Great Physicists: Paul A.M. Dirac - The Taciturn Genius

[@BloobleBonker]

Listening to this I could feel my illusions of babble-physics crumbling while feeling a growing love and respect for Dirac that I never felt before.

[@TheMachian]

Thanks. You might like kzbin.info/www/bejne/mai4d4ioZ5mFY80

[@TheJara123]

What can I say, it is refreshing to listen to your views and what you are trying to do..fantastic...thank u...please keep up..

[@ClarkPotter]

Totally agree. I was a math and physics major and grew up reading pop physics books and biographies about these guys in my teens. I appreciate your original and discerning take on their ideas and contributions.

[@TheJara123]

@@ClarkPotter two things made me appreciate him.. First, it realy bothers me Fynman was not interested in the philosophical aspect. 2nd, Once I was at a seminar of Roger penrose and Ger. Het'hooft the phy nobel prize winner. And Het hooft said to few phd students "becauss you have ph.d in qm, you think you know it, but you know nothing..." He meant like we ( scientists) know nothing... Then he went to present a talk about automata and uncertainty principle. I was the only one who got an autograph from that day... These things makes me think more about Einstein, phil. And New phy ideas are needed (Hawking) Comment.

[@wallstreetoneil]

This video reminds me of the memes of the differences between Mathematicians and Physicists - where the math guys lose their minds when the Physicists start crossing out zeros and infinities. Shut up and calculate works for a while until you finally understand that you have no idea what's going on - which seems to be occurring right now in physics - they have all their models but they seem to secretly know they are all about to break.

[@joelmartinez2505]

I agree, right now im pursuing a physics degree and it is so frustrating when the answer to "why is this done" is just "so that it works". But i also completely understand we have to make concessions in the sake of progresss, specially when the events we are trying to model become so abstract i doubt we could completely understand them outside mathematics. Regardless, i still will stand in the side of people who think physics without a bit of filosofy is very empty.

[@joelmartinez2505]

@Phumgwate Nagala quantum computing? Solid state physics have been booming, its said we are about to get room temperature superconductors. Yeah, there hasnt been any new fundation shaking discoveries but progress is being made. A quick google search gives me a bunch of examples of progress in physics in the last 10 years: Direct evidence for black matter, quantum teleportation, negative index of refraction materials, or all the shit from the LHC in particle physics.

[@joelmartinez2505]

@Phumgwate Nagala did you forget the lhc part on particle physics?

[@joelmartinez2505]

@Phumgwate Nagala First: Maybe we are disagreeing in what is fundamental progress, and as I said, there havent been new paradigm changes, but the standard model has been a hit. Second: Where did you get the idea I am a conformist? I know physics is flawed and I actually dont like the standard model, its made of arbitrary decisions and patches, and it fails to predict multitude of events, all I said it is still progress... by definition! All together it predicts some things that could not be predicted before, like it or not. I am all for physics resets, you know, clean sheet and start again since we have messed up so badly, string theory is getting more and more popular when you have to add patches to the standard model every other day to even make it make sense, but so far it is far from advanced enough. I d love to see Wolframs work get somewhere too, but again, it is just not enough (on the bright side, it opens doors for more physicist studying computation and information based theories). I am all for new physics and I absolutly do not think every thing has been discovered, thats just absurd and i have never said anything thats even close to that. I hope I live to see physics tackle problems like the hard problem of consciousness. Third: I was just listing from google, like i said, so the point was to make it popular man, and since when is solid state physics something popular, there has been A LOT of progress there. Fourth and last: Well right there you might have gotten me, you might be an experienced physicist, while right now I am just a student pursuing a degree on physics, but that doesnt invalidate anything I said and i still kinda know what im talking about ( i.e, talking with professors about their investigative work, like string theory and solid state ). Now that I think about it, I actually do think you are an older physicist, because that degree of condescension is very particular of that group, so even if you are not (which would be funny), congrats! You have managed to be an asshole. ("If you’re the calibre of physicists...", honestly go stick those ad hom, out of the blue comments up your ass).

[@egay86292]

the only instance where the map is the territory is when the territory is a map.

[@niconeuman]

Your videos are very good!! Really enjoy learning more about the scientists behind the theories.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Ettore Majorana would be an interesting subject.

[@ericephemetherson3964]

1/137 is the number of increments the electron takes in distance to jump from one orbit to another. And the jumps are instantaneous.

[@pietropipparolo4329]

I'm glad I discovered this channel and your views on QM. Thank you

[@TheMachian]

Contento che vi piace.

[@johnlord8337]

The Dirac derivatives give great discovery. If Dirac can create derivatives of the mass and radius of protons compared to the mass and radius of the universe, and make further extrapolations and implications about the cosmos ... then the same methodology can be used in EASILY understanding quark space-time fabrics. One uses the same derivative formulas with up/downs compared to gluons in the same fabric, charm/stranges compared to gluons in the same fabric, and top/bottoms compared to gluons in the same fabric . Here you have fabric mass and density proven. Then one only moves over to physical matter and compares the new disoveries of boson hybrids being the tensor bosons, and comparing the electron tensor boson to the up/down fabric, muon electron tensor boson to the charm/strange fabric, and the tau electron tensor boson to the top/bottom fabric. You know the actual composition, mass, and radius of these boson (and sub-quantum bosino) particles, this further establishes valid data (backwards and forwards) for cosmic tension across various locations of the cosmos. Great density of higher quarks space fabric reside near galactic cores, while galactic arms have continued dminuition of the heavier-energetic quarks with the lighter quark fabrics and lighter cosmic tension. The revised, reformatted, and restated STD Model can be validated with further space-time fabric numbers, that also give up sapce-time fabric gravitational numbers. One can progress from physical matter to bosons to quarks and quark fabrics - or - reverse the derivatives and calculations backwards proving physical matter mass, radius, and composition. All of this furthers the validation that the statements of neutrinos/neutrons and photinos/photons being massless is false - and the true models, composition, with mass and gravitational force can be known - and rectified in the books. Electrostatics and electrogravitics prove the validity in resolving the Grand Unified Field Theory (and the Theory of Everything). There is no negation of any of the mass portions of physics, just correcting false or misleading statements within each sector, and making the common connection, leading to unification. The world is easier to solve these problems with logic and rational speech, than head-number games, or thought conceptual theoretical physics based upon opinion or belief.

[@madmaximus2836]

The Dirac Delta: An impulse of infinite amplitude, but with a time span that approaches 0 seconds and an integral of 1...

[@markhinrichs2085]

I had that happen to my guitar Amp once....

[@superneenjaa718]

Measure theory makes dirac's delta mathematically rigorous. Study it if you're interested, but I have to warn you it's a long and difficult path for anyone not trained in mathematics.

[@madmaximus2836]

@@superneenjaa718 👍

[@rubenanthonymartinez7034]

The mass of the proton is always 1,800 times the mass of the electron, I read someplace at this ratio is necessary to stabilize ( nucleus is a central ballast) the atom, which allow the Dynamics of the electrons around the nucleus to function it also maximizes chemical activity (valence activity) without disrupting the system location in space. Similar to the solar system and the Sun's mass! By the way this is a excellent video thank you!

[@m.a.nogales2539]

can you derive those values

[@egay86292]

"necessary"? as in "intelligent design"?

[@leouvarov8982]

@@egay86292 necessary for our existence

[@MacNif]

What is the ratio of Earths Mass to Our Sun? Is the sun 1800 times more massive?

[@rational-being]

Sometimes the shortcuts we take in physics work far better than we have a right to expect. For example, the Born approximation in scattering theory. If we could understand the underlying reasons behind this good fortune, we would probably make paradigm shifting advances.

[@tomfly3155]

No paradigm *shiting for us, till we are ready.

[@parkerstroh6586]

I love this video so much! I’ve been looking for a channel exactly like yours for aaaages

[@nd8166]

Just asking while keeping in mind that the nature of mass is not known - what is wrong with negative mass as a physical truth? Could the failed Dirac theories be working if he would have embraced that concept?

[@kenlogsdon7095]

Hawkings ideas regarding positive and negative energy have always intrigued me. Mass is a form of positive matter energy. Which is exactly counterbalanced by the negative energy spacetime curvature.

[@nd8166]

@John Ashtone , why us having mass changes the endeavor to find its true cause?

[@nd8166]

@John Ashtone idk what that has to do with it...

[@egay86292]

we have a cultural bias against negatives. Satanists have a much harder time inventing a god than theists have inventing a Satan.

[@tetrabromobisphenol]

A negative mass is not an acceptable solution because that's just not what we observe. Electrons are weakly attracted to other masses. If the sign were inverted they would experience repulsive forces to all other masses. Indeed inside of something massive like a star, they would just shoot out if they had a negative mass, yet they do not.

[@ThurVal]

Didnt Martinus Veltman said about Renormalization: Nonsense minus Nonsense gives something ok..?

[@BernardoTorres-w5e]

I liked the slow and pondered way this scientist spoke , because he talks about subjects that are recondite , so the slow way he talked about them , surely are appreciated by all of us that know very little about about those subjects , but do have a certain interest in them , nevertheless.

[@zyxzevn]

"One of them is wrong". Or maybe all of them are wrong. 1. Is wrong, because there is a delay with the transmission of the field from one charge to an other. This problem is also visible in the standard maxwell equations, that assume slow changes in the fields. In a way you can get some kind of magnetism if you include the delay of the fields.. Einstein avoids the problem by assuming that time is relative, so the field do not change. 2. Is wrong, because the movement of the electron out of a potential field also creates a magnetic field. This creates an EM wave. Even a magnetic field contains energy. 3. How does it deal with the electromagnetic energy?

[@rolandosalazar4538]

Hi Professor Unzicker. What is the difference between beauty and simplicity in physical theories? Are they related? Sabine Hossenfelder opposes the beauty arguments, but to me it is not clear that doing that is equivalent to rejecting simplicty arguments. Said that, I think it is sensible to look for simplicity in theories.

[@TheMachian]

There is a huge difference. I completely agree with Sabine Hossenfelder that beauty is not a good guide for theories; simplicity is. All revolutions were related to a simplification - this is easily definable by the number of free parameters: the less, the simpler the theory. More in my book "The mathematical reality". I'm Dr. , not Prof.

[@Mikey-mike]

Isnt beauty in the eye of the beholder? Maybe beauty is relativistic? Regarding simplicity, I share your sentiments: Physics theory is the search for simplicity.

[@shreyadas5065]

@@TheMachian I like that you mentioned simplicity and went ahead and explained it briefly. Physics is not something which should be described by abstract terms without putting the context and meaning immediately. And I also agree with you wholeheartedly that physics should be steeped in philosophy.

[@NondescriptMammal]

The geniuses in exile seems to be because they dared to exercise the skepticism central to proper science.

[@roundchaos]

'We now see that we have to change the principle of simplicity into a principle of mathematical beauty. The research worker, in his efforts to express the fundamental laws of Nature in mathematical form, should strive mainly for mathematical beauty. He should still take simplicity into consideration in a subordinate way to beauty.' The Relation between Mathematics and Physics, Paul Dirac

[@climatesystemcycles9080]

Mathematics is successful, when? Complicated to channel into simple? Everything else is an illusion? Physics isn't physics if it can't be shown simply mathematically? Isn't it?

[@RichardAlsenz]

Consider this. E=hv is Planck's equation which has his constant representing the irrational units, making the equation rational by using rational n for the constant. Then E=nv-n/Tp and then ETp=n, and it is a rational revolutionary geometry that Dirac and Gauss would applaud:?) And it is valid for any observer. No renormalization is required:?)

[@Tom-sp3gy]

The Spirit of Confusion entered the physics community sometime in the early 20th century and has persisted and even magnified over time

[@TheMachian]

Agree, you have peroperly identified the period. My upcoming book will talk about this.

[@johnrickert5572]

But it just goes away with renormalization. 😅

[@climatesystemcycles9080]

@@johnrickert5572 One is good! Mass is a problem that normalization tries to solve! Another problem is that it tries to solve it with an alternative! Instead of solving the question of mass in a general sense. To give an answer. What is it? What do we consider to be mass? Solving the problem with mass (in general) will solve other problems in physics. For example, in electrodynamics, this is necessary. Pozzz

[@roberttheiss6377]

Professor Unzicker, I need to know, do you have the fine structure constant up on your wall and worry about?

[@TheMachian]

Yes. :-)

[@rg3412]

“Negative mass makes no sense”. Well, maybe that’s something we need to consider. Andrei Sakharov did start a new model of physics with negative masses. Antimatter “of course doesn’t make sense” either. Until it does.

[@TheMachian]

With all respect for Sakharov, not all of his ideas must be sound. Antimatter still has positive mass. I am agnostic however on the topic. I one proposes a reasonable, testable theory with negative mass, so be it.

[@axeman2638]

I think you are definitely on the right track by going back to classical ED and trying to find where things went wrong.. I would however suggest looking as much at the experimental data and methodology used to establish the constants as the theory, perhaps much of the claimed experimental evidence is not what it presents to be, and perhaps there are classical explanations for phenomena attributed to quantum or relativistic models.

[@pappaflammyboi5799]

Are there any new physics justifications for regularization or renormalization to resolve the infinities resulting from the divergent series when describing electrons and other particles?

[@trucid2]

Renormalization is just a mathematical tool. Think of doing a calculation using imaginary numbers, such as one representing a phasor for electric current. Is our prediction invalid because we used imaginary numbers, which don't exist in nature? What about making a prediction by calculating an infinite series? Surely, infinities don't exist in nature. In fact, that's how math starts out: Some useful tricks or properties are found, which are only later given rigorous mathematical backing. Likewise, in renormalization, our theories have trouble calculating the masses of particles due to self interaction (I'm not very familiar with the topic, so this might not be exactly right), so we take the measured masses of these particles and replace the calculated masses with them. Why not use it as a tool as long as it works and gives correct predictions? Isn't ultimately that's what science is all about--making correct predictions?

[@JanPBtest]

7:32 I thought renormalisation consisted of including vacuum polarisation (which was overlooked), so it's _not_ ad hoc? IOW, using the same number as charge regardless of energy was just an error. No?

[@shreyadas5065]

I could'nt help but smile when you said that Dirac was not very communicative. I think it is quite normal for scientists of his strature to think about something 24/7 absolutely literally. Indeed, everything else would be and should be background noise. I even have the controversial opinion that work-life balance is an illusion not to be chased when one is thinking deeply about something. But that is just me! I wanted to thank you Dr. Unzicker for pointing this very interesting fact about Dirac's work. Indeed, at least in high school physics, Dirac is known for his work in atomic physics and not cosmology. It could also be just my own ignorance! I have just started the book 'The Higgs Fake' and I am enjoying it very much. No, that is not right. I am not enjoying, rather I am very much alarmed! Even the Nobel prize cannot be held as sacrosanct is worrying. And that is to say the very very least! P.S. - I meant Nobel prize in Physics, the one for Peace has long been controversial.

[@Cipricus]

I used to think: at least we have physics! In a way it's relieving, it explains a lot about the crazy world we live in, where supposed rationality of policies, institutions, industry, technology is coupled with delusion and cheap lies. So, nothing in sacred in the end, past rational glory gives us no confort, we have no last stand, no ready-made rational authority, it's all too-human and fragile and must be continuously, carefully cultivated and kept!

[@weijholtz]

apparently, the casimir effect can be deduced by setting the sum of the counting numbers to -1/12?? unsetteling to say the least. can you make any sense of this?

[@carly09et]

P-adic geometry... The problem is the universe is real and physics is "flat" earth science... [Flat earth starting from an incorrect assumption by design]. And hoping to spot a convergence. The standard geometry is the geometry of Euclid, it is 'flat' as an axiom(choice). The problem is the universe is not constrained to Euclid.

[@markmartens]

"...the fundamental problem is here that we have three laws of physics which are contradicting each other; We have Coulombs law of electrostatics which specifies the electric field. Then we have the energy density of the electric field in the middle, and of course we have Einstein's famous E = MC squared. But if you calculate the energy density of a single electron, and if you put in the electric field of Coulomb, you arrive at an infinite energy and that would correspond to infinite mass. That obviously makes no sense. And Dirac was very clear to express that." A. Unzicker

[@egay86292]

is there something preventing an electron from being a singularity?

[@sunilanandatheertha]

Eagerly waiting for a video on satyendranath bose

[@u.v.s.5583]

Plot twist. Unzicker: Overhyped physicists

[@Celtokee]

To assert or believe that the mass of (or number of particles in) the so-called "observable universe" is some kind of constant that has value, i.e., that can be used in any formula ... is a religious belief.

[@gene4094]

The ultraviolet catastrophe, that can split water for energy at the quantum level, is the answer replacing fossil fuels. Water(H2O) is the perfect fuel, as it has near equal energy as gasoline. Water also has a near infinite supply and after the combustion process, becomes water.

[@greensombrero3641]

Danke Schoen. Excellent video! Really appreciate it!

[@ianhall3822]

The reason that the proton is 1,836 times larger than the electron, despite having the same charge, is because the protons have to be packed together tightly in the nucleus, whereas the electrons are widely separated from eachother. So, the charge on the surface of the proton has to be far more thinly distributed, to prevent the protons flying apart..

[@climatesystemcycles9080]

That is an explanation that is probably correct. But still the mass is a problem, what should be given better answers? And what should be dealt with?Pozz

[@maxqubit]

11:43 it is Not a coincidence ... it follows from a basic principle (yet to be uncovered) If you have N nodes, and every node is connected to all other nodes, you have N^2 connections ... this is the underlying principle of the 10^40 vs 10^80 thing

[@u.v.s.5583]

First and foremost known as the inventor of the Dirac Delta distribution!

[@TheMachian]

I would not say this contribution to mathematics is his most important achievement, but I agree I should have mentioned it at least!

[@nafeesaneelufer5023]

Seems like electron has less rest mass energy and more kinetic energy whereas the proton has more rest mass energy and less kinetic energy.

[@fabianoprado4066]

re-normalization techniques are used a lot in statistical/condensed matter physics. Does the same kind of problem occur in this case? 🤔

[@element4element4]

There are no problems at all when applying renormalization group theory to condensed matter problems, everything is very well understood. When applied to particle physics, people still tend to use the old language, but we now understand what it all means very well. These problems were solved since Wilson, he even got a noble prize for it. People that still criticize the "infinities" in QFT use quotes and thinking from 1960s, like in the video above. And completely ignore the new understand behind it all. If they have problems with renormalization group theory, I wish they would base it on the more modern understanding of it, instead of quoting Dirac from 1968. There are hundreds of wrong quotes from the biggest physicists from the past, because the topics were not well understood yet.

[@dougieh9676]

Durak is one of my favorites

[@PrivateSi]

POSITRONS!..... Not one mention... This was Dirac's greatest prediction and 1st or 2nd most useful contribution after his tying together of Schrodinger and Heisenberg equations.. The one experiment I can't find that is the most obvious to me is a Positron-Positron collider... -- In my Positronic Universe model in the making Positron-Positron collisions with the right energy at the right angle produces a Proton by kncoking a subspace field cell free, forming a NEW electron-positron pair with the electron sandwiched between the 2 colliding Positrons.. The new Positron is ejected as each Positron (Up Quark) in the newly formed Proton is only half neutralised by the now fully neutralised central Electron (Down Quark).. The ejected, new Positron can annihilate with one of the two Electrons that were paired with the colliding Positrons, leaving a universe of Protons and Electrons... a Plasma Universe.. -- Neutrons are obviously a Proton and quite strongly bound Electron, with the strong force lessening greatly when the Neutron is not bound to a Proton via its Electron.. Now only the electrostatic force holds the electron around the Proton so it becomes Hydrogen or a free Proton and separated Electron after a few minutes. -- Hit a Proton with high energy light and the two Positrons inside collide, shooting out a subspace field cell, forming an Electron-Positron pair that stabilised as a Neutron, Hydrogen or if not on its own, an Electron and Positron (that may annihilate).

[@KalebPeters99]

I still don't understand what is so special about the large number hypothesis? It seems to me you could just as well pick the ratio of the neutron to the electron, does that not make it rather arbitrary?

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

How could anyone ever be Anti-Dirac after watching this?

[@brucejackson4219]

we live in strange times amigo: it's all a matter of opinion, but-for me- Dirac cannot be bettered.

[@giulianoardis370]

He was at the same level of Ettore Majorana in the knowledge of physics in many respect also as person's

[@_John_Sean_Walker]

Does Oliver Heaviside deserve a place in your (video)list?

[@TheMachian]

I think he deserves a place, yet a complete list will be quite long and it is not easy to do the ranking... will take time I fear! But a good suggestion.

[@_John_Sean_Walker]

@@TheMachian ✔️

[@u.v.s.5583]

Great fit! The guy who invented the integral of Dirac Delta, called Heaviside function.

[@patrickc5702]

Hello, Professor Unzicker. I have been thinking what it means for some wavefunction to be truly "relativistic" and I think I have answer that makes sense. So let me know your thoughts on it. It is a basic physical fact that it is impossible to calculate the motion of any moving body in the real physical world without describing what it is relative to. Describing the motion of the electron in a hydrogen atom would be impossible without accounting for the simple fact that the inertia of the electron is relative to the proton. And If all moving bodies follow this basic principle, than it follows logically that our understanding of time and space must also be relative. In this sense that there is no absolute time and space. Fundamentally in nature we can really only say there are two things, Mass and Energy. And the relationships and ratios between them. The mass of the proton is far larger than that of an electron for the simple reason that it is the only way to keep the orbits circular and stable. It is not a coincidence that gravity and coulomb's law are all inverse square laws. This must mean that both are related to the ratio of masses somehow. This explains radioactivity and it also explains spin. Radioactivity is explained because slowly over time mass turns into energy and the orbits converge together. Once this happens, pair production occurs and the gamma radiation strikes another hydrogen atom which produces a neutron. The emergence of the neutron explains why spin happens because the neutron orbits the proton at higher angular frequency than that of the electron. This causes a disturbance in the trajectory of the electron at specific periodicity which we associate with spin. I have more to say on this matter but I think it is the subject for a paper and not a KZbin comment.

[@TheMachian]

You correctly lay out what I would call Mach's principle, regarding relative motion. If you have a specific model of the neutron in mind, I am not sure I can follow that. Spin ,in my view is a consequence that we do not live in a conventional R3 but maybe in a S3 (see my last book "The mathematical reality"). feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo->email. I'm Dr. , not Prof.

[@patrickc5702]

@@TheMachian Ahh I see, I sent you an email which further clarifies my position. Thanks for making these videos.

[@fuccasound3897]

Ok, pretty heavy discussions here, all i've got to say is that the actor, Mark Gatiss looks a lot like Dirac and should play him in the movie of his career. At least he wouldn't have many lines to learn. Judging by another contribution here, "pass the marmalade." would be the high point.

[@smugless191]

I am not sure if it is correct to say that the electron has infinite energy under culomb's law. 1/0 is undefined, not infinite. Sure the limit as r -> 0 of 1/r^2 is infinite, but you need to redefine culomb's law to include a limit if you want to argue that it leads to infinite energy. That said, undefined energy is still a huge problem.

[@TailoredReaction]

0/0 is undefined. 1/0 is infinite.

[@erbterb]

Infinite electron. Dark matter. The electron not as a particle but as a point expression of an all encompassing force/field/mass. We see an electron by our instrumental sampling of an extraordinarily fast moving universe, much like a camera shutter. We catch a glimpse of what we interpret as a particle with no mass while we are staring at a detail of a large elephant we are trying to stick a tail while blindfolded. Now write that in equation form, bitte.

[@roberttarquinio1288]

Interesting Paul Dirac is my favorite along with Albert Einstein

[@brucejackson4219]

Don't forget Boltzmann...his death was so sad.

[@scottmiller2591]

I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture by Dirac on the large number hypothesis. He was quite voluble; if he was described as taciturn, he certainly got over it.

[@egay86292]

taciturn, i think, in that he didn't suffer fools the time of day, much like we don't recite poetry to monkeys, but limit our communication attempts to monosyllables. voluble at lectures because, of course, he was starring in his own movie.

[@scottmiller2591]

@@egay86292 He got a laugh from the audience when he referred to "that Wyle mathematician," pronounced "that vile mathematician."

[@j.douglassizemore792]

Enlightening presentation

[@Trimza42]

I was studying my for my PhD in cosmology, and after getting through all the inflation and vacuum decay, this always stook with me (I was practically laughed out of the university). I simply don't accept the mainstream science, I believe it's all based on faulty assumptions. I think there has to be a way to rewrite all of the laws of physics totally covariantly, G c and h should all cancel leaving only the fine-structure constant, which of course is still a mystery. There is no reason that modern cosmology behaves in the same manner as early Universe cosmology, take Mach's principle for example. I am still sickened too this day by the standard model, it's all patchwork and a sham. I don't have my doctorate, but I'm still searching for the truth, with or without mainstream physics.

[@algonte]

Totally agree: we have to go back to fundamental questions, maybe we have to wait to be "exiled" (retired, as I actually am ;-)

[@boomerhooked8115]

This and Dr. Hossenfeders channel are my two fav science channel

[@bokistotel]

Great video!! Learned a lot!

[@abeautifulmindispoetrydefi5323]

I think we've made some massive mistakes about "Light" and the speed of light being a constant. Perhaps in a laboratory we can agree that light is a constant, however it is not to say that outside the realms of the laboratory that light is variable and let me explain why it's variable we know that light bends as it passes a celestial body of immense gravity, that affect up light waves must have an effect which either slows light down or allows it to accelerate. To be completely black and white and dogmatic to say it has to be so, is not only niave but then limits our ability to understand true science in essence. Sometimes we get to bogged down in our attempts to pigeon hole or put into a box aspects of knowledge so that it theorised to the point that it can be fully explained away, what if that was never the real intention of science. What I am learning is that in science there are relationships between the sciences that we are not acknowledging and here we are missing the missing piece of the puzzle and that is a conclusion I have recently come to.

[@yash1152]

Hey! You should collaborate with Dr. Sabeena, the author of "How beauty has led physics astray". It will be awesome to see u two together, discussing and figuring out _what_ or better, _"how next?!"_

[@lotusflowerrr]

Nope. She's too mainstream so her content is now dumbed down for a wider audience. We're fine over here.

[@markmartens]

"...and the most important problem everybody's talking about,...well, quantum gravity. Because the two formulas of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are literally incompatible. Like fire and water." A. Unzicker

[@egay86292]

they are compatible if space is an illusion, and if wormholes exist, it well might be.

[@zetristan4525]

But the size of the universe is not finite, it seems... unlike what they were thinking then.

[@markm4603]

Plot twist: the universe is a sub atomic particle in another universe :)

[@derekbentley334]

I pause to write this because importance to myself. A railroad track with all the electric it can handle. To launch the rocket like the intentions a Mars colony in working form will be flights in planes not rockets

[@goedelite]

Distinguished physicists no long spend their time in universities, lecturing, researching. They have become producers of video clips for youtube. The money must be much better.

[@aaronhoffmeyer]

I do not know the pronunciation of all words for all regions. In the US, taciturn is pronounced with a short a sound, as in "at"... IPA - tæs ɪˌtɜrn, phonetic - tas-i-turn.

[@yawasar]

Mass of Universe 405E51 kg Real Energy W=3645E67 J Quaternion Energy |W|=2W = 7290E67 J

[@BartvandenDonk]

The connection of wave and partical is rotation or rather spin. Without rotation we will not find the answer.

[@rodocar2736]

Do you think that neutrino have no mass?

[@ignominius3111]

Dirac was on a goose chase. Subtract infinity? Let me know when you’re done.

[@jwadaow]

You don't have a problem neglecting infinity if you do not want it?

[@reframer8250]

haha, als ich gerade auf like drücken wollte, waren da bereits genau 137 vor mir:D Als ich mir in letzter Zeit mehr Gedanken über Konstanten und physikalische Größen gemacht habe, bin ich zu dem Schluss gekommen, dass es eigentlich eine irreführende Vorstellung ist, physikalische (dimensionsbehaftete) Größen überhaupt als konstant oder variabel zu bezeichnen. Was soll es bedeuten, wenn ich sage "Die Länge des Stiftes ist konstant" oder "die Zerfallszeit einer Teilchensorte ist konstant"? Das würde bedeuten, dass es eine Antwort auf die Frage "Wie lange ist der Stift?" oder "wie lange ist die Zerfallszeit der Teilchensorte?" gibt. Das ist aber nicht der Fall. Es lassen sich stets nur qualitativ gleiche Größen VERGLEICHEN. Konstant oder nicht konstant können also nur Zahlen sein. Nur Zahlen können einen "Wert" haben. Die Lichtgeschwindigkeit hat keinen "Wert". Sie ist lediglich eine Größe, die sich mit anderen Geschwindigkeiten VERGLEICHEN lässt. Ich glaube, dass es sich lohnen würde über diesen Sachverhalt genauer nachzudenken. Denn die Säule der SRT ist die Annahme, dass die Lichtgeschwindigkeit gemessen aus jedem Bezugssystem immer die "gleiche" ist. Dass eine derartige Aussage überhaupt möglich ist, setzt voraus, dass für die Lichtgeschwindigkeit, etwas wie ein "Wert" angenommen werden kann. Ist dies nicht der Fall, so ist die Aussage nicht falsifizierbar. Denn Größen aus unterschiedlichen Bezugssystemen lassen sich nicht direkt experimentell vergleichen, ohne das Bezugssystem wieder zu wechseln. Ich glaube, dass das Unverständnis über die Elementarteilchen in einem Missverständnis in der SRT liegen könnte. Ich habe Ihnen zu meinen Gedanken eine email am 10.11. geschrieben (Betreff: Zum Ursprung der Konstanten c). Wahrscheinlich war sie zu lange, bitte um Verzeihung dafür ;) Danke für das tolle neue Video!

[@derekbentley334]

Why I didn't need Dirac

[@baraskparas9559]

Einstein's equation is wrong. The energy is infinite over time because the core of the electron , one of the long lived elementary particles, is an eternal fountain of fundamental superluminal particles over a million times lighter than the neutrino. The only way you can have a perfect square root relation between mass and radius of universe and proton alike is if they have the squared relation between radius and mass indicative of the kinetic energy of the sum of the fundamental particles emanating or entering at the surface of the proton and the OBSERVABLE universe alike, that is 4 pi x R^2.

[@paulkestyn518]

Your point at 17 minutes about quantum gravity could find real world examples, perhaps in theentangled Crab Nebula

[@derekbentley334]

Einstein now found tech accommodations

[@david-joeklotz9558]

Paul Dirac was not at all taciturn. He was a brilliant man who gave great lectures. He just preferred not to talk for talking sake. Something people in general do

[@nikosk.736]

He was a taciturn. There's no shame in being a taciturn. Just because you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean he wasn't.

[@superneenjaa718]

You can give great speeches and be taciturn at the same time. The former is about expressing one's views, and the later is about not finding reasons to speak (subjectively) unnecessary things.

[@joestitz239]

He spoke sooooo little. He likely didn't give lectures.

[@joestitz239]

Light does not slow down by a gravity curvature.

[@SabirHassan]

nice show

[@onderozenc4470]

Einstein"s general theory of relativity is also valid for nucleus inside which quarks interact electromagnetically within the nucleus volume whose energy density is equal to the rest mass energy density of the nucleus giving nuclear density as a result. So, the energy density is essential in both gravitational and nuclear universe.

[@fabiocanedo6345]

This interpretation of renormalization was problematic but it is also outdated. The current interpretation is that of Effective Field Theories. In this interpretation you do not have any infinite subtraction at all. It is actually very similar to the concept of hydrodynamics, in which you assume that large scale physics can be understood without referencing the fine details of the whole structure. The "infinity" that appeared in the old calculations was an attempt to put the fine scale at zero, i.e., you were implicitly assuming your theory could go to the finer structure of space-time. This is something we no longer do.

[@davidquinn9676]

So where exactly do we switch from one theory to the next? Is there a realm for which there is no theory that holds? I guess the answer is that one theory or another is approximately right, and in the middle they're both equally wrong. That's not very good either, even if it's what everyone now does. It sounds like the same fudge as renormalization, carefully recast into another form.

[@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT]

Thank you for another very interesting video!

[@danmiller4725]

4 has two roots, positive 2 and negative 2. Thanks to algebra we have negative energy. Without algebra we might have had right and left handed energy.

[@bautibunge737]

I think that your explanation of renormalization is totally misleading, because its clearly an error to say that the bare mass is actually the mass of the particle. The so-caled bare mass or charge (the parameters in the lagrangian) are just free parameters in a family of theories. Take for example the bare mass. This parameter coincides with the physical mass when you work with a free theory, but as soon as you have interactions, that is not the mass any more, as the interaction energy will still be there in the rest frame, so it will change the mass. Now, you can actually calculate the physical mass from a given theory, but the result will obviously depend on the parameters of the lagrangian. Renormalization is the process of calibrating the theory to our physical reality (that is, selecting the parameters that fixes a couple of experimental results, like the physical mass, and then deduce from the calibrated theory all the other observables), with the added assumption that the physics on an energy scale much higher than the scale in which you make your experiments won't affect the physics at low energy

[@davidwilkie9551]

Very interesting. Logarithmic condensation wave-packaging formation=>modulation cause-effect of Quantum-fields pulse-evolution is made of 1-0 probability superposition-spin-spiral making.., if you accept e-Pi-i-numberness compositions of constants "made" of number pulse-evolution differentiates integrated Quantum Chemistry Condensates of phase-locked coherence-cohesion sync-duration resonances. Attempting to simplify ONE-INFINITY is what superposition-> Math-Physics does, but no one knows what they are doing. No number except as an identifier of the Reciproction-recirculation operation, log-antilog interference, has meaning. Precision of identity is not Accuracy of explanation of the ultimate operation. Then you can say that connection is unity in zero-infinity omnidirectional-dimensional Totality of ONE-INFINITY, the Singularity positioning Apature of Eternity here-now-forever and have to accept the evidence of empirical shaping laws squeezing everything together in a loose and liquid re-evolution circularity quantization cause-effect. Renormalisation is a consequence of having defined the meaning of 1-0 probability Totality and zero-infinity sync-duration Singularity, as the full information projection-drawing.., ie Holographic Principle Imagery. Of course it is a circular process that is the same mechanism as a Mathematical Equation. (Frustration ensured) Assertion is equivalent to theory or the Measurement Problem situation in which Precision is not Accuracy under the circumstances of WYSIWYG QM-TIME e-Pi-i-numberness resonances. Real-time physical manifestation perceived as Reality is composed of integrated coherence-cohesion via transverse trancendental information condensation of the Bose-Einsteinian Theoretical proposals. In other words we cannot be specific in categories of infinties of Infinity, hyperfluidity->temporal superposition probability, wave-packaging integration. Fuzzy concepts of intentions labelled any way you wish are the motivation to research theories like "the proof is in the pudding" of repeatable testing. A large number Hypothesis "merely" assumes the reciprocal connection properties of Temporal Superposition Singularity Superspin In-form-ation Universal connection is distributed and superimposed properties of Math-Phys-Chem and Geometrical Actuality, is probabilisticly true, and resonance Actuality floats on instantaneous No-thing, the hyper-hypo temporal fluidity that is The Observable Calculus of Time Duration Timing Conception. Holographic Principle is holistic, abstract concepts demolish coherence-cohesion objectives. Decoherence is the result of calculating limited abstract relationships. (Space-time is dualistic cause-effect "doomed" to re-evolve) The Universe is Expansion with component superimposed zones of Expanding information in floating wave-packaging. Eg laser cooling or heating Bose-Einstein Condensates. The "Order in Chaos" meaning made of time-timing sync-duration recirculation making is prime number 137(?). This particular phase-locked coherence-cohesion objective-aspect of Infinity category "suggests" a nodal conglomeration of Electron-photon-phonon-Proton Neutronic resonance in flat-space ground-state, Integral Calculus floating point, Fluxion Calculus instantaneous trancendental point coordination objective. Simplicity is a point positioning, vector-value 1-0 probability dominant size and direction @.dt zero-infinity sync-duration.., eg mass-energy-momentum Quantum-fields of calculation precision and descriptions of probabilistic degrees of naturally occurring quantisation accuracy. Dirac has defining conceptual significance, IMO. A fundamental contribution that requires a fitting into the broarder temporal QM specification spectrum.., concepts in real-time Conception. Like "The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step", the apparent physical concept of complicated distance blinds the Physicists to the simple Mathematical relationship method. Thanks for your presentation about such an "interesting" person.

[@joestitz239]

Gravity is a biproduct of quanta

[@ianbryant3258]

We're in a proton.

[@dinf8940]

your modern physicists: lets keep trying to combine crutches (relativity) with a wheelchair (quantum theory in its original form) evolved robotic wheelchair on square wheels (quantum dynamics), surely we will attain proper walking function then^^

[@ediakaran]

You're always free to show us how to do science better. I'm looking forward to see it!

[@C-man553]

Unzinger makes me shave my head with cheese grater.

[@evaniedermayer2936]

I'm impressed.

[@TheMachian]

:-)

[@stormtrooper9404]

Prof.Unzicker what is your thought on QM interpretation? Do you have a personal stance on this,and would also love to know what you thought on "consciousness" as a phenomena? Thanks alot and keep doing the good work!

[@Obladgolated]

From a point of view outside physics, it appears that Dirac's unshakable belief in "beauty" (or "simplicity" as you said) was borne of a belief that the fundamental laws of creation must be sufficiently simple that they don't need a God to engineer them; therefore he was simply trying to use physics and cosmology to prove his theological beliefs. As I understand it, Dirac used his faith in "beauty" as an affirmative guide in his theoretical work; that is, given the choice between multiple approaches to a problem where the correct path was not visible, he would always choose "the path of greatest beauty," so to speak. Yet in the end he failed by his own standard of evaluation. At least he admitted this. Ultimately his faith in "beauty" was just another faith, the product of his own imagination. Perhaps he would have admitted this too.

[@egay86292]

stealth Jesuit much?

[@davidsault9698]

If the Universe is infinite and the electron is not a separate object, but is connected to the entire Universe, perhaps the infinite energy and infinite mass of the Universe is what the math is actually calculating. Renormalization perhaps is just localizing the electron and showing a mass disconnected from the Universe. Maybe they should believe their own math more. Einstein failed to do that when he came up with his cosmological constant. (not a physicist)

[@lukeneville7081]

I disagree with your assessment of renormalization, you mention the pre Kenneth Wilson methods used by Feynman and others. Ken Wilson showed us that renormalization is better understood through the renormalization group where you consider how physics changes on various scales.

[@TheMachian]

You will hear more about this issue sonn.

[@drbonesshow1]

Dirac or Dirk?

[@Strutingeagle]

It seem strange that you would say that the energy/mass equation is Einsteins equation yet you give the impression you know about the physicists in history even to the point of criticizing them. What else do you have wrong?

[@Ernesto1317]

One of the last true scientists

[@yash1152]

4:50 what does this frame say? that why the top (e² ... ) and below (α) equation compue out to be roughly same? umh? i dont know about fine structure thing? any resources for it?

[@mblaber2000]

that's not only ad hoc, its a little bit insane...

[@stjepannikolic5418]

It is not polite to talk about the others when they are not around.. Thankfully, here is the video of Prof. Dirac's lecture. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZqbZ3SmqJx2g9E

[@BartvandenDonk]

My guess is that the distance of the electron cloud and it's spin must be related to the proton in the center of an atom. If we come up with a formula that would connect spin of both and distance and "mass"(I am not sure if mass is a thing of its own)... I think it's the right direction... And maybe this formula should also explain the interaction with other atoms.

[@SanjeevSharma-vk1yo]

He totally looks like Alex Malpas

[@derekbentley334]

Evolution cycles revolves around the person

[@clmasse]

Actually Schrödinger proved that his theory was the same as Heisenberg's one. See _Über das Verhältnis der Heisenberg-Born-Jordanschen Quantenmechanik zu der meinem_ in _Annalen der Physik_ *384* p 734 (1926) Dirac developed the transformation theory which is a generalisation of this correspondance.

[@derekbentley334]

Without degrees

[@RichardAlsenz]

No one is reading the comments? ( Stop using irrational numbers if one claims to follow the scientific method one is not allowed to use irrational numbers:?(