Wow! Can't know the parts without knowing the whole -- to say nothing about entanglement with non-existence. Some super important theological/spiritual insights at play amidst the science, perhaps for another time. Peace!

General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. Dilation explains dark matter. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A time dilation graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter, in other words they have normal rotation rates. All binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.

The Clinical Theory of Everything proposes that Space does exist and is 3 dimensional, and that Time also exists and is 3 dimensional. In this life we can observe a moving 0 dimensional Present and a 1 dimensional Past timeline. The Future must be at minimum 2 dimensional to account for the observation that we have the power of free will to select from and navigate toward multiple possible futures. This is framed from the perspective of the Present in Quantum Physics as a collapse of the wave function. The wave function of every quantum extends asymptotically to infinity. This is framed as a probability field, but from a broader perspective including consciousness is a potential field. Consciousness is fundamentally transdimensional, including retrocausality observed from the quantum level to the electrophysiology of vision and free will.

I think they are applying quantum time to the macro world, and that makes no sense just as the quantum world does not apply to the macro world. In other words, just as the quantum world does not scale up, it's the same with quantum time.

Fay at 48:00 i think she means she sides with think A not think B.

@1:06:10 Were those notes on Polykov at Les Houches ever published?

Very cool discussion.

@49:44 The "personal abhorance" of a physical infinity is not a good argument pro or contra a begin of time or infinity of time (past and future eternal) - physical reality is the way it is, not the way we like it to be. Excluding a logical possibilty for that reason is counter logic, because the remaining possibilities (either time with a begin or time which loops back on itself) are equally abhorant. Also, if you insist on time not being infinite and have a beginning, the logical conclusion then would be (for symetry reasons) that also the future time can't be infinite. So it would mean that the timeline would consist of a definate beginning and end of time as the only alternative, dismissing all other logical possibiites (see other post). Either that or a timeline that loops back on itself, without begin or end but with a finite amount of elapsed moments.

In the abstract sense, there are a limited number of possibilities for the past/future time line. First a straight line with no begin nor end which is infinite. Second a circle with no begin or end which is finite. Third a line with a begin but no end which is infinite Fourth a line with no begin but with an end which is infinite Fifth a line with a begin and an end which is finite. So, a timeline with no begin or end does not imply that time must be infinite, it could be finite (a circle). Also, a timeline with a begin does not imply that time is finite, just that up to now a finite amount of time has elapsed since the beginning, but future time is infinite. If we would postulate that time is symetric, then possibilities third and four would be impossible. Lastly, notice that when we talk about elapsed time or a measurement of time, this always involves two points on the timeline, and no matter what possibility of timelines proofs to be correct, such a measurement always yields a finite result. In the case of the first possibility (straight line without begin nor end) no matter where we place the two points, the measurement of elapsed time is always finite. We can not place the point at the "begin" since in this timeline, there is no begin point. So, the discomforting possibility of an "infinite amount of time elapsed" does not occur. However, the set of all measurements of time on an infinite timeline without begin or end is indeed infinite. Similar to how the set of all integers is infinite, but no integer itself is infinite.

The concept of time - our ordinary understanding of what time is - implies that whatever happens physically happens in space and time. Those are physical events (like atoms smashing into other atoms, photons emitting and being absorbed, etc.) which happen in space and time. But time itself is not an event, it is not even physical, but just denotes our understanding of the rate of change happening relative to some known process (for instance a clock) which is assumed to change in a regular and constant pattern (equal ampunt of elapsed time per cycle). In this respect the concept of time does not allow for time itself to have a beginning, since that would be a physical event happening in space and time, yet time itself is not a physical event.

would the prof doc, also account for entanglement entropy? how woul d entanglement entropy affect the smoothness of the universe during the "inflationary" period.

I wish I could hear this talk with slides to clarify the content. It's so very interesting. Thanks!

Hyper surface sounds a lot like Newton's. Absolute space. Does Hyper make it different?

@5:00 “And everybody secretly believes that he has the full theory of quantum gravity on his desk”. I understand Daniele said this a bit mockingly, but I’m surprised that anyone believes this. It seems like most physicists would agree that string theory and loop quantum gravity are our top candidates for a full theory of quantum gravity and most physicists would also agree that they are both probably incorrect and/or will never predict anything about our universe. So for anyone to believe they have the full theory of quantum gravity on their desk… maybe it just requires a bit of blind faith /insanity to work on such a difficult problem.

Marvelous!

In the bibliography, at about an hour in, I was thinking to myself, "who is this C. K. guy...?". Then I looked at the video info, to see the name of the speaker (errr, oops).

I find the distinction between the functional roles, of "logically formulated" vs. "mainly math. formulated", to be a confusing one. Aren't math and logic both forms of the same thing? Or is logic being used in a narrower sense, or only being applied in a certain manner? I'm quite likely missing out on some of the finer points of the domain language here (and my philosophical training is only fragmentary, at best).

Beautiful!

Complete and utter fantasy. Time is a man made concept. Space-time is the invention of a mad man.

Which is more plausible: Substantivalism - spacetime and its structure exist independently from material things and there relations and therefore theoretically space could have been empty - and relationalism - spacetime and it's structure are just abstractions of or derive from relations between the material things (and perhaps their parts) and therefore space could not have been empty. I imagine the debate between these two positions has evolved a lot since the time of Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz.

I don't know why but I love Singularities!...Good Lecture!

11:15. Non-locality underpins the foundation of the Leibnitz monads as the basic unit of the universe that contains all the universe's information versus Smolin view that the connection with the rest of the universe is local. With the evidence now available of the Bell's inequality, we can put the chips on Leibnitz bet. You, the monad that reads these lines, are the drop of water that at your conception emerged from the universal cup. To that cup, in matter and ideas you will return leaving a trace whose length and breadth will be commensurate with your life. But you will return, rendering testimony that which is in part will be no more, as foretold in 1 Corinthians 13.

I wish you had more slides and/or close-ups of you full screen too to enhance your explanations, but it's a very interesting lecture. I hope you can do more YT videos about your ideas and those of others that interest you. Breaking your ideas down to more layperson levels for your YT audience would be helpful too, but, most importantly, thank you for sharing your ideas. I will have to listen to this a few times, but I want to, because this is so interesting to me. Thank you!

been in business says alot

Spacetimes with black holes that evaporate completely ( without leaving behind any quasi-stable remnants) are "non globally hyperbolic"( this latter point is stated at 39:00), so , semi-classically, information loss is the norm. Besides that, the seriousness of the problem depends on the version of Holography that one adopts, so it already has to do with speculative physics... The belief that ( due to the "Page time" version of the problem) information is never lost implies that there's no difference between globally and non- globally hyperbolic spacetimes and that seems, again, paradoxical by itself. It's not a big surprise that most proposed solutions seem contrived and artificial ( and, moreover, they violate relativistic causality/ locality: that's a much more serious issue than the loss of retrodictability ).

I am so glad an infinity of real things (matter, the material reality) is abhorrent to physicists as this represents a fundamental paradox in philosophy except in respect of imaginary or metaphysical things like mathematics. Hence there cannot possibly be an infinity of universes (the "multiverse") etc and, as we know, the universe is finite with a beginning.

Had no beginning?? Isn't it the case that, even since Big Bang that only "classical-time" begins, not a defined quantum-time beginning? Great to see progress around quantising Spacetime.

Shared with artist friends...

Only criticism is that angles in radian "units" can actually be taken to be dimensionless, or have an natural notion of scale. What matters is the size of the angle compared to the angle that measures the full circle. But that's because of the compactness of circular spaces. So unless the space of possible values of S(h_ab) is similarly bounded, your conclusion still stands.

👍🇦🇷🌎✅

Professor Maldacena has some very interesting ideas about string stars.

very nice pictures

Although the lecturer notes with a slight irony that everything good is usually attributed to Einstein, it is difficult to disagree with him, even if this refers to what Einstein once missed. In 1907 Einstein started with the classical equivalence principle (gravity/inertia), but soon modified it: gravity suddenly "became equivalent" to the curvature of 4-space, and was replaced by it. P.S. The starting point of physics is the idea of inertia, but "The knowledge of the straightness of the movement of a body left to itself does not follow from experience. On the contrary!" (Einstein). The fundamental difference between inertia forces and ordinary forces of interaction of bodies is that for inertia forces it is impossible to specify the action of which specific bodies on a material point they describe, they cannot be confused with the Dalembert force of inertia, and they are always external forces. (Newton's first law is not a special case of Newton's second law.) GR reduced gravity to inertia by generalizing the first law: the free movement of test bodies occurs along geodesic lines, but the theory did not find out anything new about the nature of the cause of inertia forces. "... the complete geometrization established by GR introduces a hierarchized cosmos on the plane, indicating indirectly the presence of an elusive source." (Tonnelat). It seems that this source of external (external) inertia forces is an "absolute vacuum" - instead of Newtonian "absolute space", which "... as a cause, does not satisfy the need for a causal explanation." (Born). Finally, the search for the root cause became possible after Friedmann spoke for the first time in a scientific way about the "creation of the world", and even then there was an opportunity to abandon the a priori nature of the law (more precisely, the axiom) of inertia, and build physics on a more reliable basis. P.P.S. GR was QG: docs.google.com/document/d/1PKsO3vuXu7XJUhwjgpCR-a8Bwdi24B89QkE9RsKABOU/edit?usp=drivesdk

Very Good!!

Very good lectures

Time is the average of all observations by all observers. The model has 9 time dimensions and 3 space dimensions. 8 observers are imaginary or not present. Only the 9th is present.

Spyroe theory has already proved this all. Unification had been accomplished.

Very good lecture

Very interesting!

Does anybody knows the looser who funds all that "lost in mathspace research" ?

Given their religious agenda , I am always surprised how the Templeton Foundation spends their money

21:33 two hundred and fifty thousand years ago ( 250,000 years )?

Great talk but the very end of the talk when he said we are the universe. Not so fast were observers. Did the universe exist before humans observed it. Some intelligent points of view we are the proof that something exists and maybe it made us so we can tell it what it is. We could all be sells in a brain trying to figure out what we are? Just a thought

There is no "time", square head! "Time", as a real material quantity, doesn't exist. It is just a man-made theoretical notion.

Unbelievable stupidities. There's no indivisible "atoms", no matter how deep you go into the micro realm, beyond the so-called ( erroneously ) "Planck limit" ( which doesn't exist in reality ). You spoke of the fact that causal process is fundamental, but you come to the point that a very micro realm that you call "indivisible" has no cause. Planck scale is a joke and you're one also. Useless and erroneous theories and ideas! 🥴😏👎👎

Spyroe theory. Unification.

Hello Harvey, I believe the reason why the problems that you describe with regard to the interaction between mass, inertia, force and gravity, is that gravity is being interpreted as a single force of attraction. I have been working on an alternative hypothesis to the standard model, in which I contend that gravity is in fact a force of both attraction and repulsion, with the repulsive force being a negatively charged monopole particle called a ' Harveytron ' in a cloud that fills every available space between the nucleus of the atom, and throughout the universe. This is the ' Dark Matter ', and the force of repulsion it produces is the ' Dark Energy. My hypothesis is probably to long to put in this comment, but I would be happy to make the latest draft of it available to you, if you were interested. I believe it could answer many of the outstanding questions in physics at the present time. Kind regards, Tony Marsh

6:24

Infinity/ reincarnation. infinite levels of scale infinite dimensions. Every grain of sand is a universe every universe is a grain of sand