Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?

@@SpotterVideo There was a band called the Tubes... Is this the new string theory, except 3 or 4D? Lots of questions, seems like you have them too.

@@SpotterVideo The idea that particles are just bends/oscillations in one or more fabrics of spacetime seems to be the prevailing idea, Matt even says as much at 7:33 . With gravity itself being a bend in spacetime, this would by definition make gravity an extension of the bending in the oscillating fields, (unless each of the "fields" are somehow independent of spacetime). P.S. Matt has talked about the possibilities of neutrinos being dark matter before. Matt's talked about neutrinos and dark matter before, also that has nothing to do with the rest of your "question". The idea that particles are just bends/oscillations in one or more fabrics of spacetime seems to be the prevailing idea, Matt even says as much at 7:33 . With gravity itself being a bend in spacetime, this would by definition make gravity an extension of the bending in the oscillating fields, unless each of the "fields" are somehow independent of spacetime. That being said you are not going to win the Nobel Prize in physics without at least some math people haven't seen before, and some evidence to back it up. If visualizations and interpretations of reality where all that was needed to win, the prize would just go to whoever had the most weed.

I am trying to study and get career in it.

@@castonyoung7514 My degree is in Biology. However, I have an interest in Particle Physics. I have never expected to win a Nobel Prize in Physics. This concept is intended as a starting point for someone else who is mathematically gifted.

We live in a golden age of information.

Some people say we are the universe trying to understand itself.

Now we just have to ensure that our global populations have access to the early education that empowers them to understand this material. But this first step is great. Let's get to the next step !

The Internet is like a primitive form of collective consciousness. Exciting times!

Humanity is advancing at a rapid rate, love it

Should be done to Planck Length. Remember the UV disaster.

Sorry - I don't think that is linear regression. They aren't trying to see if there is a relationship between degree of pixel spacing and mass prediction - there is a relationship in the data points by definition. What I think the are doing is simply using the data points to allow them extrapolate to "infinity". Defining zero as infinity makes it a bit easier and having control over the units of the x axis is also helpful in this endeavour.

O shut up deso

There are several other examples. One is the extrapolation of gas volume to 0 to estimate the 0 kelvin.

The same method is horribly imprecise when attempting to calculate nuclear magnetic moments. Also, chiral EFT diverges from experiment down near the low nuclear energies of normal matter. This is why you hardly ever hear about low energy nuclear physics.

i burst out laughing when your name came on screen in the video

I lol'd at your correction. Well played, I Booba, well played.👏

About your comment in the video, wouldn't it be enough to say that absolute zero being equal to no motion would violate uncertainty principle? Obviously your explanation is better and gives further explanation, but for a quick counter example would this be sufficient?

I have no clue what he is saying this entire time

@@social7921 99% of people dont either

@@clown134 Well, quantum theories themselves say that reality at that scale is indetermined. Maybe we're just measuring the wrong way, but probably not, based on what I've studied.

Quarks by Herald Fritsch is a great book for an introduction to QCD

😄a general audience will be more favorable

Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?

Smallest points with 6 directions could make a structure. In that case, the entire universe grows as a box, and makes a flat universe. There is a theory that can prove it.

I dropped out of college because it was far more efficient to find instructors & learning materials online which best suited my learning style - far easier & faster to absorb information. So much high quality & free educational resources, for autodidacts, here on the web.

You have so many videos to watch, I discovered the channel in 2020 and watch it since then. It wastly expanded my knowlegde about... spacetime.

You're in for a real treat!!

Best humbling channel ever 😂😂😂

That is how it should be done in the first place. i feel you.

Human fee-fees are powerful.

@@woodypigeon it is quite possible we will never understand quantum mechanics since theres evidence the interactions are influenced in the 5th dimension or even higher

@@woodypigeon its not mysterious or fictional at all hidden dimensions that only exists in the quantum level is just as valid as any other theory on quantum mechanics

All which can be easily seen when you take psychedelics. Something about sensory-overload bring out the inferences between waves and particles so you see all as energy patterns and formations.

As non-scientist i confirm this

Got nothing to do with what it's built on; it's just how PBS has to simplify things to help the audience understand them

That's all of science, really. All models are mere approximations.

​@@alienturtle1946Approximations completely dependent on foundational assumptions. The history of science shows that those foundational assumptions started off as wild speculative guesses.

@@stevenverrall4527 Eh. I mean you're right that you can question anything back to some foundational assumption/axiom. But you need those axioms to have any kind of working knowledge. Without them you can barely assert anything, a la Descartes. And the axioms that most of math and science are built on are relatively straightforward, as opposed to wild guesses. But some people do play around with alternate sets of axioms, and I'd agree it can lead to some interesting things, even if their applications are niche or not yet discovered.

@@alienturtle1946 Not only must scientists rely on fundamental axioms, but they need to keep imagining and devising new ways to test them. In addition, every scientific theory has a realm of applicability. It is important to discover and probe the edges of each of these realms.

What you could travel as fare back in time as time is moving forward

Your kids are going to be geniuses

Your kids are going to think that they know more than they really do. Please teach them properly, without stooping down to this scientific popularism, that is more focused on intriguing people with complexity, rather than explainimg things to them with simplicity.

@@blinded6502 They are 9 and 12. I’d argue that it’s much more important to foster curiosity instead of actual understanding of quantum physics, which pbs spacetime does very well.

Don't allow yourself to believe you are learning something, simply because you are consuming internet content. The speed at which you can access information when using the internet can make it really easy to waste time doing pseudo-productive information gathering that you will forget about next week. It is very hard to discipline your attention enough to avoid the control of algorithmic recommendations that are constantly trying to "peek your interest", especially for children who are still learning what is important to pay attention to, and how to control their attention. its best to limit the time you spend consuming internet content. Remember, the internet only wants your attention and money. its not your friend.

lol that's theoretical physicists, there's two more! experimental and computational!

And the emotional

basically the opposite of religion

And when it dosnt work..blag it for the funding.🤣🤣

@@mastershooter64 Experimental physics is the only trustworthy science. All others from medicine to climate are extremely dodgy indeed.

Kind of like the limit in calculus.

@@hyperduality2838 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z9d6Y9JlupyXkas.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)

Human has done many "impossible things"

@@SotraEngine4 we have :)

But can in run on a gameboy?

Its more than likely, that some of the physicists working on said simulations have some affinity to the demoszene and cracking community from back then. The wizardry that is involved in this high performance c/c++ code seems unreal to me.

@@Turnoutburndown 13:40 way less than that :P

@@Turnoutburndown Gameboy, probably not, but one of the early "supercomputers" built specifically for the purpose of lattice QCD simulations was made by wiring thousands of PlayStations together.

You'd be surprised how much of an overlap there is between people who do Physics and demoscene types

love hand waving. it's a nice red flag. hahah

I should clarify though, we did not yet learn about QFT, so I did not know the entire substance of the video :p

Bro had a dream and pursued it. I respect you and wish you the best of luck in university. I myself have been interested in chemistry and physics since my childhood and find looking at convoluted concepts like this very video described highly fascinating, yet I was never actually able to understand them on a deeper level. Can't even get myself to read a book, and it has frustrated me for as long as I can think. That's why I respect and look up to people like you who actually have the mental endurance to get up every day, motivated to learn. I wish I could, too. nngh why am I writing this much about myself what am I even doing snymore its way too late im sorry lolll

@@moelr_ Thank you for your kind words! It definitely can be hard getting up in the morning with a day full of work ahead, but you shouldn't feel down or unhappy about yourself because you might not always live up to some expectations you have for yourself. The last 2 years were very difficult for me as I realized for the first time I was at my very limit when it comes to... brain power. I just couldn't keep up with a lot of other people in Uni and to this day it stresses me out a lot. With every semester it's getting better though, talking with other people having similar issues, and always realizing you don't need to be the fastest with understanding stuff or get the best grades in every course. I know what you mean about reading books. I used to like reading, and now I can't even read books in my freetime which I know I would enjoy a lot, much less books I would be required to read for Uni (I'm just lucky our Professors don't really require us to read long texts or books). But I'm trying to battle it, I recently bought a book I will enjoy a lot and I also rediscovered a series of books I read (at least) 10 years ago and I am very much looking forward to experiencing again. I'm just reading a couple pages every now and then, baby steps now might just turn into fulfillment later, it's a chance I'm willing to take :)

@@Mystixor so before this video you learned that lattice qcd existed, but not how it's done?

Best wishes!

In medical imaging they use the term voxel as well.

I see your voxel and I raise you eight pixels

I believe the concept of what Matt said was using pixels to achieve the voxel? At least that's how i pixeled it even though i'm an old voxel.

Since the model described in the video is 4 dimensional, wouldn't it be a hypervoxel?

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z9d6Y9JlupyXkas.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)

yesssss me too

@@hyperduality2838 ooooooooookkkkaaaaayyyyy

dangling modifier

Well yes - understanding phenomena and their relation is a tiny part of studying physics, sometimes even left out for individual research or foreknowledge at the expense of being able to numerically grasp these relations and phenomena. If you're interested in learning about the workings of reality (and only that), studying physics has the chance to be a waste of your time as only phenomenology matters to answer these questions for you.

@@midnattsol6207 Part of my comment indeed (and somewhat disappointed wrt to some of my initial motivations in going into physics). The other side of it also being that it's actually pretty hard to get to a distilled, concise and precise perspective on what those phenomenon actually mean just by studying them. Spacetime does this in a way that feels inaccessible about most topics, most of the time, for some random individiual

I didn't really begin to understand the fundamentals of Physics until at least a decade of teaching it at the college level.

@@logiconabstractions6596 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z9d6Y9JlupyXkas.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)

Same, been watching for years, I’ve noticed I manage to average about the 9 minute mark then get completely lost haha

It makes me re-watch over and over and as I go I pause and Google, read about and absorb. Then watch the video yet again and stuff starts clicking in my brain and I can follow like 80% of the video, the last 20% I still don't get is the maths. I'm not sure I ever will, but I'm incredibly grateful the maths is included.

@@qdpqbp No thanks, I don't fancy watching a narcissistic loon tell me all the other physics is wrong and only he is the person you can trust.

@@hyperduality2838 Have you seen the film "The Number 23"?

I just nod and pretend to be understanding everything

Suppose a big black box you can grab items from. To be certain about its contents, you'd need to inspect every single item. If you don't have time for that, you can just pick 10 or so at random (to avoid bias and hence the casino name) and make an educated guess.

wow that's awesome!

I hope you continued in this field of education, you could be famous one day!

Quaternions are tight! And for the kids out there that have never had to fiddle with programming ones own 3D-engine - they are at the core of all things "3D on your screen".

Don’t let those C++ and Java weirdos throw you off. C is the one true language.

@@rfichokeofdestiny The only true language out there is mathematics. C is only a decent language for a finite set of problems.

With all the smaller updates and pictures we've been getting I think they're working on it currently, but have to edit it when something new comes out, it might be contextually difficult to stick them together as they come out weeks apart

Unless something related to physics is discovered by JWST... I really don't see it happening. Because of the focus of the channel.

FACTSSSSS

@@recitationtohear this guy 🤦‍♂️

By that time it's mirror will look like sandpaper from micrometiorites. Isn't it logical that these are also hanging out in the Lagrange points?

….are you saying we should make an artificial star? Because I wholeheartedly agree

We actually have no issues creating fusion, where fall short is not having it happen so fast.

@@MrWildbill in the current state of fusion energy we are unable to produce more energy than the energy required to generate it

I don't think how fusion occurs in stars can be emulated by us effectively. From what I understand the temperature in a star is far too low to cause fusion the way we create it on Earth. It occurs in stars via quantum tunnelling at an extremely infrequent rate, but because a star is so dense and has so many particles it still occurs frequently enough for it to shine.

@@halfnattyboomer354 are you saying that stars basically do operate by cold fusion already, and the only question regarding cold fusion is whether it can be replicated in terrestrial conditions that don't require the insane density at the heart of a star? Or rather, I suppose, whether we could reproduce such density on Earth with less energy input (to create the pressure needed to constrain the volume of the reaction chamber) than we'd get out of the reaction? Could exploiting naturally high-pressure terrestrial environments like the deep sea help in any way, or is that kind of pressure negligible compared to the stellar conditions we'd be looking to replicate?

Don't electron meet the definition of free will

It would be cool to have a collaboration with Computerphile to explain the simulation side

@@osmosisjones4912 how so?

I'm still trying to figure out what's inside Tontons.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z9d6Y9JlupyXkas.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)

You'd like the Wolfram Physics Project

I like this perspective on qft. It helps wrap your mind around how an entire complex universe can unfold out of a few fields following relatively simple rules. All form arises based on which oscillations/patterns can sustainably exist and interact with each other to create greater complexity.

@@highimpactsexualviolence5512 you've read about this before?

@@GeoffryGifari I've done some basic research into Conway's Game of Life and cellular automata, watched some videos and messed around with some myself. The Primordial Particle System is especially fascinating because of how closely it seems to mirror real particle interactions/basic life forms. Cellular automata often model natural systems, from physics to chemistry and even biology. It seems that they demonstrate a universal principle of emergent complexity which is mirrored across all levels of existence.

interesting, but it is so classical that it implicitly introduces a gazillion quantum fallacies.

Screw ole hamed

I’ve never heard of any of this before, but I’m definitely gonna check Nima out. Popped up on my recommended a couple times but I never knew what his ‘deal’ was all about. Thank you for sharing that!

Just remembered we used to have a whole PBS channel dedicated to pure maths. Unfortunately got the axe. Would be nice to see Space Time throw us some slightly off-topic bones here and there since this is really all we got besides Eons now.

@@HoldenRoss808 Nima is awesome. He has some really cool talks on KZfaq from around 4 years ago. Him and his colleagues are working on some crazy stuff trying to reinvent the way we view and calculate particle collisions while getting the same answers. His whole idea is that “space time is doomed” and we’ll never reconcile GR and QM without stepping outside of the rules of space time. A lot of it is crazy math that’s over my head, but the concept of the universe being more fundamental geometry from which spacetime itself emerges is super interesting to me

@@Jm-wt1fs kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z9d6Y9JlupyXkas.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)

Right, particle decay is a weak interaction and can be simulated in lattice qcd. It’s complicated to explain but you can describe weak interactions using weak “currents”. So it depends on what you are interested in studying, for example if you want to study the energy spectrum (think tower of energy states ) that doesn’t involve any weak interactions. However, you will need to utilize weak currents for something like neutron beta decay because one of the down quarks will decay to an up quark. As for the leptons, their interactions can be added perturbatively into the calculations so you don’t need a full lattice calculation to describe its contribution.

it s weak so we assume it doesn t exist lol

Proton's don't decay, although neutrons do decay at a mysteriously slow rate.

Weak interactions should have a rather small effect in any hadron containing only light quarks. Adding weak interaction to QCD simulations would immediately increase already high computational requirements for negligible gains.

@@zackh1239 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z9d6Y9JlupyXkas.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)

good question, i dont know but i would guess that the time scales of the shifting bubbling mess is so small that the differences they may cause in the properties of protons like their mass is so so tiny that it we may as well think of them as being the exact same. again this is just my guess

since these are quantum properties, i would imagine they are statistically identical, but instantly different.

I think you are confusing them with electrons, or other fundamental particles.

@@alvarorodriguez1592 well, they're not fundamental particles, but that doesn't mean they aren't indistinguishable (other than spin....just like electrons). If I were wrong, there would be no nuclear shell model ruled by the Pauli-exlusion-pinciple.

This hinges on what we mean by 'identical'. For example, the electrons in helium atoms are 'identical' even if orbiting a He-4 or He-3 nucleus. They are not strictly identical but identical ENOUGH for things like Pauli exclusion to prevent helium atoms just phasing through one another. Protons are identical in mass, charge, spin and other properties AT THE SCALE OF NUCLEI. But that doesn't mean their interiors must be identical. And on smaller scales we very much see different outcomes from repeatedly slamming two 'identical' particles together. Indeed the Pauli exclusion principle exists because it's impossible for two fermions to be exactly identical, in everything including their position in spacetime. Some difference must be maintained.

They could have just simulated two different universes with different spacings, then ran a third simulation using the 'straight trendline'.

This definitely does not disprove the Simulation Hypothesis, if that's what you were suggesting. The appearance of a continuous spacetime could very well be the result of some deeper underlying calculation we haven't found yet. All this fuzziness we perceive could be due to rounding errors or geometric anomalies from the source calculations that are impossible for us to fully reverse-engineer from this side. The simulation itself could even be tampering with our machines or feeding us data that gives the appearance of a continuous spacetime. Or the fabric of the simulation could be actually built out of true continuous fields using some kind of technology or math we can't comprehend, or that might even be impossible from within the simulation. The Simulation Hypothesis is literally impossible to disprove, which is precisely the problem with it.

@@DoctorT144 Not really. Simulation Hypotheses seem to downplay the role of reflexive self-consciousness. I am my own consciousness therefore I can't - by definition - be a simulation of myself. Functionally, the mechanics of reality are irrelevant to a consciousness which transcends it by being able to reflect on it. It makes no difference whether it's a simulation as long as it works. Philosophically, it's an interesting concept but not much else.

I grok what you are saying...you are suggesting that a simulated universe would be digital and "pixelated" at its most fundamental level, so mass values consistent with a continuous, analog fabric of spacetime suggest that we must live in a "real" universe. But what if there is nothing beyond math and information? Fields might ultimately only be mathematical constructs manipulated by operations running on an extra-universal computer. Numerical values can can be divided and multiplied infinitely. And anything with a discrete presence, such as particles and their associated properties, might only be informational bits manipulated by the ultimate game engine.

@@ubergroov Yea ok, and maybe the universe was magically spoken into being by an almighty God who exists transcendent of space and time in heaven. I just don't see the point of these appeals to simulation. In any case, even if the universe were simulated, my consciousness definitely is not because I can't be a simulation of myself, unless I were not myself, which is illogical.

This episode made me think of him for some reason. Yes, it would be good to see him again.

QED and QCD are way beyond intro QM.

@@michaelsommers2356 QED and QCD are way beyond an intro QM course, but not a youtube video ment for mass consumption.

@@Harkmagic QM courses, even intro courses, are not meant for "mass consumption". If the students in such a course want to consume popular science presentations of more advanced topics, they can do so, but such presentations don't belong in the classroom, because there is already too much to cover that time can't be wasted on the non-essentials.

@@michaelsommers2356 I've been through those QM courses. The stuff here is nearly essential concepts any student should know before getting to deep into a QM education simply to avoid misunderstandings that can arise from the limitations of a early QM education. You can move it around for the convince purposes, for example my university has a Modern Physics course that is pretty much a general overview of the developments of the early 20th century and serves as a pre-req to all higher physics courses. Sticking this discussion in the QM section might be a good fit. Misunderstandings and even mysticism abound in the study of anything quantum and nobody will ever get me to budge from the position that topics that serve to clear up misunderstandings and drive away the mysticism should be an essential aspect early QM education.

@@Harkmagic I didn't get any mysticism in any of my modern physics or quantum mechanics courses.

You heard wrong. Virtual particles do obey conservation laws. They always conserve energy and momentum. And via pair production they also conserve charge, spin, etc.

Actually there are no virtual particles, space is likely discreet, following rules we don't understand yet. ""Virtual particles"" are what have been made up as a placeholder for our best guess at what's going on. It's like how we have "fluid dynamics", but really it's a bunch of atoms bumping into each other and we just can't calculate it...

Pretty sure virtual particles are the justification for why Hawkins radiation causes black holes to eventually “evaporate” mass

@@ryanbloom850 No, you can follow a lattice approach as well and still see Hawking radiation, which is nice since that means it's not an artifact of one mathematical approach.

@@garethdean6382 Yeah there are even other approaches which can arrive at hawking radiation and similar properties, at the very least it isn't hard to show based on the results of the "No big crunch theorem" derived via proof by self contradiction in "Inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology", cited as Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore JCAP10(2016)022, that if we limit ourselves to the set of solutions of the Einstein field equations in a nontrivial flat or open universe that don't run into the issues with logical self contradiction identified above then information is always conserved, the arrow of time becomes fixed relative to whether the universe was initially expanding or contracting with the laws of thermodynamics automatically arising as universal constraints on allowable total variation within the metric curvature of the universe. And as information naturally appears via the principals of propagating the initial conditions of the universe radially outwards in space over slices of time we can apply an integration of all possible(or impossible) paths and in this case the individual time slices should represent a cosmological event horizon which will have a definite entropy making it homologous to Hawking radiation mathematically aside from proportionality constants. A black hole event horizon in this limit doesn't really work in the same way in this metamathematical limiting case for general validity of solutions to the Einstein field equations since they aren't cosmologically sized like the limiting case looked at, but it should provide some insights there as well. For one thing by showing that off diagonal terms of the metric tensor can never match(i.e. the off diagonal terms must always be nonzero for any and all valid solutions to the Einstein field equations in any nontrivial flat or open universe) does potentially implicate that gravity is inherently symmetry breaking and thus in the quantum limit must be composed of purely asymmetric wavefunctions. As such wavefunctions in quantum mechanics can never share the same state i.e. all combinations are equally unique states also known as the Pauli exclusion principal. Though in this case the math might be best described in terms of wormholes in a complex space but I digress point is hawking radiation can be derived via other means too at least in the case of cosmological event horizons.

I mean, it is right there in the name. I don't think physics ever thought they were real, just a few science spectators who never wondered why they're called that. And then all tried to teach each other the same dumb stuff on youtube.

@@torydavis10 Define "real" in this context

@@nmarbletoe8210 I think the best analogy is that virtual particles are exactly as real as feynman diagrams or spacetime diagrams, or more classically the comparison of a gas piston to an ideal spring. They are a conceptual tool which does a good job of representing reality from a certain perspective, not reality itself.

@@torydavis10 More or less. The problem is that some actual physicists think they're real, because the concepts were taught poorly. And then they write books...

Most of the cosmological videos I get relatively well but yeah these ones get me quite a lot though I'm very fascinated. I'm sure my biggest problem is I've never been very good with mathematics and that is a basically the core factor here.

Not really, the pixelation could be too small to be noticed with current experiment results

Something something Planck length

@@JRush374 100! It's 10^20 times smaller than a proton, while a proton is 10^20 x smaller than 100 km. It's just small af.

I mean, we are babies in terms of technological scales. Even in the far future, we will continue to find new things

@@Jackiee_Chann maybe we reach knowledge stagnation, literally not being able to understand depper just because there is no way for us

The fact of this leads me to believe that this process may continue infinitely

Yes. We might live in a fractal. who knows?

@@flowerfullgirl_ yeah, maybe. But that maybe is still so far away. We are cosmic babies. Let’s just hope the great filter is behind us and not ahead! 😆

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z9d6Y9JlupyXkas.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)