After Dinner talk from the mini-series "Multiverse & Fine Tuning" from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project. A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration.
Пікірлер: 113
@Raw79910 жыл бұрын
Look, I'm a bus operator in Los Angeles. I love science, exploration and philosophy. Any attempts in furthering my knowledge in these respective fields have been earned by many hours of reading and rereading. Thank you for providing such mind blowing content. I look forward to listening to all your uploads. Gracias!
@nasrinmotlagh90682 жыл бұрын
👌
@nasrinmotlagh90682 жыл бұрын
I live in OC maybe one day I hop into your bus and talk about Nima, he is very enjoyable. I agree with you 💯
@jessewallace12able2 жыл бұрын
I like it!
@ralphclark8 жыл бұрын
having listened to many talks about string theory, quantum geometry and loop quantum gravity, I think this Nima Arkani-Hamed is either the only person who really understands what it all actually means or else he is the only person who can adequately explain it.
@ubah13378 жыл бұрын
+Ralph Clark There is no possible way of adequately describing anything 'quantum' without introducing its mathematical formalism, thus i'd go with neither
@ralphclark8 жыл бұрын
+Ma Te I have been shown the mathematical formulism. any fool can do that. That's not what I meant by "mean".
@inspiration18837 жыл бұрын
Ralph Clark Do you think he is a genius ? I like him, when he talk he makes everything so easy to understand.
@ralphclark7 жыл бұрын
Yes, NAH easily qualifies as a genius. Another guy to watch is Erik Verlinde who is working in the same field, although he tends to speak to a more mathematical audience. Sean Carroll is the best at explaining abstruse theoretical physics concepts to non mathematicians. I also want to mention that Roger Penrose is thrilling and easy to follow. Look up his mindblowing lectures on Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.
@inspiration18837 жыл бұрын
Ralph Clark thanks for your suggestions.
@climbeverest8 жыл бұрын
I love him!!
@shirleymason76977 жыл бұрын
I totally enjoyed this, and in some strange manner benefitted from, though I have no science background.
@Maxinator11-117 жыл бұрын
Nima's enthusiasm and personality make the topic fascinating.
@fungiside10 жыл бұрын
An accessible peek at the future of theoretical physics. Well worth watching, but best watched after the previous two videos.
@jayabalamurugan9743 жыл бұрын
Space-time is in conjunction with the intensity of different degree of gravity. Different space-time in different gravitational zone.no space-time if there is no gravity/levity.nima's fantastic lecture .
@afifakimih88236 жыл бұрын
This guy is purely brilliant...!!
@shirleymason76977 жыл бұрын
Some of you commenters are so brilliant, I wonder that you were not invited, instead of Dr. Armenia-Hamed, to give the talk. I'm sure he would gladly take the break and step aside.
@dontgetmadgetwise42716 жыл бұрын
LOL Well said Shirley.
@user-ik8vy1rg8f3 жыл бұрын
It's encouraging to hear that there are a ton of areas of inquiry that scientists know are a gold mine for exploration.
@grantbayliss61286 жыл бұрын
I don't understand much of what he is saying, but I am so grateful that he does.
@mehdibaghbadran3182 Жыл бұрын
Thanks regards from all of you , thanks Nima for your perfect explanation and hard work around subjects, and scientifi Ways of teaching to the others, I’m proud of you, all the best . Thanks
@jalalkhosravi64586 жыл бұрын
he considers all aspects of knowledge for his talking that is great
@walterbishop36687 жыл бұрын
It takes some balls to have an speech in front all these people .
@motherofallemails3 жыл бұрын
Why, are they better than him?
@BarriosGroupie2 жыл бұрын
He's a lecturer by profession
@TheMrasifali3 жыл бұрын
This is a real-life Cisco Ramon!
@nbob61867 жыл бұрын
Some nice insight here, emergent time is one of my favourite questions. Unfortunately I haven't got a clue how one even does physics in this paradigm. It's easy to write down periodic or fractal states, but it doesn't seem possible to describe systems that are non-deterministic but do not evolve.
@biller20005 жыл бұрын
I am very happy to hear that people are starting to think beyond the theory of relativity and they are also challenging Einstein‘s theories, because I think he himself would want us to move beyond his ideas, and to rearrange ideas into something that is beyond what he could have conceive and comprehend in his own mind. I get the feeling people are afraid to challenge his ideas and push beyond them. I think we have gotten stuck!
@capoeirastronaut2 жыл бұрын
"There is no future. There is no past. Do you see? Time is simultaneous, an intricately structured jewel that humans insist on viewing one edge at a time, when the whole design is visible in every facet." -Dr Manhattan
@naimulhaq96266 жыл бұрын
I am not smarter than Newton, Einstein, Feynman etc., but I am fortunate enough to have heard Nima speak, who gave me the insight all the great men dreamed to hear, but did not.
@robertflynn66863 жыл бұрын
I believe Nima is 100% correct on those comments . Quantum gravity. I think John von Neumann had spelled out the ways to do the transitions you discussed in the older dinner. Its the altering of logics. Neumann claimed classical is limited to boolean algebraic logics of observation. Transitions to quantum cases is done at the limits of noneuclidean logics of observation. Makes logics = observations. quantum logics was developed by Neumann and Birkhoff. All of this was written in book called 'quantum geometry'. What alters logics for gauges from/to affine connection limits comes next. Finally logics* for joining quantum logics and gauges to other nonboolean logics limits at zero or infinity. It may be infinite dimensional cases such as ' infinite lie-backland ' algebras for logics* at superlow temperatures not high energy. Logics should come in at limits before the mathematics is designed. Math, logics, circuitry, and physics are all interdependent with geometries and observations. Thats how I see the next step into the Planck domains beyond classic or quantum physics ; its at infinite or zero boundaries or limits,, where laws come and go as to lagrangian formulations is concerned.
@villageidiot2254 Жыл бұрын
This video is from 8 years ago!!?? Wtf YT algo? Trying to keep me delayed?
@BrandonSL5003 жыл бұрын
Didn't get any of it. Need the dumbed down version with animation :)
@dlwatib9 жыл бұрын
Well, the visualization of Space as empty is obsolete. It's filled with dark energy, much more dark energy than all the visible energy and matter in the universe. What if Time is a force generated by Space that pushes us forward away from the past and into the future? Not only is Space curved around heavy objects, but Time turns those curves into spirals.
@Apollyon-sz9sn4 жыл бұрын
Entropy is the causation of time, that is understood, you obviously don't understand what this talk is about.
@UseQPixinDune3 жыл бұрын
Ever heard of Minkowski space? I suggest you start from there
@alistairmaleficent87763 жыл бұрын
Bostrom sitting up front and center... I would love to hear a conversation between him and Nima!
@alistairmaleficent87763 жыл бұрын
@@ProxyAuthenticationRequired Haha yes, very likely. But Bostrom would make no distinction. The simulated Bostrom would simply be all the Bostrom there ever was.
@ANGEL-eh6pd3 жыл бұрын
Thank you
@ANGEL-eh6pd2 жыл бұрын
Well, I'm just curious about connecting connecting the theory to the human personality. Just curious about the connections.......
@numbstuffpeoplesay93092 жыл бұрын
@@ANGEL-eh6pd yes. Game theory Stanford experiments Decentralisation of economic relationships.
@slyy40962 жыл бұрын
Was pleased to hear I'm not alone. * forget what you knew * respect Tegmark e.g. / keep open mind Is there a name for a space of orthogonal radii? In 2D it's toroid. Perhaps it's hypertoroid. Imagine smallest/fastest piece as 1 revolution per tick (Planck time e.g.), info about last tick can't be lost, so it instantly develops orthogonal direction (extra dimension, perhaps relative time), which can be slower. And as it starts rolling (creating dimensions) anything, but reasonable, can emerge. Harder to project it all in mind, easier to build simulation program tho.
@AndyNastas40403 Жыл бұрын
It provides a tractable of "mirror symmetry"
@gammaraygem5 жыл бұрын
"a point has no dimensions. A line is made up of points." then i understood everything and ventured into understanding Consciousness. The one super radical thing that needs to be done, is that theoretical physicists have to commit the ultimate crime: they need to find the vantage point of pure Consciousness. In themselves. If they understand QT, they will have to come round to this position at some point. Stop this ever rattling instrument they use (thought) and come to complete inner silence and pure awareness. From this unbiased observation, a new matth will emerge that makes it all simple. For now, they are wasting a lot of time.
@Etimespace7 жыл бұрын
i just wonder. Did i found out how universe works?!?
@lucyoriginales2 жыл бұрын
😱😱 😱 😱 😱 Omg! My brother Nima is been set at a nursing home? 🤭🤭🤭🤭🤭🤭
@motherofallemails3 жыл бұрын
Einstein - QM is incomplete Arkani Hamed - GR us incomplete
@schmetterling44773 жыл бұрын
I would trust Nima Arkani-Hamed over Einstein in this case because Einstein was wrong about QM since 1905.
@motherofallemails3 жыл бұрын
@@schmetterling4477 Einstein allowed himself to disrespect QM in his debates with Neils Bohr while Bohr never disrespected GR even though all of physics starts from assumptions. I really wish EPR had been resolved during Einstein's and Bohr's lifetimes if only to tone down Einstein's baseless cockiness. The trouble with physicists is they repeatedly allow themselves to fall into a rut of blinkered thinking, especially when promising new physics theories arrive. That's why Arkani Hamed is so exciting, in the same way that Feynman was, they are the few that seem least tied down by the consensus of the day. Physics needs more lateral thinkers like them.
@schmetterling44773 жыл бұрын
@@motherofallemails What makes you believe that EPR is a problem, in the first place? And why do you put the false opinions of two old men who were far past their career primes and no longer informed about the actual level of physical knowledge over the facts dictated to us by nature? This isn't religion and saint veneration has no place in it.
@motherofallemails3 жыл бұрын
@@schmetterling4477 You didn't understand what I wrote, EPR was a problem until it was resolved, vindicating Bohr, it's just a pity that neither of them were alive to see it. Also, they were not old when they were debating, they were fully "informed" in their time, in fact they literally WERE the source of the information at Copenhagen, so you really sounds ridiculous. And nobody talked about religion.
@bobs28092 жыл бұрын
This is what Emanuel Kant said a few hundred years ago.
@numbstuffpeoplesay93092 жыл бұрын
which work?
@wills78172 жыл бұрын
@@numbstuffpeoplesay9309 Kant say
@jimmyfaulkner18552 жыл бұрын
Doesn’t this disprove materialism? Matter is concrete objects that have volume in space and time. If space and time are not fundamental then matter is also not fundamental. Hence, materialism is false?
@numbstuffpeoplesay93092 жыл бұрын
If you mean determinism by saying materialism then yes . Matter is not fundamental.
@mba3213 жыл бұрын
Back when people were still allowed to be within 6 feet of one another.
@lucyoriginales4 жыл бұрын
Is this just our “time”, right?
@ronaldpokatiloff57047 жыл бұрын
quantum gravity is projecting 3D objects from inside a sphere. Then time is the projection speed of forming mass inside an empty dark and airless spherical enclosure, after the big bang.
@zaidsserubogo2615 жыл бұрын
How is variant change and invariant change taught at undergraduate level?
@michaelhoulahan83003 жыл бұрын
Nima love you🌹💋🙏
@god_damn96613 жыл бұрын
when u are in the wrong place at 5:10 the guy bottom left: i came here for dinner...wtf this guy is telling us... ...i wanna eat dude come on...hey bring some chicken fingers for me and a glass of quarks and a dish of strings for Nima!!!!!!!!!!
@djtan33136 жыл бұрын
Wow
@danohyeah58935 жыл бұрын
it's kind of awkward without a blackboard and projector.
@DerMacDuff10 жыл бұрын
Awekward atmosphere because of this "dinner" theme.
@sagellivokin9 жыл бұрын
It's completely unnecessary.
@emilianocorradi40793 жыл бұрын
Awesome
@pfekk5 жыл бұрын
I find 14 bilion years old and at the same time be 92 billion light years across rather an odd comparison. Forteen billion years old is undersrandable, the word across implies a radius or an diameter or a circumference and an edge. When I went to school, I was told there was no edge to the observable universe.
@mstreech3 жыл бұрын
There is no known edge. The 92 billion light years is due to the universe expanding faster than the speed of light so overall size in the macro universe is not an accurate representation of age strictly speaking.
@schmetterling44773 жыл бұрын
Then you were told wrong. You would be correct that the age of the universe is, more or less, the only physically somewhat meaningful number if we apply a reasonable level of physical realism to the situation. The distances are not actually measurable, but the local cosmological time is. Be that as it may, the observable universe is finite both in space and time and always will be.
@bombus26606 жыл бұрын
Believing in space time might be like us once believing that the earth was the centre of the universe whilst trying to explain the movement of the planets.
@bombus26606 жыл бұрын
Oh, please do explain.
@mehdibaghbadran3182 Жыл бұрын
Some areas of science, is private
@AndyNastas40403 Жыл бұрын
9:03 Jordan Peterson
@davidwilkie95515 жыл бұрын
AdS Cosmological Constants.., the cause-effect, conformal coincidence of i-reflection/(turning insideout=> instantaneous reciprocal, temporal "mathematical" logic function), inflection = total internal reflection/interference, the Quantum Operator projection drawing wave-package of temporal Superposition-point Singularity cause-effect of e-Pi-i resonance imaging. (An idea partially derived from the Prof's Amplitehedron (de)conception of de Sitter Spacetime? Fun to Imagine..) "Emergent Time", as terminology, can only apply to the effective continuity of structures observably, not to the mechanically implied time duration timing eversion of the Singularity/i-reflection multi-phase continuous creation => vanishing point, the functional delay-> distributed connection of modulated QM-Time, here-eternally-now. (And it's almost the same approach, adding +/-symmetry of metastable stasis, to self-define a description of Entanglement) WYSIWYG continuous creation (partial idea from Fred Hoyle), re-badged -> Timespace. (Same old thing really)
@MrMollytov3 жыл бұрын
time to shave
@tac60442 жыл бұрын
Umm ah umm ahh ahh umm
@da10w49 жыл бұрын
UH, UHM, Uh, UHM
@DerMacDuff10 жыл бұрын
STRING THEORY
@JonathanLangdale9 жыл бұрын
He's wrong. Super-determinism, if true, destroys his argument. To not even reference it in this talk is stunning.
@JonathanLangdale9 жыл бұрын
Ah yes, I see what you're saying. I never thought about it that way. You make a great point, I don't know what I was thinking. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.
@JonathanLangdale9 жыл бұрын
An observer in a super-deterministic system is a limited observer. It is obvious that they cannot know all information about the system. This is like saying a black hole can observe & know itself, which it cannot do. Super-determinism is as much speculation as is non-super-determinism. This is obviously a fundamental and as of yet unanswered question. I am free to speculate that he is wrong and that super-determinism will be measured. There is an experiment devised to test for this using distant cosmological objects. Bell mentioned that his experiment would be impacted if the observer had no choice about setting up the EPR experiment. Arguably, the laws of thermodynamics are evidential support for it. That we cannot predict specific quantum outcome beyond probability is indirect experimental data that we love to suggest deterministic is false because we're in love with the illusion of free will. Despite clear experimental data of human choice being determined by initial conditions that show we have no free will, we continue to reject this. So why would determinism be different? Assuming they successfully performed the cosmological experiment and it showed determinism is true, people would still reject it.
@georgert9 жыл бұрын
Jonathan Langdale I am feeling annoyed that the universe decreed that I would be annoyed by reading your comment about a totally speculative concept.
@JonathanLangdale9 жыл бұрын
I'm not at all annoyed because it could not have been any other way.
@numbstuffpeoplesay93092 жыл бұрын
He did say something about superdeterminism- around 9:00 he said : we would never be able to measure the observables unless we have a God-like view to the outside of the Universe.
@dong.75197 жыл бұрын
finally kept it real.. 😉😉😉 I still want my bottle and strippers. .
@rubine20003 жыл бұрын
He says nothing
@jonathonjubb66268 жыл бұрын
but he didn't say anything. Well nothing that advanced the state of my knowledge anyway....
@smittymcjob25823 жыл бұрын
his point was: The abstraction called space-time may in fact be what is hindering efforts to reconcile gravity with quantum physics. His suggestion was to maybe look for an abstraction that reduces to space-time under some simplifying assumptions and one that hopefully is obviously related to quantum physics. His point was to suggest a possible path forward to people working towards a solution. I agree that it would be useless to someone like you just waiting to see what them people looking for a solution can come up.
@Aluminata8 жыл бұрын
String -ahh...umm...Theory - it's a,uh, ahh... good yarn.
@Maxinator11-117 жыл бұрын
I suppose he never went to Toastmasters to become a perfect professional speaker - he focuses on content.
@owenpeter37 жыл бұрын
I'm sure he can write better than he can speak, at least I hope so.
@noureddine77293 жыл бұрын
@Stephen Crowley you are pathetic
@1OldWriter8 жыл бұрын
I gave up one him as he himed and hawed at the beginning. I understand about being nervous but he came off as stupid no matter how intelligent he really is. I consider this kind of speaker a waste of my time.
@shirleymason76977 жыл бұрын
Ed Parachini .......WOW ! I can't believe you said that ! You let your petty annoyance focus on delivery, rather than hear/feel his spontaneity, and his brilliance in arranging thoughts so others, not on his level, will gain something. You try that !
@shirleymason76977 жыл бұрын
Ed Parachini ........the man is not a twit nervous.
@dontgetmadgetwise42716 жыл бұрын
Shirley, please don't let Ed waste YOUR time. As it also did mine! :P