If you want to know how it all works, master special relativity. And I don't mean the tons of math that describes observations of it. SR addresses time, space, mass, and energy. Can't you see how that touches every aspect of our universe? And how it works is EXTREMELY simple. When SR is described, 20 or more earth shaking Nobel prizes will follow in months. Physics will flash ahead with lighting speed.

Physics at our scale are incorrect, so that leads to quantum physics being even more incorrect. Mass is not attracted to mass for a start, mass is repelled by mass. There's no such thing as a pull force, and there is actually only one force. So basically all of physics are delusional to begin with. Peer review means to join the delusional gang. Mass moves towards holes in mass, because it flows with gravity like water moves into a sponge, and can take something with it. The bigger sponge has the most mass, but also the most holes. Observation of the Cavendish experiment does not count as observation at all, it's invisible. Peer review is the Emperor's New Clothes, you see the invisible in the Cavendish experiment, you see mass attracting mass, but the truth is that you see nothing at all. With such bad teachers to follow you will never get anywhere. I ignore everyone... I ignore the crazy gang.

I'll try this again. Try this experiment: Get an in phase light source consisting of the same frequency. Polarize it and focus it on your two precious slits. The accepted pattern will not appear. There will be marks where the humps were. Present science cannot explain this. Get the longest wave length you can. Shorter wavelengths will produce errors. I know why.

The point here is that there is a nobody out there that has an idea. You won't listen to him because all you want is click bait. But this person has suggested an idea. But the organization of philosophers (IAI) has decided he is a waste of time. Even though some of the big brains will not put something in the real world to demonstrate an idea: this person has suggested a real world experiment that might demonstrate something very important. You criticize the system but let your assumptions keep you on a similar path. Was it BCS that told me SR is a dead horse? Com-on man.

I think everyone is thinking about it wrong. I mean take for a example superposition it's not all things at once or so simple. It's how the integrated differences give rise to a difference or become a difference while maintaining itself so both states at the same time but through different methods. Imagine a guy doing the wave, the energy just traveled trough the differences and didn't stay as one thing but moved trough it's integrated differences. What I mean is that the "quantum wave collapse" is the syncing/integration of the differences. Think water and it's differences taking the shape or variable differences but maintaining itself as water or how words embody the difference of other things. Meanings are the same as superposition adnas we integrated more, the uses and differences grow that it can integrate with, like math repping reality and then using an equation to find a prediction and then using us ass connected difference, we can integrate

He becomes sharper with age, where as teenagers are already becoming dumber, day by day. Kids don't even know what a woman is, yet that 92 year old has a sharp recollection of deep topics. It's both fantastic and sad at the same time.

@@OriginalPuro what the hell?

Yup, still inventing bullshit like explaining quantum measurement as a gravitational effect. He was always vastly overrated.

@@ultrametric9317Dirac Medal, Prize of the British Institute of Physics, Albert Einstein Medal-I'm sure they give those away for overrated theories. What's your contribution?

That's because he is continually using it, unlike most people.

thats quantum reaction.

My microtubules misfired

pretty safe approach.

Yes: he does rely entirely on the support of simpletons who mistake his motor mouthing for erudition

At any age, he is still the leading theorist in physics.

Sign of a truly great mind.

It astounds me that he can attend such events at this age, hopefully the mind can work even under extreme physical limitations as Stephen Hawking demonstrated.

I never heard that before.

That´s what so great about thinking for a job, only death and dementia can force you to retire. Just look at Hawking, what could he do in the end? Like move his eyelids to communicate with technology in the chair or something and he was still spitting out science papers. What a trooper! Then again, what else was he supposed to do? Its not like he could go surfing...

god dam!!!!

No, haha, he's not. Scroll through the video and look at the guest speakers' wrists; they all wear that bracelet. It's probably something IAI requires their guests to wear for admission into their events. Penrose is, of course, remarkable nonetheless.

I hope he lives long enough to catch the longevity train

Likely because His name is better known, many people wouldn't know of the rest of this august crew. PR, essentially.

He jumped the string theory shark. 🤣

At least it's not the Weinstein brothers.

@@akagordon That is harsh, but really funny because it would be a train wreck if Eric was involved, definitely not useful in this type of venue.

Bro, Kaku has written very good books on Quantum Field Theory which is the most relevant quantum theory to date

Who hurt you? Did Michio Kaku hurt you, or are you just hating?

😂😂

He's a pretty cool dude 😎

yeah he is talking a lot of nonsense and making statements which are either untrue or not proven

@@BrandonCrowl heard of the B&W fallacy?

That would be a perfectly sensible thing to do - if that's the only place you can look (at the moment) then why not look there? Just because you know it's not the only place doesn't mean it's not worth looking!

@@adrianwright8685 Because researchers been looking at string theory for a long time and are less convinced that it is right than they were at the start.

What a horribly non scientific "argument"

Haha we have a Chinese idiom for just that 刻舟求剑 look it up with chatgpt, it's a great story

This documentary is a whistle blower, will you watch it? 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🙏

Nature knows..yeah consciousness does underlie everything. You call it "nature."

This resonates so well with Roger's ideas in Orch OR.

Is it obvious that nature is the one doing the knowing? As with the effect of observation on quantum particles, perhaps it is that there is an Observer who is observing the universe and by observing, affects its behaviour. The Observer knows how it works, so yes, there is a solution.

Yes, absolutely right. Everyone should read her books.

she's a total waste of space, an embarrassment to herself. There are far better communcators of Theoretical Physics. e.g. Lenny Susskind, Sean Carroll (and NOT that loon Carlo Rovelli with his wishy-washy ramblings) @@Thomas-gk42

Who told you that's how it works? God? Buddha? Brahma?

If we could measure the gravity of a single electron what would that give us? If we send photons one at a time thru 2 slits, each photon hits a screen at only one point, however the points are spread out in an interference pattern as if each photon went through both slits, as the wave function stated. But if we put a detector after one slit then we will see that half the photons hit our detector and half the photons go straight through the other slit directly to the screen. We could do the same thing with electrons. We cannot detect an electron's gravity, but we can measure its charge. What experiment are we wanting to do with gravity that we can't do now with charge? Aren't we in the situation as with the photon? If we measure the charge then it stops being quantum. We would be in the same situation with gravity unless gravity is not quantum even though the particle is.

@@Nebukanezzer Actually, the idea comes from quantum mechanics and general relativity's principles. In quantum mechanics, particles like electrons can indeed be in a state of superposition, existing in multiple states or places simultaneously until observed. When we apply this concept to gravity, a force that depends on mass, it's logical to infer that an electron's gravitational influence might also exist in a superposition of all possible states. However, our current technology can't directly observe such quantum gravitational effects. This isn't about belief systems but about theoretical physics and the challenges of unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity. It's a fascinating area of ongoing research, not yet fully understood or observed.

@@EinsteinsHair Your comparison misses a key distinction: the aim isn't to substitute charge measurements but to probe gravity's quantum aspects. Quantum mechanics shows particles like electrons in superposition, influencing their electromagnetic interactions. Yet, we wonder if gravity, inherently linked to mass, behaves similarly at quantum scales. This isn't about detecting an analog to charge in gravity but understanding if gravitational fields can exhibit quantum properties. If we could measure such effects, it could unveil new physics, bridging quantum mechanics and general relativity-a leap beyond what charge measurements offer.

​@alanrobison4761 I agree. This fact is carefully avoided by our panelists, for (like the with the big bang) the obvious theological implication here cannot be countenanced, which is that since consciousness (measurement they call it) is required to actuate quantum states, it PRECEDES it.

yes ... he is a last of the super genius of this era

thats what thinking about complex problems everysingle day does to do. Alzheimer has no time to catch up

who is your 3rd favourite?

Stephen Wolfram is scratching at the computation aspect of physics, I'm hoping he gets something interesting on that front in the not too distant future.

@@squoblat We've come a long way since Newtonian billiard balls. As we look closer at nature, it disappears like a Cheshire cat. Hence the cat in the box conundrum of quantum theorists. It comes down to information, and the leap to that no doubt was helped by the change in people's thinking brought about by the post-WW2 computer revolution. But there is a lot that goes unexplained, and our current theories eat away at the digestible bits around the edge of the big picture. It is not getting any easier to go further. It's been a long time since the last major paradigm shift such as string theory. We're overdue for another one. Perhaps Wolfram's work is a pointer thereto. He needs more brains to join in, but most of the theorists seem subsumed into string theory. In the longer term, perhaps after Wolfram's work starts to bear new fruits, we still have the problem of consciousness, about which we are currently clueless as to how to even start investigating how it ties in with Physics.

A lot older then biden 🥲

So, vote for Biden.

I always get excited that it could be possible, as I do have a liking for geometry to be the underpinning of physics. However yes, Kaku has no shame expressing as fact that which has proven to be wrong or inherently untestable/unfalsifable. Neither of which should ever be acceptable in what you advocate as a leading theory.

@Michael-kp4bd well said. String theory is beautiful but overly complicated. We have two great theories already that have been tested and shown to be accurate or close. But some of quantum theory has been misinterpreted. Einstein was right when he said there is no spooky action at a distance. It is just happening at a Planck scale that is hard to see and interpret. And we are starting to get evidence of quantum gravity. We have all we need right now on both sides of the equal signs, we just need to interpret it better without adding magic and hocus pocus.

@@paulschuster8118 I thought there was action at a distance, no? See: Storz et al (2023), Loophole-free Bell inequality violation with superconducting circuits.

SUSY has NOT been shown to "not exist" or be wrong. Superpartners have not been discovered yet in our range of low energy limits in collider experimentation (< 1 TeV). The HL-LHC is suppose to produce energy levels of around 13 TeV. It is scheduled for initial operation in early 2029.

Simple solution: we can ask our taxpayers to fund building a collider the size of our Galaxy, or we can just add a few more untestable dimensions or more undetectable particles, OR we can move forward with simpler, testable theories based on what we already know. It's easy to defend string theory when you've become rich and famous from the grant money.

Nonhermitian qm is used for open systems.

As Sabine expressed it: "But nature knows how it works."

"We can compute it after the fact, knowing from experiments that it happens, but we did not predict it" . if your theory has not changed and you can compute something afterwards then surely it must have been computable beforehand?

Stephen Wolfram, the halting problem, and DFT would like a word with you about the limitations of prediction in general and regarding predicting superconductivity, as far as I'm aware nothing has ever predicted a room temperature superconductor?

No not true

The "means" of a measurement hold more than just a clue to the theory of the "thing" being measured. The material relationships provide bounds and limits within which new theories can emerge or old theories can be expanded.

It's called music.

This is actually a really old idea. Bernhard Reimann first proposed that space on a microscopic space may not have the same properties as the macroscopic, including possibly extra dimensions. Einstein followed in his footsteps formalizing time as a dimension. Very soon after Einstein published general relativity was an attempt made to unify gravity with electromagnetism, called Kaluza Klein theory, which added a compactified 5th dimension to spacetime. Kaluza sent his calculations to Einstein in 1919, so this is before Quantum theory had been formalized. String Theory works with the same idea but with several more extra dimensions, compactified in structures called calabi-yau manifolds. So theoretically formulating theories with extra dimensions isn't an issue, rather it's making testable predictions from those theories that's the problem.

@@randomchannel-px6ho An old idea that never got anywhere, does not mean it doesn't have anywhere to go. How many people tried and failed to achieve flight with the same idea before it was accomplished, thank you for the information. PS fun coinstadance fact for you, K being the 11th letter of alphabet and the mathematician's of the KK theory investigating the 5d, their initials spells 11.11 some will recognise that number and some wont 💙💫🙏

The following ideas agree with you. If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? 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. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (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 Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== 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 production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. 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, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. 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, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting 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? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.

@@offtheradarsomewhere. all ideas are wrong

@@SpotterVideo the less ingredients to a meal the better it tastes💙💫🙏

But an electron diffracts itself in the double slit experiment.

It does? I thought it was a part of a larger wave

It it as of yet an indeterminate phenomenon, so stating that it is or is not “what’s physically happening” is a step too far

No..that's exactly why it is so hard

Let’s. Go.. very nice comment. A plus sir or miss.

chatGPT - style of summary

This sounds like a highschooler who was only half paying attention and didn't understand the material, so he just pulled out sentences from the video that sounded smart. Generative AI sucks ass.

I'm already so over these LLM summations popping up on every youtube video.

Well said. Yet malicious haters still snipe.

@@fred_2021 Oh come on now, who could possibly hate a kind old genius like Penrose? Its not like he is Biden.

@@1112viggowhen he starts using neurological phenomena that perfectly fit within the confines of known physics and chemistry, and uses it to support an idea of “conciseness harnessing quantum physics to create retrocausal action” I roll my eyes a bit. Maybe it’s a pet theory, but it shows the classic “when you have a hammer everything is a nail” behavior by a physicist extending into another branch of science without first learning it, which I find sad to see. Penrose is an absolute titan in his field, so it’s not that i even want him to “stay in line” but rather look into the science he is not learned in (neuro) before using it to explain something that it has no actual connection to (or moreover, extensive evidence that proves contrary to what he thinks it means)

@@Michael-kp4bd It is proven that many animals use quantum phenomena either to locate themselves in space and for other things. Penrose has every right to investigate quantum effects in the brain.

Everyone*

I find it amusing reading all these self-appointed experts on the Internet claim that string theory has failed as if they knew what they were talking about.

i find it amusing reading all these self-appointed experts on the internet claim that string theory hasn't failed as if they knew what they were talking about!@@ludviglidstrom6924

Supersymmetry works in a parallel universe ;-)

They are good friends though.

since when? @@Thomas-gk42

Underrated comment

Quantum mechanics and special relativity are extremely simple theories, at least mathematically. Finding a way to combine these will of course be a challenge but well within reach this or next century. This is not the say every problem is answerable in any meaningful way but foundations in physics is.

@@user-uf4rx5ih3v Yes, theories and math… What is math, does it exist outside of a human mind, is it all real, how do we know? What does math reveal and what not, is it sometimes misleading? What i want to say is that despite of how far we came there still are X amount of questions and not many reliable answers 😄

Making use of the time it takes for light to hit the eye, then the brains time to perceive and interpret the light.

Kind of like a brain in a jar hooked to an optical light sensor, stimulating the brain. The brain is slowed in perceiving the light and a really fast camera.

I think there is evidence that the expansion isn't constant or contiguous. It is definitely thought to be increasing (using Type-1a novae as 'standard candles') but recent & upcoming understanding of supernovae from JWST and others may change our understanding again!

wrong, it's OUR BRAIN which does all the work, we - our consciousness - is not situated in brain im not english speaker so idk how to say кора головного мозга to you yet we do not have full control of our thoughts, if we had no schizophrenia at all as an illness. sabine knows better dear little dude

@@bangtanssera Very corrupt with Russians and point taken.

​@@bangtansseralet him stay in his mind and believe he's having an objective sense of reality, he 's not ready..

They both are great.

I, of course, dont have answers, but to take your example... the way to search for something that would indicate the simulation would be like searching for floating point errors which accumulate in some situations, or the equivalent of a bit flip. I dont think its stupid to spend a minimal amount of time to look for these things in a physical sense, and its conceivable to me that some external informarion could be derived. Lets say that we have a simulation in a computer, and that the characters spend a lot of time monitoring all values they can find, or are allowed to observe. Stupidly, they would be able to observe something like the rate at which bits are flipped from cosmic rays. There would be no context, but it certainly would be external informarion about "something". In the end, I say it is best to stay curious on all physical phenomena, and to sometimes look where we wouldnt expect anything odd. Science is much more built on "Oh, that's really strange", than it is on "Eureka".

Some ideas for the "video characters" you describe: - Going to the limits of the ruleset they are existing in, e.g. getting closer to fundamental (atomar) functional elements, the spacial and temporal resolution, finding unintuitive behaviour and systems, apparent sources of "randomness". - Analyzing their own epistemologic scope and limitations, giving hints about the character and capabilities of the larger context they are embedded in. - Comparing their computer simulations with the actual world they live in. To the "real shadows" they see in their (allegory of the) cave, compare "simulated shadows" - "shadows of shadows" so to speak. - Examine the path of discovery itself, e.g. how it could or couldn't be predicted, in how far it is guided by teleological elements versus a posteriori knowledge i.e. experience. And for something different, if they have access to it, for recreational purposes, there's still metaphysics ;)

I'm not sure a video game is the best example for this. Real life phenomena, in stark contrast to video game objects, have the capacity to interact with everything. In video games, all interactions must be added by hand. In real life though, Magnetism, gravity, matter and EM waves all interact with other. Even if just very slightly in some cases, they do interact with each other. This means that they must share a very fundamental property that allows for this type of communication. There is a slight parallel to your video game example though. Whereas a video game character might only see the final product of the calculations, we as "higher beings" in this case know that everything processed and shown is actually purely electrical in nature. In that way, we "unified" (but also grossly oversimplified) all the computer-related phenomena. However, in the case of the video game character, I think it would be difficult for him to find out about this, since there are probably very few hints sprinkled about in the world that offer opportunities to learn about the fundamental mechanics. Reality is much more in-depth and also (at least seemingly) much more complete in that regard.

@@fexus9730 Since ancient times up to this day, most thinkers share the intuition that the number of interaction categories in the (inanimate) physical world might be limited; some go a bit farther, also saying that the observable interactions might only be a subset of all interactions in our universe. On the other hand, simulated worlds don't have such limitations: their size, scope, variety of interactions can always be e.g. procedurally or stochastically expanded, they can be made virtually endless, only limited by available memory for certain interaction categories. The contrast between the former intuition and the latter fact is remarkable.

Dr. Kaku should really pay attention to prof. Neil Turok and colleagues' recent work. There are "other games in town" now.

I wouldn’t limit it to light, per se, but causality. Gravitational waves operate at this same “speed of causality” _c_ ,and have nothing to do with photons. Both must be accounted for.

...and it´s perhaps wrong.

@@Thomas-gk42 Who, back in the day, whould have imagined that e.g. the yet unconfirmed theory of the atom, named and thought as the smallest functional element there can be, or Newton's precise and beautiful equations aren't the end of the story?

@@DarkSkay Mainstream QM has given up to find a solution that describes the process of measurement. So hidden variables are ruled out til they stumble over it, like Sabine expressed it on another statement.

It’s like saying that rain doesn’t turn a water mill nor grind flour,…. but , yes it does?

You have 'The entropic gravity' by Erik Verlinde.

I’m with the understanding that gravity isn’t a force, but is just the curvature of spacetime. That’s the way that Eisenstein defines it.

@@DrVonJay*einstein. eisenstein appears somewhere else. but yes, gravity is not a force from that pov.

@@rafitiki i swipe and misspell often

light observed by a leafe also know as photo.s is also a black hole.

When I look backward, time still happens, so you must be wrong, lol.

@@fred_2021Accually you’re wrong. Owls can look backwards because they are in a superposition of forward and backward spin. Plug time into the equation and we can determine the stresses on the spinal neck muscles.

@@-tarificpromo-7196 Great insight! I overlooked twitterpation at the speed of flight.

@@-tarificpromo-7196 Great insight! I overlooked twitterpation at the speed of flight.