The Physicist Who Broke an 'Unbreakable' Rule | Claudia de Rham

Today we are joined by theoretical physicist Claudia de Rham for her return appearance on Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal to discuss the possibility that gravity itself has mass. In this mind-bending conversation, she explores how this idea challenges long-held assumptions in general relativity and opens the door to a new understanding of dark energy and the structure of the universe. We also dive into the frontiers of cosmology, quantum gravity, and what it means to question the foundations of physics.

Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos):

Links Mentioned:

Timestamps:
00:00 - Introduction
01:20 - Claudia's Approach
09:11 - Claudia's Motivation
14:45 - Dark Energy
23:35 - Causality
27:19 - Other Approaches
45:10 - New Physics
50:47 - Dark Energy (continued)
57:36 - Quantum Gravity / String Theory
01:14:10 - Gravitons & Photons
01:21:44 - Symmetry
01:30:25 - Double Slit Experiment
01:50:15 - Cosmology
01:54:45 - Massive Graviton
02:00:10 - Conclusion

#science

[nickzapletal]

Kurt, oh my god how i loved this interview ! She communicates so clearly and well that she re-ignited my interest and passion for physics. She explained in such a way that I did not discarded her as another theorist churning out improbable, unprovable crap. Your best guest so far imho. The only thing that matched her awesomeness was your preparedness . That was a top notch interview where you asked the pertinent and appropriate questions, You set the high bar for your and every other channel future interviews ! Job well done !

[Graybeard_]

I think Curt has reset the bar for my expectations of being prepared for an interview. Exceptional!

[MikeTheSkeptic]

What a great time to be alive! Love listening to Claudia and other such brilliant scientists that express so much excitement thinking on the fringe.

[nicolaskrinis]

By far the best YouTube physics channel. Great job as usual.

[csleuthone]

Glad I lucked out finding your channel, you're 1 subscriber closer to crossing 500, 000 and with over 60, 000, 000 as your viewership number currently, is comendable. Thoroughly enjoyed your guest CD Rham and her views on the fundamental basics and quantum forces accelerating the universe. Right up my alley, thank you both!

[derpmcghee]

Fantastic. Wonderful interviewer, fascinating interviewee, look forward to interview 3 with her. Well done with the channel.

[zathrasyes]

This is an exceptional good interview about gravity. Thx a lot for the good time.

[suntaog]

I love her common sense approach to gravity. It's almost unremarkable and very hard-headed to treat gravity as a field with a representative particle. Since we're barely getting into the detection phase, it's obviously a matter that will be developed as time passes. There's no reason to doubt the validity of her approach. In my opinion.

[rg.spencer]

Her brand of informed creativity is very refreshing! Thank you!

[cachos-story-lab]

Certainly hope her proposals gain momentum :)

[ioannischristou]

if math is against you, just change the axioms. If massive gravity or massive photons is an absurdity in the world we live in, just assume more dimensions and negative energy, and you have yourself a new self-consistent theory (unless someone discovers a major paradox). If the theory is impossible to test, even better! It can linger longer...

[metavalent]

Oversharing some fringe pseudo neologism lingo used in My Own Private Idaho. 22:30 Perfect Tuning Theory 34:58 There is a 3rd Energy (matter, space-time, consciousness [thought]) 49:10 Intuition: the smelting furnace of all (eventually solid) newly forged knowledge 1:25:58 Gravity Rainbows are just gravity seen through Dark Energy Frequency Prisms 1:31:00 Yes. Gravity as Observer is one of perhaps several bridges to-from consciousness (e.g., mechanisms of action) 1:38:49 There's life in the fast lane, then there's life at the "Planck Scale Event Horizon" 1:48:00 Abstractly rhymes with current philosophoscientific inquiry peering _beyond_ "Story Itself" (C.S. Lewis). 1:57:26 Finally, another angle, perspective, on the same questions afflicting My Little Toe. 🤖🧠⚖💖🕊

[lwssy]

Very interesting interview. Thanks so much!

[SilentlyContinue]

The decked out blackboard is both an odd flex and oddly aesthetically pleasing

[mikhailfranco]

I had a small thought linking two parts of the conversation. We live is dS space, if there is a dS/CFT relationship, then the correspondence will depend on the boundary (finite volume of bulk, area of boundary). Our universe is expanding and the cosmological 'constant' (Λ) appears to be changing, perhaps due to dark matter shenanigans.
But whatever the mechanism, slowly changing Λ might be due to changing finite boundary. For example, the fundamental lowest-energy vacuum fluctuations might depend on a wavelength cut-off imposed by the size of the whole universe. The lowest mode will be longer in wavelength and smaller in energy as the universe expands. Then the expansion rate depends on its previous history. So it has non-linear slowing acceleration. This also implies higher dark energy in the past, hence rapid expansion (inflation) near the Big Bang. Finite but expanding boundary would also allow some of those other cherished 'perfect' symmetries to be violated in a time-varying way for a dS universe - time symmetry, time-like Killing vector, energy conservation, diff invariance, etc.

[chrishicks]

Gravity has mass and I want you to prove it. I read your book.. and you have a bigger obsession with gravity than I do. You have a joy for it that most people do not..

[circa_er]

I grasped maybe 1% of this nerd poetry but it sounds soo good. Here is my 3 cents...
Everything we see is this dynamic dance between light, matter, and consciousness. Like… color doesn’t exist without all three. It’s a co-creation between the universe and our brains.

[borg.ia]

On negative probabilities (the case as it is currently defined): based on what Mrs. de Rham said earlier, I'd say they either forgot to add something relevant or subtracted (to compensate I guess) something that wasn't in need to be compensated. Could be a measurement problem too. A secondary explanation could be if there is some underlying logical flaw in defining omega: in mixing categories that do not belong together (apples and pears / ill defined omega) and/or/aka redundant (already covered / not independent) categories, missing elements (ill defined omega) . At least this is what I could muster as an outsider to that specific field.

Just as food for thought: One could very well define "probabilities" (a function similar but not identical to the current one - a different name might be used) that could take negative values, with or without "imaginary" component, even infinities. Arguably one could make such a construct only if it is for some "niche" applications. In that case the minus would have a well defined meaning. This has nothing to do with the minus one apparently gets when doing some calculations as mentioned above and cannot constitute the explanation in that case.

[SecularPaul]

I’m not a physicist, but if gravity had mass wouldn’t that create two problems? If gravity has mass, gravitational waves can’t travel at the speed of light and if gravity has mass wouldn’t that lead to infinite mass and gravitational wave black holes?

[bobhoward]

If we are "leaking" energy into another dimension of negative energy, then the opposite of that is also true.

What if "dark energy" is the main universe and our universe is simply the "leakage" of the main universe.

Of course we would expand if that is the case!