The Quantum Heretic: A New Theory of Everything?

Welcome to Theories of Everything's "Rethinking the Foundations of the Physics: What is Unification?" series featuring Jonathan Oppenheim.

LINKS MENTIONED:

TOE'S TOP LINKS:
- Become a YouTube Member Here:

SPONSORS (please check them out to support TOE):

Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
01:08 - Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics
06:05 - Quantizing Gravity
10:30 - How Gravity is Different
16:07 - Classical-Quantum Gravity
21:42 - Quantum Mechanics
25:23 - Example of Continuous Master-Equation
28:45 - Observation Causes a Collapse
35:20 - Path Integrals
49:34 - Intuitions
59:32 - Is Spacetime Classical?
01:03:05 - Outro / Support TOE

Support TOE:

#science #physics #quantumphysics #gravity #quantum #lecture

[ConorCruise-hwql]

I love the format of this, it's really stimulating and much better than a static lecture. Great work Curt.

[charlesbrightman]

IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
It seems to me that ANY theory of everything idea should be able to answer the below items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. If that idea does not, then is it truly a theory of everything?

a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. Surely the very nature of reality has to allow numbers and mathematical constants to actually exist for math to do what math does in this existence.

b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand.

c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary.

d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above.

e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality?

f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them?

Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe?

Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above.

Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?).

g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent?

h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?

* NOTE: Even General Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics cannot answer these items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. Shouldn't these above items also require accurate answers?

[arnoldkotlyarevsky]

What an interesting approach. There is something appealing here because one question that always bothered me when I was studying QM was how do quantum systems behave classically once you have larger and larger systems? The hamiltonian becomes unmanageable and you end up needing to make approximations or switch formalisms to talk about statistical behaviors...but here the classical and the quantum play side by side the whole time. The stochastic deviation from classical equation is very satisfying to me for whatever reason. Who knows if this is "real" but the math is lovely.

[zemm]

This channel has improved dramatically.

[isatousarr]

Aligning quantum mechanics with classical mechanics involves recognizing the different frameworks that describe physical phenomena at various scales. While classical mechanics provides a deterministic approach to macroscopic objects, quantum mechanics introduces probabilistic elements at the microscopic level. The challenge lies in finding a unified theory, such as quantum field theory, that incorporates the principles of both realms. Understanding how classical behavior emerges from quantum rules, particularly through concepts like wave-particle duality and decoherence, is essential for bridging these two foundational aspects of physics. This alignment not only deepens our comprehension of the universe but also opens up new avenues for technological advancements in quantum computing and beyond.

[wicekwickowski]

Sensational podcast! And I noticed that the professor's concept is consistent with the latest discovery of space-time properties! I am not a physicist by education, but by passion and love for searching for truth. These very features led me to a conclusion very similar to Professor Oppenheim's concept. Of course, not on the level of mathematical formalism, but logical and observational! And I would not be surprised at all if in the future the professor's theory supported by observational arguments turned out to be... closer to the truth!

[LuisAldamiz]

That's how I like my physicists, the graviton crowd are absolutely unimaginative and also absolutely unrealistic. I was listening to Oppenheim and he made total sense. Will rewatch.

[rebokfleetfoot]

if there is a measure of importance it is TIME, all these problems can be understanding it, it the most important in our equations, which we still have no rational explain of

[wulphstein]

The enthusiasm for a new idea shouldn't be whether it borders on heresy. Enthusiasm for a new idea should happen if that new idea suddenly simplifies physics and extends it's reach to new areas.

[redsocks]

I didn't understand much of this (not being trained in Physics, I wouldn't expect to), but what I did understand was fascinating.
Great stuff :)

[TheMemesofDestruction]

Gravity is the Architecture of the Arena.

[techteampxla]

Thanks KJ and Prof OP for this great video.

KJ thanks for get clarity on the CONTEXT of the imagery, that if very helpful. Also, Prof OP I am very appreciative of the simple 2d drawings, dont care how cheesy they are, they are SUPER SIMPLE and thus exemplary for this context of complex talk put forth.

[quantumkath]

Professor de Rham proposes that gravity has mass. Professor Fuentes's approach is that gravity is not quantum. Professor Oppenheim suggests that spacetime gravity is classical. MOND tweaks General Relativity. Another hypothesis is fuzzy gravity. Hmm...

[psmoyer]

A refreshing change from the typical "puzzles" and "mysteriousness" business. Much appreciated.

[Shinyshoesz]

The production value on that intro Curt! Love it haha <3

[williambranch]

Adding GR may just reformulate the wave function (modified functional analysis), just like adding SR did. Three possible eigen values .... continuous, discrete and special discrete. Special discrete happens in the same range as the continuous aka no novel eigenvalues (given equal boundary conditions). Adding SR only made marginal but interesting changes to the discrete spectrum (fine structure) per hydrogen.

[nedkelly]

It is great that we now have in-depth technical presentations by experts on this platform, what seems missing to me is comments and critiques from other experts.

[mw-thov]

This is the best pedagogical exposition of Oppenheim and associates Classical Quantum gravity theory for physics friendly viewers that I have seen. There are links to key publications. Clearly organized tour through the context of the theory and helpful comparisons to prior work. The presentation proposes feasible test of the theory and suggests a role for the theory as an comparison partner for other quantum gravity theory and experiment.

[olbluelips]

Love to listen to Oppenheim! Stochastic gravity is my favourite QG hypothesis at the moment

[Achrononmaster]

@12:00 it would be more humble and I think more accurate to say _only gravity_ can be described by the _holonomy_ of spacetime. But the other gauge forces _could be_ described by spacetime too, with the *_homology._* Physicists need to crawl out of their toddler pool of trivial spacetime topology, as scary as that seems. Maybe put on some floaties, and float up doggy paddle to a few scary topologists over in the math departments fueled by caffeine. Always bring a coffee and a donut to a math lounge... then you've covered the continuum and the discrete.