A great discussion with some great jovial teasing/ribbing re string theory. So fun!😊

😂😂😂😂

It waved this comment at me lol ... I was thinking why like he must have nice shoes 👞

Agreed.

not really, theres fundamental flaws in it which mathematicians admit, and it also is nowhere near the queen or king in all sociological fields but fair enough those are soft sciences, then again neurology is a hard science. basically any science on humans and such is not where math reigns

Perhaps, but she may also be the "Siren" which seductively calls to us and has lead us into the "Theory Breakers" where our Theories get destroyed on the rocks of an underlying Reality we may be Mentally unable to comprehend in our present state of evolution. Perhaps.

@@showmewhyiamwrongalways with the qualifiers, can you not commit to any kind of stance

@@virgilmccabe2828 Remember you asked:As I ponder on the state of our understanding of our universe I am listening carefully to those who make it their life’s work to attempt to understand what Nature is telling us, at the deepest levels, because if we understand the foundation of the structure of Reality we will be able to extrapolate everything else that we see around us. So one of the proposed proposed theories for the foundations of our Universe which underpins all we detect around us is “Quantum Field Theory”. It is one of the latest attempts to explain and therefore hopefully understand our Universe i.e. “what makes our Universe tick”. Its DNA is founded on the principles of the Theory of Quantum Mechanics which says the everything we can detect around us is founded on “Probability theory” I.e. Certainty is an illusion and what we would “see” if we were able to look at the Quantum Realm would be every probable “event” floating about in some “soup like” state awaiting an Observer’s Attempt to measure something in our Universe or some other Universe and certainty and Reality only exists for that observer when they make their measurement. I.e. Reality only “emerges” as a result of that measurement. There are those who say that within that soup of uncertainty is an infinity of probabilities which would give rise to an infinity of Universes given the right circumstances. So Quantum Field Theorists look at the Quantum Realm and see it as this soup made up of “fields” which are in a continuous state of fluctuation and only become the particles we observe during the Measurement attempt. They say that these fields are Foundational and therefore contain within their make-up every probable event that is possible. If they are correct then I would only change one thing about their theory and that would be I would replace the word “Probability” with “Possibility”. Use of the word “Probability” gives the impression that there “could be” many other results for a measurement whereas The word “Possibility” infers that any given result is just the result of the Parameters chosen in carrying out the measurement. I.e. when you choose the parameters for your measurement you “force” upon the Quantum Field State only one choice from the infinity of choices available from within the foundational “Quantum Field State. Hence the uncertainty we see exists only in Our Universe founded on the underlying foundational Quantum Field Reality. This would explain why some Theorists say that there is a “Multiverse” and we are just one of an infinite number of possible Universes. They could very well be semantically “correct” while not being “Physically” correct. If, as I currently suspect, the foundation of Reality is something akin to a Quantum Field Soup State(QFSS) of endless possibilities awaiting “Measurement” then there indeed exists the possibility for an “actual” Multiverse, if there exists in Reality an infinite number of observers asking questions of this QFSS. To put it simply If there exists a Foundational Quantum Field S solid stancetate containing an infinite number of possibilities then yes Mathematically it may be possible to extrapolate from such a foundation the existence of an infinite number of possible Realities, but it would not follow logically from such a theory that every possibility was, or could be chosen, in Reality since there would have to be a choice made by an infinite number of observers, or an infinite number of choices made by some random number of observers I.e. the QFSS foundation would exist in perpetuity whether or not it spawns any number of Realities. What I am trying to say with my limited vocabulary is that the certainty we experience in our Realm would not extend to the QFSS Realm, and it should not since they are not equal States. The QFSS can be thought of not as a Probability Generator but as a Possibility Generator. IMHO There is a subtle difference between the two views. In one case we ask a question of the Quantum Realm by preforming an experiment based on the laws governing our Reality and the answer we get implies a level of uncertainty to our result and so we hone our question we get a higher level of certainty. It is as if we are trying to ask a question of someone who speaks a different language than us and as we get better at explaining ourselves they get better at supplying more certainty to their response. This reminds me of the Theory of a “Limit” in Calculus. You can get closer and closer but that is the best you can hope for and you eventually have to settle on an acceptable result. The “Limit” is there but it can also be “not there” depending on certain specific choices made. We, as a Species, have a distaste for uncertainty but in actual fact the only certainty that exists in our Reality is that there is no such thing as certainty beyond our acceptance of some level of uncertainty. So if you took the time to read this rather long-winded response you should see why I hesitate to take a solid stance in most cases.

@@virgilmccabe2828 As I ponder on the state of our understanding of our universe I am listening carefully to those who make it their life’s work to attempt to understand what Nature is telling us, at the deepest levels, because if we understand the foundation of the structure of Reality we will be able to extrapolate everything else that we see around us. So one of the proposed proposed theories for the foundations of our Universe which underpins all we detect around us is “Quantum Field Theory”. It is one of the latest attempts to explain and therefore hopefully understand our Universe i.e. “what makes our Universe tick”. Its DNA is founded on the principles of the Theory of Quantum Mechanics which says the everything we can detect around us is founded on “Probability theory” I.e. Certainty is an illusion and what we would “see” if we were able to look at the Quantum Realm would be every probable “event” floating about in some “soup like” state awaiting an Observer’s Attempt to measure something in our Universe or some other Universe and certainty and Reality only exists for that observer when they make their measurement. I.e. Reality only “emerges” as a result of that measurement. There are those who say that within that soup of uncertainty is an infinity of probabilities which would give rise to an infinity of Universes given the right circumstances. So Quantum Field Theorists look at the Quantum Realm and see it as this soup made up of “fields” which are in a continuous state of fluctuation and only become the particles we observe during the Measurement attempt. They say that these field are Foundational and therefore contain within their make-up every probable event that is possible. If they are correct then I would only change one thing about their theory and that would be I would replace the word “Probability” with “Possibility”. Use of the word “Probability” gives the impression that there “could be” many other results for a measurement whereas The word “Possibility” infers that any given result is just the result of the Parameters chosen in carrying out the measurement. I.e. when you choose the parameters for your measurement you “force” upon the Quantum Field State only one choice from the infinity of choices available from within the foundational “Quantum Field State. Hence the uncertainty we see exists only in Our Universe founded on the underlying foundational Quantum Field Reality. This would explain why some Theorists say that there is a “Multiverse” and we are just one of an infinite number of possible Universes. They could very well be semantically “correct” while not being “Physically” correct. If, as I currently suspect, the foundation of Reality is something akin to a Quantum Field Soup State(QFSS) of endless possibilities awaiting “Measurement” then there indeed exists the possibility for an “actual” Multiverse, if there exists in Reality an infinite number of observers asking questions of this QFSS. To put it simply If there exists a Foundational Quantum Field S solid stancetate containing an infinite number of possibilities then yes Mathematically it may be possible to extrapolate from such a foundation the existence of an infinite number of possible Realities, but it would not follow logically from such a theory that every possibility was, or could be chosen, in Reality since there would have to be a choice made by an infinite number of observers, or an infinite number of choices made by some random number of observers I.e. the QFSS foundation would exist in perpetuity whether or not it spawns any number of Realities. What I am trying to say with my limited vocabulary is that the certainty we experience in our Realm would not extend to the QFSS Realm, and it should not since they are not equal States. The QFSS can be thought of not as a Probability Generator but as a Possibility Generator. IMHO There is a subtle difference between the two views. In one case we ask a question of the Quantum Realm by preforming an experiment based on the laws governing our Reality and the answer we get implies a level of uncertainty to our result and so we hone our question we get a higher level of certainty. It is as if we are trying to ask a question of someone who speaks a different language than us and as we get better at explaining ourselves they get better at supplying more certainty to their response. This reminds me of the Theory of a “Limit” in Calculus. You can get closer and closer but that is the best you can hope for and you eventually have to settle on an acceptable result. The “Limit” is there but it can also be “not there” depending on certain specific choices made. We, as a Species, have a distaste for uncertainty but in actual fact the only certainty that exists in our Reality is that there is no such thing as certainty beyond our acceptance of some level of uncertainty. So if you took the time to read this rather long-winded response you should see why I hesitate to take a solid stance in most cases.

I guess every accepted scientific fact began life as a speculation. Of course the reverse is not true.

Math is a LANGUAGE and it is ONE of many to understand and describe and speak of the universe, of nature, etc. Many things cannot be properly spoken of with verbal languages, it has to be math, and even then... 😅😅 There isa book that Einstein himself said was the greatest book, "Number, the language of Science" I think that was the title, by a mathematician he admired, Goddle (?). The one with the "Incompleteness Theorem"

Depending on whether it's Aristotle (king) or Plato (jester)

Is it not through abstraction (Plato) that we seek to understand through empiricism (Aristotle) the essence of things as they are?

We will but inevitably, the majority will resist the change until it has gradually, perhaps quietly, converted the most distinguished thinkers.

i see what you did there. michio kaku will find you

I think they've given one to Obama, Ellen, and some guy for placing cameras in toilets ... so why not, give the guy a Nobel Prize) I think its more suiting than the latter.

@@jthompson120dbObamas was deserved. Ellen? Someone educates through social media.

Nope, singularities are formed in a finite amount of time inside black holes. Proper time is Δτ=πM at maximum from the horizon until the end ( check this out!). Proper time comes to a halt when the time coordinate r=0 inside. As you said, perhaps this is really the end of Spacetime in the interior, who knows, but if it happens, it does so at a finite amount of time.

There is no point putting this up. The vast majority of people are not interested and for those that are and have knowledge enough will know this is not an efficient way so not bothering

@@david-joeklotz9558 Perhaps my publications will be of interest to scientific organizations that have the technical means and, since gravity is an urgent area for research, are ready to conduct experiments based on non-standard ideas "for luck". And the proposed experiment is simple and not expensive, {For example: a lead ball suspended on a strong chain from the ceiling of the laboratory can serve as a test body; at radius r=27,6 cm, ball mass is m=1т. The energy of quanta/photons of the field (photons are characterized by different parity and helicity, and it is not quite accurate to say that a photon has an integer spin equal to one) at a distance r from the center of the test body to the detector (practically on the surface of the ball) =66,3 keV. The flow: J*=4,5•10^-9 quanta/сm^2sec; this is a measurable flux for modern world-class gamma detectors.}

Does this mean its all turned into energy? As the whiteness of the white hole? Whats the TLDR?

@@IanValentine147 Apparently, there is a phenomenon of gravity/inertial induction. The constant c^2 / 2w(pl) in the final formula is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = h/4πm(pl) [magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional]. Addition "Giving the interval ds the size of time, we will denote it by dт: in this case, the constant k will have the dimension length divided by mass and in CGS units will be equal to 1,87*10^-27", Friedmann, "On the curvature of space", 1922. [The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dt; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10^ ± 27. See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921.] Thus the following expression: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2 where i is inertial constant, i=1,346*10^28[g/cm]; or k°=1/i=7,429*10^-29[cm/g]: k(Friedmann)/k°=8π; where k°=r(pl)/m(pl).

Super,based on diameter what is left is right what is right is left at same time no matter witch diameter you start with ( top bottom ) given the odd fact that it is space and time twisted like gravitational lens, it in both places same time no matter who lookin

@@TheRarest1 space time has the continuity in the same way the record does; in that the information doesn't change, but the observations change based on the conditions of the observer

Ooooh got you.. thank you

Nice, gravity stops working altogether at a quantum size, so we dont have to worry about further collapse.

My thoughts exactly

The black hole becomes lengthier with time, even during evaporation, as Rovelli explained during the discussion. More accurately, it is stretched along the proper radial directions and squeezed perpendicularly, so it's not "the size of a quantum particle" exactly, only from the external point of view.

Rovelli stated that scientists know how a black hole forms, i.e. the condensing of a massive body, however, scientists weren't certain how a white hole could form. As stated many times, no evidence of a white hole has been attained, but, Rovelli's proposal is that the formation of a white hole occurs in the time reversal of a black hole. Which is why it "needs" to be contained under a time reversal constraint.

If you're talking about the diagram presented in the talk ( that shows a 2+1 dimensional representation of the interior "tube" of an actual 3+1 Black Hole ) the calculation ( according to General Relativity) shows that for given constant mass it is proportional to the age of the black hole, from the gravitational collapse and afterwards. The interior maximal volume for a non rotating Schwarschild black hole is growing like: ΔV = 3√3 π(M^2) Δv, where Δv represents the aging of the black hole in a particular coordinate system.

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 strange

Sorry for the previous sloppy answer, I corrected it and elaborated it.

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 I'm going to need to think about this

@@Killer_Kovacs If you're interested, a brief relevant paper is : "Black Holes: their large interiors".{arXiv: 1502.01907 ( gr-qc) from Bengtsson, Jakobsson }

So we’re black holes.

Pure theory physics has affected our lives in positive ways in huge ways! Quantum mechanics and relativity make gps possible, cell phones possible, computers possible! This IS positive physics

And vice versa lol ... 🎨

wormholes were always sci-fi at the least and hopeful wishing at the most

Time in and of its self , is not a real dimension . Not to the Universe . It does not cause , effect nor affect anything in the Universe . Time can not move a three dimensional physical object into movement .