The problem with the theory of everything | Janna Levin

Gravity defies quantum mechanics. What does that mean for a theory of everything?
❍ Subscribe to The Well on KZbin: bit.ly/welcometothewell
❍ Up next: The invisible math that controls the world • The invisible math tha...
There’s a pursuit of simplicity and unification in theoretical physics, aiming for a single mathematical law to unify quantum mechanics and gravity: a theory of everything. But while other forces have been successfully unified, gravity resists integration - casting doubt on the likelihood of ever unlocking the theory of all theories.
As physicist Janna Levin explains, black holes, with their strong space-time curvature, provide insights into this challenge. Levin draws parallels to mathematicians' incompleteness theorems, noting the inherent limitations in such an overarching theory.
Acknowledging the complexity of the endeavor, Levin emphasizes the need to embrace and explore gravity's enigmatic nature fully. In doing so, the pursuit of unification might still yield profound insights, even if a comprehensive theory of everything remains elusive.
Read the full video transcript: bigthink.com/the-well/the-the...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
❍ About The Well ❍
Do we inhabit a multiverse? Do we have free will? What is love? Is evolution directional? There are no simple answers to life’s biggest questions, and that’s why they’re the questions occupying the world’s brightest minds.
So what do they think?
How is the power of science advancing understanding? How are philosophers and theologians tackling these fascinating questions?
Let’s dive into The Well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Well on your favorite platforms:
❍ Facebook: bit.ly/thewellFB
❍ Instagram: bit.ly/thewellIG

[@The-Well]

What do you think? Is the search for the "theory of everything" a worthwhile pursuit, or should we be focusing our efforts on other scientific endeavors? 🤔

[@The-Well]

P.S. If you'd like more from Janna, you're in luck! Check out this playlist for the other videos she's made with us (with more to come!): kzbin.info/aero/PL_B7bI1QVmJDEmPG-ND833lStOVPmYAl8

[@cranberriesdoodle1450]

Janna is a great speaker, great video! Here are my theories and I apologize in advance if this is long. First I believe they hit the nail on the head when they spoke of new thinking and having an open mind. Often lately in the tech world I see art imitating life and vice versa. Science fiction even plays a large role sometimes. So here's my theory. One common thing in my life with ufo sightings that stuck with me is for decades multiple sightings all over the world have seen craft "changing direction on a dime" keep an open mind here but to make that possible in my mind gravity could play no part in the craft or occupants therefore at a molecular level gravity cannot be present. So I believe through quantum entanglement that not only could molecules at the other end of the universe be controlled with fission or fusion and in a sense remotely power something millions of light years away using the entanglement. Also molecularly entangle somehow at the atomic level with the craft and occupants to somehow cancel out gravity at location B because the entangled molecules at location A are located in a void of gravity. Does that make sense to anyone? Also thought of how supercooling molecules that are entangled would affect the molecules on the other end. If entanglement were controllable you could simply turn a dial that would cancel out gravitational forces and make something seem weightless, but it would still have things like mass and inertia which I believe could be protected by having a halo type device that bends gravity around the craft to in a sense cancel out fluid dynamics, i.e wind resistance and over heating from speed. Also have a theory about quantum entanglement frequency, I believe if you can automatically control the particles of a molecule you would be able to in lamens terms vibrate molecules last each other.

[@JimmyMarquardsen]

Sometimes when you don't try to find the solution to a problem in a certain way, you find a way to the solution.

[@deismaccountant]

I still feel like it’ll be essential in a great deal of innovations that help life and civilization.

[@cranberriesdoodle1450]

@@deismaccountant true, harnessing gravity would give us endless power, better that nuclear.

[@paryanindoeur]

I am extremely happy to finally hear a physicist cite Incompleteness (and undecidability) as applicable to all models, and the physicists' dream of a ToE as unattainable because of it. I've been mentioning it on physics videos for several years now, and I get all the "only applies to" blah blah misunderstandings. Godel used a _reductio_ argument, using the simplest, most foundational model of all models, arithmetic, and said basically, if it applies to addition, it applies to all attempts at modeling, necessarily. I strongly suspect that, even within constraints semantic definitions, there will always be unanswered questions, just like there are infinite counting numbers, and infinite real numbers between every counting number. You cannot even narrow your scope and achieve a complete model.

[@aldonanedurna2269]

Love the way she speaks! :) video gave me goosebumps 🥹

[@The-Well]

Isn't she great?! Stay tuned, we have more from Janna coming down the pipeline! 😊🧠

[@JackTripperr]

She really is. I watch a lot of science/physics videos and her presentation is light years ahead of most....pun most definitely intended. Stoked to see more from Janna in the future.

[@zeenatali2981]

I love Janna! She’s like my astrophysics Aunt 💙

[@packetcreeper]

Seriously enjoyed Dr. Levin's book 'Black Hole Survival Guide'.

[@marishkagrayson]

The key to solving the problem may be understanding the nature of dark matter which exhibits gravitational effects as well. The standard model is probably an incomplete description or only a description of visible matter. With such large gaps in our knowledge, we can’t hope to solve the riddle of gravity just yet. 😢

[@gruppler]

The current fixation on gravity as the primary 'force' of astrophysics leads us down this endless rabbit hole of theoretical placeholders to prop up existing ideas. Meanwhile, we are discovering more and more dust in space that we couldn't see before. Take that into consideration with the theory of plasma cosmology and supporting observations, and the need for dark matter disappears.

[@rjung_ch]

Happy 100k subscribers, didn't see it until now.

[@The-Well]

Whohooo! Thank you! 🎉

[@abhayanand9585]

I love such videos and presentation

[@The-Well]

We love to hear this! Thanks for watching!

[@simesaid]

As Sir Roger Penrose has stated the issue, perhaps the problem is that instead of trying to quantize gravity, we should be trying to gravatize quantum mechanics.

[@Enoo-Wynn]

What's that mean in practice?

[@PetraKann]

Both theories are provisional and cannot be coupled together as they stand today. That doesn’t mean they arent useful - it just means that they’re not the final answer. Someone will come along and think differently about what is going on. Physics is the least complex of all the disciplines in science. The easy science - yet they appear to be lost in a sea of stochastic nonsense and theoretical excrement

[@captaincrunch6500]

@@PetraKannquantum physics can’t be characterized as “easy science”

[@PetraKann]

@@captaincrunch6500 Dead simple. The least complicated of all the theories in Physics. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is more complicated the QM. What you are confusing is the interpretation of QM - that has not been resolved yet ie the measurement/observer problem. In fact if you examine the mathematics involved in QM it is far simpler than that required in Classical Newtonian mechanics. When you move from Physics to say Chemistry the level of complexity increases by at least an order in magnitude. A similar increase is seen when you move from Chemistry to Biology. As well as from Biology to Psychology and to economics. Physics uses the most number of spherical cows to develop its theories and it can do this because of it simplicity. Engineering problems are orders of magnitude more difficult and complex than any dealt with in Physics - Do you now know why Mr crunch8600?

[@ncedwards1234]

@@PetraKann I get what you mean because of emergent properties, can what if the emergent properties of economics could understood by complexifying physics more? Can we logically follow physical laws to derive economics today? If we say economics IS a physics problem then everything changes, but it's really a matter of scope that depende on how you define physics. They're different labels for categorizing patterns of reality with different relationships, but you can go infinitely deep on any one topic and before you finish it you've nearly completed all other domains of knowledge simultaneously. You can argue "You can't fully understand neuroscience without a sufficient background of physics" but just as easily I could argue "You can't fully understand physics without a sufficient background in neuroscience." All knowledge is intertwined it seems, and so simplicity is a matter of where you draw lines at the edge of definitions and how far you generalize or extrapolate. To my knowledge there's no agreed upon method for doing this.

[@spartakus41]

Janna Levin is one of the most beautiful persons I have ever seen. Her looks, voice, manner of speech, the way she conveys her thoughts... It all combines so beatifully. Sorry for my English, it is not my first language.

[@The-Well]

We agree, she has a beautiful mind!

[@user-wr3dx4nl6l]

I am often amazed at the ecspance of my mind..

[@cmilkau]

The incompleteness theorems say two things: 1) To prove that any logical system (like mathematics) is free of self-contradictions, you need a more powerful logical system. 2) Even one of the simplest systems (natural number arithmetics, i.e. primary school maths) contains self-referential statements, i.e. their truth is not determined by the theory, you can choose whether they are true or false. That doesn't mean there are unprovable statements, it just means you sometimes need to make additional assumptions to draw conclusions when you wouldn't expect that.

[@paryanindoeur]

It says you _always_ need to make additional assumptions. That distinction changes everything. Every discovery ever has resulted in more questions. A topic tends to seem simple, until you make a breakthrough -- then your improved understanding results in more questions, necessarily. If you update your axioms to account for new discoveries, it still will not be enough. Ultimately, it seems most likely that Incompleteness is woefully understated. I suspect all models are necessarily *wrong* in some way or another, even if a new development is correct. But that's beyond what Godel said.

[@slopely]

Great video

[@The-Well]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@nicholasheimann4629]

I have been leaning toward the belief that gravity is a fundamentally emergent property.

[@GenusMusic]

100k! 🎉

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

4:32 "A purely algebraic theory is required to describe reality." (Einstein, January, 1955). Maybe GR was QG… “The geometry of space in general relativity theory turned out to be another field, therefore the geometry of space in GR is almost the same as the gravitational field.” (Smolin). However apparently, the gravitational field is space-time in the Planck system: F(G)/F(e)=Gm(pl)^2/e^2=1/α, that is, gravity~strong interaction*. This assumption follows from the Schwarzschild solution: the gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass: r(G)=2GM/c^2 Consequently: 2E(0)/r(G)=F(pl)=c^4/G=ε(pl)/r(pl): with indicating the mutual quantization of the mass (energy) and space-time: m(0)//m(pl)=r(G)/2r(pl)=n,where n-total number of quanta of the system; the tension vector flux: n=[(1/4π)(Gћc)^-½]gS ( const for all orbits of the system: n=0,1,2,3....). Moreover, the parameter r(0)=r(G)-r(pl)=(2n-1)r(pl), defining the interval of the formation of the system, at n=0, when r=r(G)=0 (for example, the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang) turns out to be a quite definite quantity: r(0)=-r(pl). In the area [(-rpl) - 0 - (+rpl)] there is an implementation of external forces, "distance": (-rpl)+(+rpl)=0 (≠2rpl). That is, the frightening "true singularity" is actually a superconducting heterotrophic "window" between the proto-universe (the source) and physical bodies**. P.S. As a fundamental theory, GR has the ability with just one parameter: r(G)/r=k to predict, explain new physical effects, and amend already known ones. Photon frequency shift in gravitational field Δw/w(0)=k; the angle of deflection of a photon from a rectilinear propagation path =2k, the Newtonian orbit of the planet shifts forward in its plane: during one revolution, a certain point of the orbit is shifted by an angle =3πk, for a circular orbit (eccentricity е=0); in the case of an elliptical orbit - for example, for perihelion displacement, the last expression must be divided by (1-e^2). ------------------- *) - GR predicts a new physical effect: w/w(pl)=k; expression for gravitational radiation from a test body. This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present. **) - From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^½ (w)=-[h/4πm(pl)]w. Final formula:ф(G)=-[w/w(pl)]c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, r(n')=nλ/π=(n+n')2r(pl)l , the corresponding orbital radius, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - obviously, the quanta of the field are themselves quantized: λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl) = 2πc/w, where n'/n - system gravity unpacking ratio, n'- the orbit number (n'=0,1,2,3…). Obviously, on the horizon [r=r(rG), n'=0] the "door" is closed, however, the quanta [λ=λ(pl)] can go out singly through the "keyhole" and form the first and all subsequent orbits (n'=1,2, 3 ...) during the time t(0)=r/c=2nт, where т=1/w, т=((1+n'/n)т(pl), spending part of their energy on it each time. And it is this mechanism that provides the step-by-step formation of the gravitational field ( expansion of the space-time): the phase velocity of evolution v' = r(pl)w. Of course, the quanta coming through the "window" are also rhythmically restored. Entropy (here: a measure of diversity/variety, not ugliness/disorder) of the system: S=πε(pl)r(t)=(n+n')k, where k is the Boltzmann constant. Obviously, with fundamental irreversibility, information is preserved (+ evolves). Accordingly, m=m(pl)/(1+n'/n), where m=ħw/c^2, is the quantum of the full mass: M=n'm [

[@galveston8929]

A Theory of Everything often time ends up being a Thoery of Nothing. A notable example is the string theory.

[@tr7b410]

It is my understanding that TIME is a primal element more important than gravity that gives this universe a solid appearance. Moving beyond the universe means going out of sync with the pulses or ripples of time that moves thru this dimension.

[@Vectorized_mind]

Seems you've been exposed to Kozyrev's work. In my opinion the only reason they can't unify their Theories of Physics is because at their core they are WRONG, a theory of everything is most probably going to come from outside of Academia and more so outside of the physics of community,their limited paradigm is what's stopping them from thinking out of the nonsense Einstein and Bohr left for physics. It's actually really sad that she turns to Godël's incompleteness theorem to justify why they can't develop a theory of everything cause in reality the math is not the problem the theories they use to explain reality are the problem. Physics needs to be redesigned from the bottom up if we're every going to have a Theory of everything at our disposal.

[@tiago.alegria.315]

And to unify quantum and gravity we may need to know what spacetime actually is

[@thescoobymike]

What if someone figured it out but just never bothered to share

[@alexinulla7839]

If gravity is just the curvature of space, then what if it’s not detectable on a quantum level because it’s such a small distance that it’s negligible.

[@schalufu4634]

Have you heard about monatomic gold and it gravity property???

[@das_it_mane]

What is she actually saying? That gravity isn't a force?

[@ucheopara6309]

It's theorized that electromagnetic fields can spontaneously develop from gravitational fields. This is actually a deep concept, considered seriously enough to have been published by accredited scientific journals. It's impossible to avoid getting philosophical for now: surely the creationism of gravity and electromagnetism present two separate layers to physical experience of the cosmos? Gravity is most fundamental, but this is one of those facts we may just never be able to prove empirically.

[@rainmanj9978]

Can it work the other way around? Can magnetic fields produce grabity?

[@ucheopara6309]

Actually, in measures below Planck order, it's theorized that the fundamental physical forces are all united. I believe that gravity precedes all other physical forces, because it is the one basic ubiquitous force. Dark matter existence would never be proven empirically for obvious reasons, but you should get the picture if you buy into the whole dark matter concept.

[@gruppler]

@@ucheopara6309 It seems to me that electromagnetism is the fundamental force, since it plays an active role at every scale of natural science, and that gravity is emergent. Some propose that gravity is the incoherent form of what we call 'magnetic attraction.' A fitting analogy is the difference between a light bulb and a laser of the same wattage.

[@ucheopara6309]

@@gruppler these are the kind of arguments I crave to put my resources into constructing, if only I could get into relevant academic communities. I don't agree that electromagnetism is most fundamental. It may be stronger than gravity, but it's not ubiquitous, if you believe in dark matter. It behooves me that some of the 11 dimensions of string theory are accounted for by dark matter, and some by antimatter. For anyone foolish/bold enough to buy into this, it's clear that the gravitons oscillate in all eleven dimensions, but photons don't access all of them. That's perhaps why gravity seems so weak on our 4-d plane. I propose that gravity is most fundamental and ubiquitous.

[@gruppler]

@@ucheopara6309 I don't believe in dark matter. I am of the opinion that the behavior we observe and attribute to dark matter is better explained by the massive amounts of dust we keep finding around galaxies, previously undetected, in the context of plasma cosmology. I do not believe in string theory either. I try not to believe in anything that serves no practical purpose in my life, and to hold loosely those beliefs that do form out of my understanding of others' work. I prefer a more visceral understanding of nature rather than the constructs of abstract math that seem hardly grounded in the reality I know.

[@reginaerekson9139]

2:57 does it have something to do with dimensional layering/multiverse?

[@PeterPan-vt6sy]

I think that a pure scientific approach to the universe is only going to show you a small part of the whole.

[@CesarGamezT]

Most of these are mathematical constructs, yet to have provable predictions.

[@CesarGamezT]

@@PeterPan-vt6syWhat else is missing?

[@PatrickMcAsey]

I'm not quite sure - or at all sure - what you mean by 'very few of us expereinced the Big Bang'. Did I hear this correctly? The idea that any 'of us' will experience a black hole is equally bizarre.

[@apurbadeb6479]

Great woman ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@sardesulasolgun]

🌱Love the whole world as if it were your self; then you will truly care for all things and over time you will understand the theory of everything better. But first you have to find yourself in this huge universe and without love it's not possible; once you have to be nothing to become everything and This is where the story of humanity's transition from darkness to light begins🍃 #BetterinTime

[@gathuckle2661]

Incredibly, I know what gravity is. Watch a video of a zero gravity plane flight, then think it all the way through with Einstein's equivalence principal in mind, and what gravity is will be as plain as day. Or watch a pilot barrel roll or loop an airplane while pouring a drink into a cup without spilling a drop during the full roll or loop. There's only a single conclusion that can be drawn from these demonstrations. What can it be?

[@eddybrock227]

Why do they put these white screens behind the presenter.Was there supposed to be cgi inserted

[@civanacikalin7664]

She knows it

[@LaboriousCretin]

Perspective. Gravity is about matter and energy and how densities can curve space. Quantum is about matter and energy within space and small scales. Mitchio is famous a search of quantum gravity that failed. But also constrains. They have solutions already. Just no short hand or simplified notation. Gravity will not change a bell test other than timing. Same with quantum eraser and quantum computing. Though get to dense and only specific particles can form or live. You really don't need string theory or GUT or TOE when most of the stuff/maths and logic are already there. String theory would be a perspective, but not necessary. I keep feeling like Einstein gave us what we need to know. Particles/mass and energy and how they bend space and effect time. Do gravitational waves effect particle production? They should. QM foam/waves and gravity waves overlapping. Though no clue if that will end up being the case. Just my 2 cents of thought. Perspectives, Perspectives. How many ways can you slice it and interrogate it.

[@yojimbo3681]

Is it because gravity doesn't exist, or at least, not Newtonian gravity, and it's just the curvature of spacetime that exists, and maybe it needs to be a separate thing, idk.

[@diplomatamaravilhosa2813]

What about Coulomb’s law? Pretty much gravity…

[@fandomguy8025]

No, the problem with incompleteness is the paradox of self-reference, a language/ruleset cannot prove it's own consistancy, only a metalanguage can do that. But that's not what a theory of everything is trying to do, it's trying to self-simulate the universe, which Alan Turing proved IS possible with his Turing machine. So this fear is unfounded.

[@bookzdotmedia]

4 roots of reality == Cut, turn, union, flow!

[@tiago.alegria.315]

Although the term theory of everything is misleading because i don't think it will explain minds and brains,for example and not sure about dark energy and dark matter

[@eddybrock227]

Theory of everything looses it's value we when we as a species are no longer in existence

[@abdul-kabiralegbe5660]

AI will be humanity's abiding legacy since they're essentially immortal and don't have the associated constraints on exploration of the universe.

[@lorenzovittori7853]

I think she misunderstood the incomplete theorems of Godela

[@rickyp3329]

😢 I am sure someone has the answer but cba with it

[@schalufu4634]

How is it possible the moon just sticks to the earth?? Why is this completely obvious not supposed to be there . ??????

[@TomHendricksMusea]

Summary Here are the key components of all my physics posts. Photons are eternal and outside of time and distance. The singularity of photons began the Big Bang. Photons created mass through electron positron pairs in the Big Bang. These electrons and positrons made the elementary particles which in turn made the atoms. Neutrons and hydrogen atoms may be the same thing in different form. The proton neutron bond in the nucleus, kept neutrons from decay and was key to building all elements. The missing anti matter is in protons and neutrons. Photons, electrons, and positrons, are all different versions of the same thing. The mass of the universe comes from photons converting to electron positron pairs in pair conversion. The energy of the universe comes from electrons and positrons annihilating and converting to photons. The force from the Big Bang singularity was photons / dark energy /anti gravity. They are the same. The force from acceleration is anti gravity, not gravity. The universe is open ended.

[@trendthis364]

Why can't paradoxes be mathematically proven.

[@Emc4421]

Maybe the universe at its core is one big paradox 🤔

[@The-Well]

🤔🤔🤔

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

It might be a causality paradox, while still not being a consistency paradox

[@fellsmoke]

Gravity is a topography...not a force...

[@FixingPhysics]

When you ask the wrong questions your get wrong answers. It's time to go back to Einstein's Theory of Relativity and review assumptions such as the Block Universe Theory which is the basis for much quackery.

[@deismaccountant]

So is she saying gravity as it’s understood needs to be reassessed?

[@Living_Connectedness]

There are a lot of people suggesting gravity is just density on display?

[@lovebutton]

Gravity is universal consciousness

[@komalpanchal1118]

I was thinking the same, what concludes you to this assumption btw.

[@twowheelsuicide]

Janna Levin 🫠🫠🫠🫠 she's incredible.

[@unclejuju12]

wait are Michael Levin and Janna Levin married? Cool to see them on back to back episodes

[@sofehamburg]

There exist matter and energy but everything don’t exist then how can you make it simple All said is a man perception of collective knowledge And that is an open door party of talk

[@christopheromnipotent4541]

Space is not a fabric but a liquid.Gravity is a ball spinning in the ocean gathering pebbles. It's not real its just a result like time..Just my thoughts

[@angusmackaskill3035]

water flowing down a drain. might explain black holes but still doesnt explain gravity.

[@JimmyMarquardsen]

Nothing can contain everything, not even a theory. Because "everything" is inherently infinite.

[@gruppler]

They don't understand gravity because they don't understand mass, magnetism, light, electricity... The "curvature of spacetime" is not a simple concept, it's a nonsensical concept. Walter Russel and others have offered much simpler understanding of these concepts, but 'scientific' dogma precludes acceptance of the simple truth. It's time to give these ideas their due attention and put them to the test!

[@bjornragnarsson8692]

Electricity,Magnetism, and light is our, most teated, best understood, and most accurate theories we have in the entirety of the natural sciences. For instance, quantum electrodynamics (QED) was the first quantum field theory to be in excellent agreement with both quantum mechanics and special relativity. Classical Electrodynamics is the only classical theory that has been correctly derived in curved spacetime backgrounds. Only when the spacetime metric is taken to be a dynamical variable dependent on the electromagnetic field do Maxwell’s Equations and the electromagnetic wave equation become nonlinear and tricky. In addition, the electromagnetic and weak force are the only two forces to be unified at the relativistic quantum scale above temperatures of 10^15 K. Similar to how people once though electricity and magnetism were two totally separate phenomena until Faraday and Maxwell.

[@gruppler]

@@bjornragnarsson8692 I don't dispute that those theories are well-tested, accurate, and understood. I am saying that what is not understood is the fundamental nature of the phenomena the theories describe. There is a difference between explaining and describing. Deep understanding enables explanation in simple terms. What is currently understood are the theories, not nature itself.

[@jbsnyder3477]

I guess gravity is God! Or maybe God is gravity?

[@ncedwards1234]

Aight, so maybe gravity is BS, got it. Sure hope the Earth at least stays round.

[@duckwalkerindian4689]

as long as d sayer is non condescending.... alls well

[@c.f.3503]

First

[@eluraedae]

There is no problem with the theory of everything. Just the belief of those who don't believe the theory of everything.

[@bakaleader6813]

1 rule to unite everything. Gravity

[@abdul-kabiralegbe5660]

So Gravity is Sauron?