Edward Witten Lecture - Dimensional Gravity Revisited (6/6)-GzY

[jorgefromthefuture]

please add CC

[commodoreherring]

in what year was this lecture delivered?

[joehenger]

What in thee hell is this freak talking about? I think he is living in a fantasy world.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@joehenger show spme respect troll

[Zee96969696]

boring

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@Zee96969696 and your watching it

[Zee96969696]

@FIGHTFANNERD3 well, this guy is sopposed to be smart, but if you ask me, I say this lecture is pretty boring

[Fand421]

I wish the sound was better.

[FeelOfFriction]

What would happen if two black holes met?

[GilbertsonDerick]

Just listening to this guy lecture makes my brain bleed.

[Day916indian]

@GilbertsonDerick same.

[mrqsilveira]

Well... God bless you... Let us celebrate, drinking it!

[mrqsilveira]

Little poem: Background independence/ Whether true or nonsense/Alice is lively playin'/By the Singularity's rim.

[mrqsilveira]

So Einstein change the unnecessary ether into spacetime. Now, what will be of it within LQG-like frameworks? Just an enveloping neighborhood? A functionless topological element? Only a constituent property of LQG objects?

[mrqsilveira]

Indeed Virtuoso! You're only 19! I'm going to meditate on your very nice released info. There are some qualität points to refer later: 1. root of turbulence: forces between atoms ~= brownian movement; 2.Space time as/not as a container; 3. Reality X SpacetimeX Objects ~= (Emergence) ; 4. What's the EXISTENTIALITY (i prefer in place of REALITY) of the Continuum? 6. Making their spacetime ~= creating their own neighborhod for enabling to cast bg indep. into a topological qualität.

[mrqsilveira]

Taking the question whether Superstring theory could explain or not the Newtonian phenomena of "Turbulence, one can simply state that Superstring says it "explains" particles, that is, any quantum entity, so it explains any classical Newtonian phenomena in general, and classical "Turbulence" in particular as for the matter. In short, any classical phenomena will be Superstring explainable as soon as this theory stabilizes within the scientific stablishment requirements. Which means...

[EinSofVirtuoso]

@mrqsilveira Very mean of me? I truly doubt the framework within Superstring theory will be able to explain the chaoticity found in turbulent fluids due to its background dependence among other drawbacks. The framework that has been most beneficial to me is LQG with its spin networks and foam that do allow one to Quantize the Navier Stokes equations. I understand there has research with regard to classical chaos, as in Hamiltonian systems; however Turbulence is actually a quantum problem.

[mrqsilveira]

Thank you very much! I've got myself some problems understanding(personal limitations): 1. background dependence; 2. quantization of Navier Stokes equations; 3. Turbulence as specifically quantum problem. As I work with OOP (oriented object programming languages), I'm going to try to CAST my thinking into CASTING quantization of phenomena (I mean quatization of equations) like using the OOP concept of polymorfism.

[mrqsilveira]

Excuse-me my friend! Could you tell me in a few words what is and how you quantize an equation? Why turbulence is considered actually a quantum problem?

[EinSofVirtuoso]

@mrqsilveira Well it is not truly quantizing the equation, but the framework of the equation. The Navier-Stokes equation is a paramount of fluid dynamics and continuum mechanics for that matter. However, turbulence is a problem that is yet to be solved classically. My opinion, which is the opinion of some other scientists, is that the various forces between atoms and particles for that matter, give rise to the instabilities found in turbulence.

[EinSofVirtuoso]

@mrqsilveira By Using the framework of Ashketar and Smolin, one could theoretically map out turblence as the time evolution of spin networks (this becomes convenient since turbulence involves cyclonic motion most if not all the time). Speaking so, the interaction between the elements of a fluid cannot be seen as homogeneous, continuous elements. So far I have yet to find some sort of machinery from string theory that would work for this problem because of its background dependence.

[EinSofVirtuoso]

@mrqsilveira As a quick clarification using qualitative terms of background independence, I believe that objects within Reality are not inside of Space and Time; They are spatial and temporal. This is what i believe to be the Paradigm shift in the coming years. String theory imposes a Minkowskian 4d and Calabi-Yau 7d, therefore 11 dimensional space-time in which particles move within the continuum. However I believe everything is dynamic, changing, and quantized, thus making their space itself.

[mrqsilveira]

I really think you're bright explaining things. Thank you! It seems to me that the Existential Quantum concept qualitatively fits into a background independent approach to a quantum gravity theory taking the existentiality of the continuum as close as possible of a fundamental nirvana. See the ontological underlying principles SPE/SPR/SPN accessing my channel, please.

[etiennealive]

Sounds like the holographic principia.

[polymath7]

Too brief, but thanks anyway.

[Quantummatrix1981]

The sound is so poor I cant hear what his saying.......?

[FeelOfFriction]

Nigga get some new speakers I can hear him perfectly.

[etiennealive]

what kind of speakers do you have. My speakers give a bad sound to ?!

[FeelOfFriction]

Clarification: It is my sound card, not my speakers. My sound card is called Creative X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Pro Series. It makes everything crystal clear.

[Neueregel]

@Quantummatrix1981 yeah whatever..

[etiennealive]

So the being of gravity in the four dimensions we experience is less dominant that it is in the other dimensions who excist next to us !? Do I have that correct ? This is very difficult, I must say. But very interesting ! I can't say I understand everything but try to. Keep up the good work Mr. Witten. This lecture was like a I-opener for me. Studying these subjects is a bit adictiv, once you start you want to know more and more I gues.

[jingling30]

well back in the day strings were thought to be loops or open loops. Most of the gravity particles excape the brane within the 11 dimentions.

[EinSofVirtuoso]

Even though we have made great leaps in theoretical physics, as made evident through M-theory, I would love to ask Witten if M-theory and/or Superstring theory could explain the Newtonian phenomena of "Turbulence," as found in Fluid mechanics.

[mrqsilveira]

That was very mean of you!

[mrqsilveira]

And then life emerges!

[mrqsilveira]

It seems to have some inconsistency with Einstein's principle of equivalence.

But if you go a bit higher in the hierarchy of the arrows of explanation the inconsistency vanishes away.

[mrqsilveira]

The Strong Principle Of Equivalence enlaces General Relativity and Species Evolution.

The Strong Principle Of Relativity brings together Species Evolution and Quantum Physics.

Those are per se improvements over Einstenian physical worldview....

But the Strong Principle Of Neighborhood allows an enlarged unifying topological construct and the definition of the Existential Quantum which is intrinsically a renormalization instance.

Just some simple ideas!

[mrqsilveira]

It is vexing - cause this imprisonment hurts - that my stupid donkey-monkey mind still gravitates around a Newtonian worldview...!

[josef8608]

he sure is smart

[seanmPWH]

Is Dimensional gravity an alternative to gravity as a force?

[mrqsilveira]

Not even wrong the question: Einstein's general relativity had already banned Newton's concept of gravity as a force before more modern attempts trying to understand this stuff. Gravity is given by the spacetime curvature. Right, friend?

[seanmPWH]

I was not actually bringing Newton into this but rather Dimensional gravity vs the graviton. I would suspect if we take Einstein's model seriously then there would be no need to search for the graviton or gravity wave (not to be confused with the gravitational wave).

[mrqsilveira]

It seems to have some inconsistency with Einstein's principle of equivalence...