbish, or what I call a Theory of All Effluent). It is merely community lore and myth that spacetime itself is in superposition. I do not believe it. Call me a heretic. Where is the evidence? I understand near future gravitational two-slit experiments might finally provide some evidence, but it will be extremely hard to prove the effects are not just gravity waves --- which being waves can interfere classically. If the gravity waves cannot provide which-way information for the mass going through the slits then the experiments will be consistent with general relativity. There'd be some inherent stochasticity to gravity (like Oppenheim's idea). I can give Carlo an alternative to consider, which is that the topology of spacetime *_is_* the particle content. So because particles can get in superposition and can get entangled (ER bridge-like) we see superpositions --- of particles. Not of the spacetime itself. But this is "quantum gravity". The local topology can show interference, but not the global. A mental model is to just picture a spacetime cobordism region with loads of topological defects that can contain closed timelike curves. This *(a)* mimics QM measurement logic (in fact it is exactly QM logic, but I will say "mimic" because any measurement collapses & reforms entanglement and people get a bit triggered by the word "collapse"), and *(b)* shows you the superposition is only in local topological invariants, or Dirac currents if you like, not the global spacetime manifold. No wavefunction of the universe (apologies to Nima Arkani-Hamed's desires for wavefunction universalism.) Just my 2 cents worth. 2 cents goes a long way in the comments section.

[@myca9322]

i dont know what it means to say the topology of spacetime "is" the particle content; that particles can get in superposition; but spacetime is not in superposition. dont the first two statements imply [the topology of] spacetime is in superposition? if there is some semantic difference i am missing, let me be clear: Rovelli means that spacetime topologies (actually slightly more: gravitational field content) are in superposition.

[@shawns0762]

Dark matter is dilated mass. Dilation is the phenomenon our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". This doesn't mean that mass increases, it means mass becomes spread throughout spacetime relative to an outside observer. Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Dilation occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. The "missing mass" needed to explain galaxy rotation curves is dilated mass. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter. In other words they have normal rotation rates. All planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.

[@mikehipps1015]

When are we going to get an interview with Nima? I don't know him personally so I don't know if he himself is responsible for the tragically few long form interviews available. I get the impression that his exclusion has nothing to do with his personality and everything to do with a couple of things he's said and his refusal to be anything other than his authentic self. I enjoy your interviews and appreciate what you do. Thank you.

[@heywayhighway]

The Planck length is just the shortest “measurable” length. Does it really say something about it being the shortest possible length? I doubt it.

[@svladcjelli4236]

I've heard that if there is a "pixel like" quality to space, it would have to be quite a lot smaller than the planck length.

[@josefn688]

Quote: And the idea was the following. It was actually a beautiful idea. I was very excited when it came out. The idea is that quantum gravity in general, quantum theories of gravity, tend to predict that there is a minimum length. My reaction: I think that is impossible. The singularity presents us with a “zero size of the length interval” and it is immaterial whether that singularity is only one or there are infinitely many of those singularities, because they are all around us in any history since the “basic” big bang, because they are everywhere in the vacuum on Planck scales. 10-40 meters. The big bang is therefore the “beginning” and the “end” of our universe, (the end of the location now - today), is at the time 1017 seconds and 1026 meters from the bang. The joke is in the choice of units, the size of the units. If we choose otherwise, the universe will be 7 meters to the third and 2 seconds (also to the third). So Mr. Jaimungal and Mr. Rovelli, there is no minimum length (in general). Or: There is, but… Always with each choice of the size of the unit, a minimum length “for some thing” can be determined. Therefore, there are also infinitely many minimum lengths (depending on the choice of the size of the “unit”.) Quote: There is a structure of space in a certain length. My reaction: Sure. In smooth, non-curved space, there is no structure, because space is SMOOTH. And in every other, i.e. curved space, there are, along with matter, states of fields (4 fields) and matter, which is built directly from curved dimensions (Planck dimensions, sizes) of length and time by “packaging” dimensions. Quote: Now it is important that this is a minimum spatial length and not a minimum space-time length or space-time volume. My reaction: Why? And why is the structure not important for the “space-time dimension”??? You say that the quantum theory of gravity tends to predict… that is quite false. Quite speculative. Quote: Yes, very well, Curt.  There is a minimum spatial length. So if you measure something, you can measure a certain length, a shorter length, a shorter length. But there is a minimum, a minimum non-zero. My reaction: When our universe is infinitely large, big-cruich, (today it is a finite location inside the infinite 3+3 dimensional pre-big-bang spacetime) the minimum length (interval) will also be zero = infinitely large. In the pre-big-bang universe = infinite, smooth-uncurved spacetime, without matter, without the flow of time and without the expansion of lengths, the chosen interval will always be “near-infinite” = “near-zero”.

[@NomenNescio99]

I'm a youtube premium subscriber, so I'm used to listen to the audio only with the screen locked. But I get the message that background play isn't available for this video when I try to lock the screen. Curt, could you please check if there is someway background play can be enabled for member only videos? And also, thanks for the video, this is going to be interesting to hear. Both Brian Keating and Sabine has covered the topic without talking directly to Carlo Rovelli.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention. I'll look into this and chat with the KZbin support. I hope you enjoy the episode!

[@brianibach435]

background play has trouble when videos first go live. after that they usually work. I use vanced and that enables almost all benefits of KZbin premium which is very nice

[@mitsaoriginal8630]

@@TheoriesofEverything Look into John smith please!

[@ConceptuallyExperimental]

@@TheoriesofEverything Have they thought about the redshifting of light at far distances could that be a quantum effect at large distances maybe if the Planck scale can be somehow scaled up and that could explain the positions at both ends of the speed of light where the particles position is spin up at one end and spin down at the other end Just as planets make a spiraling shape when traveling through space

[@stellarwind1946]

Carlo is correct. The Shrodinger equation doesn’t say anything about multiple worlds.

[@amihartz]

MWI is like if people decided Einstein's field equations need to be replaced with magical angels that push on spacetime in just the precise way to reproduce Einstein's field equations. While in principle you could make such an idea compatible with general relativity, the real problem is that there is no evidence for these invisible angels so it is impossible to actually agree upon what their properties are. There actually is no such thing as *_the_* Many Worlds Interpretation. There are several MWIs in the literature because nobody can agree upon what the properties of this underlying multiverse are to reproduce the Born rule.

[@SkyDarmos]

Meaningful theories of quantum gravity reinterpreted curvature to be something very different. In Penrose's Twistor theory it was spinor networks that don't fit in neat together. In SPD-quantum gravity it is different densities of space quanta. If you just use curved spacetime, which even Kip Thorne showed to be unnecessary using his membrane paradigm, then you are willingly getting stuck in the past. Even major relativists say that the curvature thing is just an interpretation.

[@monkerud2108]

The reason for the phase shift of a waveform in a dielectric medium in classical terms is a reaction of charges in a material producing radiation that interfers with the original waveform, where there is always some reflection and some transmission of the combined waves, that is where the phase shift comes from, a non perfect dielectric medium with always always transmit some light at the speed of light in the vacuum, although the wavefront propagating at C in the vacuum sense could be vanishingly small. You can think of this as setting up a photo multiplier at the end of some material with some refractive index, and sending some pulse of light through the material, and then the statement that the probability of light setting of the photo multiplier as early as if there was no block of material in between is never 0. Light actually doesn't classically slow down in a material at all, it just gets phase shifted in a sense along the way by free charges or somwhat free charges. Same thing with a metal even, there is always some vanishingly small probability of a photo multiplier going of on the other side at a time consistent with no material interjecting whatever light was sent. Now there are complications ofc, for example sending light of a single frequency means having a steady state of sorts, with makes arrival times irrelevant, but lets not go there. When it comes to the vacuum, it is different, the vacuum described as a material is not necessarily built up of charges at all, and the assumptions of the vacuum even if it has a variable speed of light, acting like a dielectric medium is questionable at best.

[@danielash1704]

Find out which gases are able to hold charges in the sphereic case of rotational flow

[@Clayn101]

20:05 ❤ potential/kenetic = energy *entanglement = space/time 21:10 *actuation 23:27

[@ivanbolcina]

If space is not in a grid, then you need infinite information to represent position, speed, time... for either a particle or field or superposition of fields. Even if like he is saying, for measuring distances, since distance needs twice the information then a single point.

[@mikhailfranco]

The final question about the sociology of difference between, say, LQG (and GR-ists) and String Theorists (and QFT-ists) is simple, there are two discriminants: - background independence (mandatory) - discrete or continuous? (choice) GR-ists profoundly believe that background independence is critical. Any future theory must describe both spacetime _and_ the matter/energy that populates it, and mutually interacts with it - "spacetime tells matter how to move, and matter tells spacetime how to curve". Diffeomorphism invariance is a very difficult property to achieve, and Einstein did it in a simple equation. If GR can be moved from classical and continuous, to quantum, it must become discrete, and the only symmetry left to fall down to, is permutation symmetry. Spin Networks (like LQG) build permutations with graphs that have states on the edges, and intertwiners (spin operators, entanglers, topological knotting operators) at the nodes. Continuous properties only emerge in the bulk. QFT-ists believe in the continuum all the way down. Everything is fields, smooth, continuous and differentiable. The extremists only believe in the Schrodinger Equation (e.g. Many Worlders, like Sean Carroll). But we know the the SE assumes a background of x and t. Ridiculous and Impossible. Where is the x and when is the t? My naive impression of String Theory is it attempts to recover discreteness from topology and spectra: integers can only come from curves on smooth topological manifolds (homotopy, winding numbers) and spectral solutions in domains of restricted scale or energy (existing QFT, guitar strings). So either superficial discreteness arises from topological invariants over fundamental smooth manifolds, or continuity arises from aggregation of myriad discrete elements in the bulk. This philosophical argument has been going on for millennia. It is clear that alternating layers of reality can provide satisfactory models, e.g. fluid dynamics, over molecules, over atomic quantum fields. The same happens in Computer Science: synchronous over asynchronous over synchronous... I personally think that debate will never end. But at this moment, in this layer of the physics sandwich, the next move down has to be discrete. I am on the GR-ist background-independent side of the boat. GR is more profound than QFT. The next move will have a discrete basis, and QFT will only arise in the bulk.

[@billbodge3879]

Any theories where particles click on and off and the rate of phase change describes the mass of a particle? Eg. a neutrino is off for a longer duration than it is on compared to a heavier particle.

[@Achrononmaster]

@40:00 the MWI people are not "following the math". They like to _think_ the are, which is a conceit and somewhat a privilege of "smart" people. But they are not all that smart, no one is (which is why being a critic is almost always easier than being a ground breaker genius). They (MW'ers) have absolutely no account for the irremovable gauge redundancy in the wavefunction/Hilbert space states. Barandes gives a clear probability transition picture (non-Markov transitions) operationally equivalent to the Hilbert space state picture with no gauge redundancy, which can be construed as telling us the Hilbert space is unphysical. For MWI that means they are basing their ontological claims on unphysical mathematics. The entire purpose of a gauge is to handle symmetries or degeneracies, and how you handle them reveals the relevant physics.

[@Naomi_Boyd]

Any gravitational field would necessarily be larger than the particle that generates it, so why would gravity require a minimal length? It doesn't seem to make sense.

[@andrewbodor4891]

What happens then to the statement that frequency times the wavelength always equals 3x10 to the 8th meters per second? (The same speed of light) space determines and sets the maximum and slowest speed that a photon can move. Photons do not determine it on their own.

[@4pharaoh]

How to do irreparable damage to physics (or a child): try to force them to be something they are not. The caretakers of LQG, String Theory are simply bad parents.

[@shantanumukherjee1787]

Is the fact that the speed of light is unaffected by the quantum vacuum polarization effect has to do something with renormalizability of the QFT?

[@Loxo74]

With all respect for the knowledge that you have, where or how can we measure spacetime? We measure only Distance with every Moment we are floating through space! So how or with what can we measure space time?

[@SrValeriolete]

I will share this here because I have some ideas about qualia that are partially inspired by Rovelli's interpretation, but I don't know where else to post them. Rovelli is right that his theory doesn't directly address consciousness, and that's one of the strengths of the theory, as physicists don't want to postulate mysterious, unobserved observers in every quantum interaction in the universe. It's also unclear how doing so wouldn't spread a property we only observe in living systems-related to making decisions and having internal world simulations-to every quantum interaction. This would render most consciousness in the universe epiphenomenal and negate the role we observe consciousness having. He is correct in suggesting that thinking in terms of relations instead of substances helps bridge the gap between mind and matter, as was already stated by Madhyamaka philosophers long ago. He’s also right when he says that thinking in terms of relations and information flow can explain many aspects of consciousness, like our AI and computational models do. But without an explanation of qualia, these informational processes lack any symbolic grounding or what Penrose calls "understanding"-they are just Chinese rooms. There are many strong arguments about why qualia are important and inherently different from the other problems of consciousness (the "hard problem" versus the "easy" ones). There is no way to talk only in terms of unconscious interactions and, in principle, get a new, sensory type of output without postulating a new law of relations that bridges these domains. It’s true that not every quantum interaction necessarily requires a relationship with consciousness, but the quantum regime makes a bridge between mental causation, mental states, and physical information possible. We know there is mental causation because of voluntary movement, the placebo effect, psychosomatic diseases, and the mind's power to alter itself. Beliefs can even alter the shape of the brain long-term. We also know that physical information has to be converted to qualia by the sensory system, and the lack of a sensory apparatus renders whole dimensions of qualia (like visual or tactile thinking) unavailable. The brain/mind can recreate experience without sensory stimulation (e.g., dreams), but it cannot recreate experience if it never had access to a certain qualia space. For example, you can’t imagine some colors if you're colorblind; what you can recreate is fundamentally linked to what you could first receive via the sensory apparatus-which is one of the best arguments against idealism. Thus, we need a new set of laws that explain how physical information becomes experiential, how experiences can interact with each other and form symbolic maps that are deeply correlated to the physical brain but cannot be explained by simple classical information exchange. In the past, good arguments for physicalism included the causal closure of the physical and the incompatibility of properties between the physical and the mental, but both are challenged in quantum regimes. In quantum coherent states, matter becomes probabilistic and not strictly causally closed, which allows a possible bridge between mental and physical causation. Matter is not strictly defined and becomes open to influences from other causes. Furthermore, the "gap" quantum mechanics opens in classical causality seems suspiciously mind-shaped, almost like a lock to a key. Quantum mechanics does away with locality, and one of the great challenges to mental causation was that thoughts, colors, or any qualia are not localizable in space. You can find correlations, but the experience itself doesn't exist in third-person, publicly available space. In the quantum regime, matter also loses locality, so causal influence between non-local entities seems more plausible. If we need a bridge between mental causation and physical causation, that bridge must be found in quantum coherent states, because states that have lost coherence and entered the emergent classical regime don’t allow for such interactions. So, we need new laws that explain how mental causation works (I call it "qualia computing," inspired by the work of Andrés Gómez-Emilsson), how it relates to the physical, and how quantum coherent states allow the transfer of information between the physical third-person realm and the experiential first-person one. We also need systems that can sustainably open these quantum coherence states to keep the interaction going, with feedback loops sensitive enough to amplify those effects into actions in the macroscopic world-which explains the tie between consciousness and biological systems. Since we know molecules with quantum effects can drastically alter conscious experience, like most psychedelics and anesthetics, and we have also discovered quantum effects in biology (particularly linked to the sense organs, e.g., the olfactory system and magnetoreception in birds), it seems plausible, even expected, that the bridge between mental and physical causation must be found in quantum effects in sensory systems, information processing, and decision-making (as strongly suggested by studies on microtubules). How would these new psycho-physical laws work? We must have laws that turn quantum information reaching the senses into experience in a "qualia phase space" (look up Andrés Gómez-Emilsson’s definition of qualia spaces). Quantum information in the visual sensory system, for example, must be converted through a quantum coherence window via some new natural laws into visual experience, to which we could theoretically assign a value. These experiences can be woven together by the microtubular network, but they need the sensory input to know how to first access these specific qualia spaces and learn to compute them. These computations create symbolic mental images that affect the physical world again via these coherence windows, influencing synaptic firing, the release of hormones, etc. This type of mind-matter interaction, and the opening and closing of these quantum coherence states, might even be regulated by bioelectricity, which could help explain the remarkable adaptability and goal-oriented behavior shown in living tissues by Michael Levin's research. I just wanted to put these ideas out there, and I think this forum, with Curt's connections, is the best place to do so. We need a set of laws that transform qubits into values in qualia space, laws that explain relationships and transformations in qualia spaces (maybe via a type of quantum Bayesian predictive coding), and laws that transform outputs and decisions in qualia spaces into influences on quantum coherence states (maybe via a new quantum operator or something similar). I wish I had the mathematical and neuroscience knowledge to develop these ideas further, but as I don't, I will just share them here.

[@amihartz]

Qualia just a category of abstract objects. Physicality is another category of abstract objects: trees, birds, rocks, atoms. Mathematics is also another category of abstract objects: squares, triangles, functions, etc. Qualia includes objects like redness, loudness, hotness, etc. All abstract objects are linguistically socially constructed norms. Read Jocelyn Benoist. Qualia does not demand a "special" explanation.

[@SrValeriolete]

@@amihartz Qualia is not linguistically constructed, there is such a thing as non-verbal thinking. You need to get some space away from abstraction and get in touch with imediate experience via mindfulness or something. That's not to say it isn't causaly related, but the experience itself is fundamentaly different from a mere description of the experience. If a color was only an abstract object you could teach a blind person to imagine colors if he understood it intelectually.

[@SrValeriolete]

@@amihartz language influences how one weaves toghether and classify different qualia, it influences the shaping of higher level experiences into symbolic maps. People learn to distinguish, direct attention and cut the color spectrum differently and even associate colors with different mental states through language. But the most basic level of experience is not a linguistical abstraction. The pain of putting your hand on a hot stove is not a linguistically culturally constructed abstraction.

[@amihartz]

@@SrValeriolete You are confusing categories. Qualia has nothing to do with immediate experience, experience is its own thing. We can talk about the immediate experience of redness, but we can also talk about the immediate experience of trees, birds, cats, triangles, etc. This is not a property of objects of qualia but a property of all objects. The argument about the blind person also applies to all objects. No description of any object at all (qualia or not) can reproduce the real experience, in the same way no description of the Eiffel tower can substitute seeing it in person. There is always a separation between the language and the real thing. Again, nothing to do with qualia, it plays no special role.

[@SrValeriolete]

@@amihartz qualia is by definition the experience itself. Experience is not out there is the objects, redness is not a wavelengh.

[@stevehoward1980]

So does matter burn horizontal And atomic energy is a vertical circle Or is it combined in a black hole ?

[@IamPoob]

Great talk. I probably need to watch a few more times to soak it all in tho

[@ywtcc]

It seems to me that spacetime and probability distributions are fundamentally linked. If you're starting with relational assumptions, then in practice, areas and volumes are derived from timings. It takes triangulation to get from timings/lengths to areas, and another step to get to volumes. It's not possible to verify either area or volume without taking multiple measurements, all of which must exhibit probability distributions! Isn't it these probabilities that define this spacetime, though? A non zero probability is in this spacetime, and a zero probability isn't. If you're starting with relational assumptions, then it might make sense to say that the space isn't filled with vacuum, instead it's filled with possibility. In this way spacetime can be constructed from lower dimensional relationships and measurements. In a mirror of the process in which spacetime is verified experimentally.

[@danielash1704]

Bouncing principles of the universe itself has many facets of energy that is a weak or stronger product of energy a statically defined system and a charge of longitudinal structure with spins and curves Right on dude that is a factor of learning the way a black hole works as a non vibrations that attracts vibrations

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

Uh... we don't know if matter once it passes the event horizon will end up in a singularity. We don't even know if a singularity exists. We just follow what we currently know to logical and extreme conclusions, but nature has no obligation to behave in any such matter.

[@Achrononmaster]

@1:01:00 dammit! I see the argument for expectation values re: angular momentum, but not for boosted areas. The areas in spacetime are not particle properties, so there is no magnetic field filter or whathaveyou involved - but I am not even sure what he means by a boosted area. One can boost a particle like an electron. But it is nonsense to say you can boost an 'area'. You can boost three electrons which form a triangular plane and measure their separation I guess, but then you reach limits well before the Planck scale. I guess this LQG view of spacetime areas is just too philosophically naïve for me - the whole "area operator" nonsense. In QM the operators should correspond to _physical observables_ but to my mind you cannot observe an area. You can only observe mass-energy (and charge) relative locations. The spacetime algebra frame basis is just that, a basis, and if you force it discrete (as if it were a 'charge') so it has the LQG type of spectrum that's just an artificial imposition that is unnecessary, since the frame is only a basis. It is not inherent physics . So I cannot "go there" with LQG. Also because there are good reasons why singularities, (a) do not form in nature anyway (they are mathematical, not physical, q.v. Kerr), and (b) I'm holding out for Neil Turok to tell me how even Black Hole's have an analytic continuation and avoid regions of singular curvature, like the CPT symmetric Big Bang --- only Weyl goes to zero.

[@StephenPaulKing]

How does the angular momentum of a black hole "evaporate" away? This is the question that I would ask of LQG.

[@pokerandphilosophy8328]

This not a question for LQG specifically since Hawking radiation is a feature of pretty much all attempts to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. I would assume that in the case of a Kerr black hole, the Hawking radiation comes out from the event horizon asymmetrically, and therefore the angular momentum remains conserved just as it remains conserved when particles from of rotating dust cloud fall towards it.

[@VictorArdemagni]

Dr Rovelli doing what Dr Rovelli does best: mumbling vague platitudes, skirting around questions, dodging the point entirely, and topping it all off with sycophantic chuckles and shallow rhetoric. If you contradict him, he’ll claim he never said that in the first place. Occasionally, he’ll throw in random, invented claims, too used as he is to monologues rather than engaging in real dialogue (for instance, angular momentum-no, it’s absolutely untrue that it’s quantised). When you back him into a corner, he pivots to philosophy, epistemology, and pseudo-intellectual ramblings, with an amateurish dialectic style that might have passed 40 years ago, but certainly doesn’t hold up now. On one level, it’s always a shame to watch a man struggle. But then I remind myself of that unique charm shared exclusively by Dr Rovelli and ingrown toenails, and all sympathy vanishes. Guys, I envy those of you spared the misfortune of hearing him play the guru on the Italian scene. A first-class bluffer, long before the Chinese experiment.

[@kiandelacour2641]

The link in the show notes to "Carlo Rovelli explains Einstein’s theory of relativity" goes to a short from Razor Science. There is longer video at kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYGrmJmPZtKea7M "What is time, and why is quantum mechanics so confusing? RAZOR Conversations: Carlo Rovelli"

[@KaliFissure]

Time is a compact dimension. This creates limits. Minima and maxima. Lambda and event horizon. The gradient from minima to maxima is gravity. Neutron decay cosmology. A homeostatic universe maintained by the reciprocal processes of electron capture at event horizons and free neutron decay in deep voids. Lorentz means there is nothing past the event horizon.

[@Achrononmaster]

I like fantasy poetry sometimes too.

[@ivanbolcina]

@@Achrononmaster:-) is coukd be a lyrics of some deep techno

[@PhillyHardy]

Well how far do you have to go to the edge to believe without looking over the edge? If u look over the edge u might not be coming back

[@MichaelJones-ek3vx]

I Doesn't the support your concept of contextuality? Your paper on relational quantum mechanic?

[@LeBa-zd6wt]

I get light is a sum of an spectrum, and light behaving like wave could not travel at the same speed for al the frequencies, but how we see distinct colours at the same time in nature?

[@mw-th9ov]

I missed the part where Carlo explained why the Chinese test of Lorenz invariance wasn't a test of LQG.

[@notanemoprog]

You and Sabine both, apparently.

[@pokerandphilosophy8328]

That's because a deviation from Lorentz invariance isn't a prediction of LQG.

[@stormtrooper9404]

He is repeating the same argument from 15-20 years ago at 11:00 mark and on.. Much like string theorists, they can swap arguments and invent parallels as they like... it cant be tested anyhow 🤷🏼

[@stormtrooper9404]

@@pokerandphilosophy8328That's just not correct! Simple as that 🤷🏼 A large number of LQG scientists centered around Lee Smolin pushed the idea that LQG has to violate Lorentz invariance in order to save it from total failure.. (That was the chinese scientists disprove!) So no variable speed of light.. in simple terms! What's worse, is that left the Carlo's camp with completely failed theory! You simply cannot postulate a smallest area(loop or otherwise), as that is simply impossible with relativistic effects! So in summary.. they started with idea to quantized gravity, but instead they ended up with no-relativistic theory 😂

[@notanemoprog]

@@stormtrooper9404 "You simply cannot postulate a smallest area(loop or otherwise), as that is simply impossible with relativistic effects!" They do not postulate this. You clearly did not watch the part of this video where he dismantled Sabine's "argument" - he showed that Sabine simply misunderstood LQG theory, which is corroborated by the fact that she stealth-edited the part of her video "This is why physics is dying" in which her confusion was plainly in view

[@gariusjarfar1341]

A minimum length ignores fractals, cyber space/time is an offshoot of our space/time, a fractal part of 3.14159 at the X access. One tile on the tracing board. one angle of view, 3.14158, an uncomfortable position out of no thing. 3.14159 becomes an effect, a partial structure a wave, causing a second tile on the tracing board. It' number is 1.6180, tracing back it encounters it's origin because there isn't forward motion yet. It collides causing an expansion, an escape on the background of origin, no thing. A 3rd tile is created on the tracing board, 2.6180. Now 3 angles of potential exist in that which has no potential. The caldron bubbles, contracts and expands outside of and inside of that which is inert. Something had to happen, looks like that thing was observation.

[@mindyourself7063]

👍 I find myself wishing I could contribute to the conversation on the interplay of human cognitive emotional consciousness, as we embed in the quantum relativistic fabric of the universe. 🤝💡🎈

[@kenhoffman5363]

SpaceTime curvature, a simplistic concept for a universe of unfathomable energy, only exists in the complex mathematical language of its description, it is not the reality. Einstein believed that gravity is a force, and he did not want to see gravity turned into the physics of mathematical geometry which is what has happened. And it appears that physicists today still want to go deeper down that rabbit hole.

[@billbodge3879]

Question, do particles ever miss in an accelerator?

[@pinocleen]

Yes, as a rule, all the time. Only about 0.0000001% of the 10^11 particles per bunch actually collide. For example, in LHC, two beams of protons travelling in opposite directions contain thousands of bunches of particles. They cross paths in four points around the ring, where the major detectors (ATLAS and CMS) are located, equaling to about 40 million crossings per second, so all of that adds up despite the very low collision rate.

[@billbodge3879]

@@pinocleen Thanks. I thought they would miss each other but assumed there was more control over the collision. There goes that thought experiment.

[@mw-th9ov]

Carlo says both that "quantum space time is not discrete spacetime" and that quantum space time is made up of areas that include those having a minimum non zero area. To me that seems to be a contradiction, since a minimum area instance seems discretely different from the others that are said to be in possible superposition in physical space. The source of the disagreement is in a confusion between claims made about invariance. CR is claiming that invariance of expectation values of quantum states is compatible with a minimum positive value of length and area. SH is claiming that invariance of physical length (under boosts) is incompatible with a minimum physical length. She says nothing about the expectation values of quantum states. CR would have to show that his claim about quantum state invariance implies physical length invariance.

[@Vinterborn]

Amazing!!

[@alex79suited]

Great video Boys. Peace ✌️ 😎

[@TheMikesylv]

As a science observer it makes me kinda mad that it’s always said super position is a thing being in two places at the same time which is entirely wrong according to this interpretation. Which really does change F - - ing everything doesn’t it

[@Mikeduffey_]

👏👏👏

[@haraldericsson3052]

Red shift is just filtering out of ultra violet due to this granular structure. No doppler effect. No expansion

[@giovannironchi5332]

If you want to ask about category theory and physics interview Urs Schreiber

[@danielash1704]

Can they explain gravity deflection yet?does it exist can gravity be in multiple places in a mindset of vast amounts?

[@monkerud2108]

No its a quantitative qualitative prediction, it is a prediction based on assumptions of how light works on a grid, not a prediction from a complete theory.

[@totobibi507]

I am pretty sure the X rays higher frequency (wave-length10nm) go throuh water without being disturbed while visible light lower frequency (400-800nm) get bent and slowed down... So I would agree with you... Or I am wrong somewhere ?

[@missh1774]

42:40 wth...🤷🏽‍♀️Shakti is not an idea.

[@SkyDarmos]

Virtual particles have to be taken very literal. You can't construct a quantum gravity theory without them, because where else would you get your space quanta from?

[@consiglipergliacquistithereal]

But didn't Sabine Hossenfelder say that Rovelli's theory has been proven wrong?

[@TheoriesofEverything]

We reference that specifically later in the ep.

[@consiglipergliacquistithereal]

@@TheoriesofEverything can you post the minute?

[@2nd_foundation]

Is the mistake to take too literally the granularity of space, as he explained? In this case the meaning of " too literally" is not clear, invoking QM and a quantum probability distribution, but I don't see what is the experimental evidence for such arguments. It is from min 18 approx he refers to external commentators.

[@consiglipergliacquistithereal]

@@2nd_foundation From minute 18, he says that he doesn't care about the commentators which are not within the scientific community, but Sabine is still within it, even if she prefers to post youtube video, rather than writing scientific papers...

[@2nd_foundation]

​@consiglipergliacquistithereal yes it seems to be the case, but it is ONLY ONE SCIENCE, being supported by taxpayers is not a kind of license to kill, isn't it?.

[@Markoul11]

But, the deformed grid of space IS... the light!! In other words, the displacement of spacetime creates light. Also, LQG estimates the pixel of space being at the Planck Length. But, what if it is sub-Planck many orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length?

[@clintnorton4322]

I find it disturbing that physicists still invoke the magical state of superposition. Use your brains guys, math doesn't prove anything but what you tell it to. Then at 1:26:00. Consciousness is, in part, the ability to be aware. Experience emerges from awareness combined with something to observe as it changes. Feeling emerges from assigning value to experience. So the rock can possibly be aware of bumping another rock and have the experience of bumping but not Feel the bump.

[@josephboomtv7811]

Space itself having curvature has huge problems. ** Anytime I hear someone try to map this out it sounds like word salad, based on a ton of assumptions that have no real basis** ** you’re not gonna get quantum gravity with curvature you just ain’t - you haven’t yet for the last hundred years 😉

[@Orion15-b9j]

Your comment make me believe that you understand Physics much better than the most high ranking physicists. Probably will be good to inform you for the existence of the book with the title - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" (it is not related to this channel).

[@josephboomtv7811]

@@Orion15-b9j thank you that’s really nice of you. I will check that out. I appreciate it, sincerely!

[@MichaelWMay]

"Vague words" okay when describing quantum anything, not okay when describing consciousness. Got it .

[@richardcottone6620]

Isn't the plank length the smallest space

[@titusadeodatus674]

issue while retrieving the captions for the video = I cannot watch 😒

[@notanemoprog]

Working perfectly here, try reloading

[@hanochlivneh771]

Rovelli appears (at times) to make up his answers as he goes along. It is obvious that he was struggling with defending his positions in more than one instance and tried to change the topic to fit his "needs".

[@ferencmartinovic6267]

He doesn't even need to defend his "theory". It was so vague from the start and even full of math formalistic errors that it was obvious it cannot be not correct. All the ideas of his are just rephrasing of old theories and vague propositions that cannot be disproven just by their nature that they cannot be proven.

[@selman_ipek_]

@@hanochlivneh771 would be nice if you yourself were also not vague and pointed to concrete instances of this.

[@roderickbeck8859]

@@selman_ipek_ Stop being petty. The guy is being shifty. We are talking about clearly dead end research agendas.

[@selman_ipek_]

@@roderickbeck8859 holding him to the standard that he expects of others? So petty lol

[@farooqueparvez2767]

@@ferencmartinovic6267 you misunderstood the theory, I see his theory is much better than string theory which is unfalsifaible

[@billdrumming]

We never see it fall in because it freezes in time at the horizon.

[@danielash1704]

So the UAP'S must be a non vibration signature

[@jmanj3917]

1:55:55 Okay, nevermind...lol

[@RBRB-hb4mu]

I think I figured out Einstein’s Riddle, “Spooky Action” If you want to hear it!! SPACE IS BEING PRESSED UP INTO YOUR FACE CREATING THE ILLUSION OF TIME.”

[@KevenCMcNulty]

@@RBRB-hb4mu that’s pretty good!

[@TheMikesylv]

The matter that goes into a black hole gets turned into dark energy and thrown out the north and south poles dark energy powers negative gravity which powers the expansion and arrow of time. Black holes are matter to energy size converters, the engine of the universe