'We Have Physics Completely Backwards!'

preview_player
Показать описание
Gabriele Carcassi is a dedicated physicist and software engineer based in Michigan, leading the innovative "Assumptions of Physics" project to redefine the foundational principles of physics. By bridging mathematics, physics, and philosophy, Gabriele advocates for an open-source, interdisciplinary approach to advance our understanding of the universe.

LINKED MENTIONED:

TOE'S TOP LINKS:

TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 - Intro
00:22 - Gabriele's Channel
03:13 - Assumptions Project
06:06 - Physical Mathematics
09:38 - Real Numbers
13:06 - Ensemble Space
16:38 - Classical Mechanics
19:00 - Additional Assumptions
21:26 - Classical vs Quantum
23:19 - Entropy & Symplectic
25:07 - Jaynes & Thermodynamics
30:25 - Units in Physics
33:21 - Math vs Physics
37:07 - Planck Scale Structures
41:51 - Theory Applicability
1:16:25 - Engineering Background
1:18:04 - Physics-Math Bridge
1:19:01 - Assumptions Project
1:21:08 - Grant Funding
1:23:05 - Mechanics Critique
1:24:25 - Problem Identification
1:25:03 - Publishing Challenges
1:27:03 - Engineering Approach
1:29:03 - Practical Implications
1:33:28 - Measurement Problem
1:37:05 - Classical vs Quantum
1:43:04 - Integrating Math Physics
1:55:07 - Current Projects
2:04:43 - Future Goals
2:07:03 - Open-Source Framework
2:10:57 - Support TOE

SPONSORS (please check them out to support TOE):

Other Links:

#science #physics #sciencepodcast #theoreticalphysics #podcast
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 - Intro
00:22 - Gabriele's Channel
03:13 - Assumptions Project
06:06 - Physical Mathematics
09:38 - Real Numbers
13:06 - Ensemble Space
16:38 - Classical Mechanics
19:00 - Additional Assumptions
21:26 - Classical vs Quantum
23:19 - Entropy & Symplectic
25:07 - Jaynes & Thermodynamics
30:25 - Units in Physics
33:21 - Math vs Physics
37:07 - Planck Scale Structures
41:51 - Theory Applicability
1:16:25 - Engineering Background
1:18:04 - Physics-Math Bridge
1:19:01 - Assumptions Project
1:21:08 - Grant Funding
1:23:05 - Mechanics Critique
1:24:25 - Problem Identification
1:25:03 - Publishing Challenges
1:27:03 - Engineering Approach
1:29:03 - Practical Implications
1:33:28 - Measurement Problem
1:37:05 - Classical vs Quantum
1:43:04 - Integrating Math Physics
1:55:07 - Current Projects
2:04:43 - Future Goals
2:07:03 - Open-Source Framework
2:10:57 - Support TOE

TheoriesofEverything
Автор

Curt, Gabriele, thank you — this project looks very interesting! I have a paper on SR foundations to finish today — it includes a simple and strikingly different resolution of the twins paradox — but I'll take a closer look at this interview and Gabriele's channel when I'm done.

TerryBollinger
Автор

It is when talking about boundary conditions and how they actually define the system he really hits home with me! Very interesting interview :)

KineHjeldnes
Автор

I recently found Gabriele's channel in my recommendations, and I'm really happy seeing this notification

shaharjoselevich
Автор

Curt you keep hitting one home run after another, great episode

TheMikesylv
Автор

I feel sorry for all the recently graduated mathematical physicists now that physical mathematics just dropped.

BarackObamaJedi
Автор

A refreshing podcast, nice listening to you Gabriele and your enthusiasm. Watched so far only 50 minutes, what do I know, but I believe Gabriele understands calculus more than anyone else does. Awesome job.

jacksourlis
Автор

@30:00 bit of a roundabout answer. Momentum is a covector in Hamiltonian mechanics because H-mechanics is formulated in symplectic phase space, so the position differentials in the tangent space and the momenta in the cotangent space. It's just semantics. Any inner products makes a covector uniquely associable with a (contravariant) vector, allowing one to write for instance _p = mv._ under most circumstances. The p=ħk wavevector reciprocity view does not apply generally in classical mechanics. The Fourier transform relationship between position and momentum representations in quantum mechanics doesn't have a direct classical analogue except for waves.

Achrononmaster
Автор

Such a fresh perspective. I truly think that this engineering approach to physics research is what's missing

Doozy_Titter
Автор

All paradoxes of math lurked in physics. Now physicists try to solve them by turning into wannabe philosophers…

b.
Автор

This was a great interview - if developed this perspective will drive discovery of new physics aided my rigorous metaphysics. Super interested in this! Thanks for sharing Kurt 🙏

brunaise
Автор

Very interesting and amazing approach, I should take inspiration from this to do something similar in economics which is in shambles

matteogirelli
Автор

Wow this is a great conversation. I believe he means that the scales have a different meaning think along the lines of a predictable symbol instead of numbers. An example is number 9 and 6 aren’t prime numbers.

pv
Автор

physic is forced to adapt to math . What could go wrong

egoepvi
Автор

@8:00 it is not so simple. You cannot say the mass of the photon is > 0 without completely destroying Maxwell's theory, which is a pretty darn accurate classical theory. Some respect has to be given to minimal elegant structure, not just empiricism, especially when the minimal structure is in agreement with empirical observations within uncertainties. This is a type of parsimony argument for sure, but it is proven effective throughout history. It doesn't mean in the classical regime we cannot later be forced to give up Maxwell theory, but even in the known quantum regimes the massless photon holds up, and holds up only moreso the higher in energy you go, where eventually all particles are massless and conformal symmetry is manifest. Put another way "physics" priors are not just empirical observations, theory is a prior as well (at the very least the Principle of Sufficient Reason), and you cannot separate theory from experiment.

Achrononmaster
Автор

@40:00 point set topology is not all just about points, it's about open and closed sets. For a spacetime manifold one does not need the concept of a point to be something in and of itself, in fact that'd be absurd, the structure is continuous, so no point exists in isolation to others. This whole idea QM is about discrete space is truly a grave error and misconception. QM is _more continuous_ than classical mechanics, not less. One cannot have a generalized probability theory matching QM without continuous state transitions. Classical mechanics is precisely the sort of GPT that does not permit continuous state transitions.
The fundamental symmetries of nature are CPT and the unitary groups. These might be clues telling you spacetime really is a continuum! CPT transforms are mirror transforms and all smooth rotations can be constructed from two mirror transforms.

Achrononmaster
Автор

@17:30 that's only for classical _statistical_ mechanics not *classical* _classical_ mechanics. Classical mechanics does not have distributions because one permits arbitrary accurate & precise measurements. It is because we found we cannot make arbitrary precise measurements that classical mechanics fails. But if it fails with arbitrary small ħ then it is not QM, it remains only classical statistical mechanics. We only get QM if ħ cannot vanish and state transitions are non-Markov and "indivisible" (a bipartite structure exists) in Barandes' terminology .

Achrononmaster
Автор

I find LLMs useful in helping me plan and prepare for the code I’m writing, but not the actual writing of the code I use it as a more powerful search engine and knowledge base. There is a crafting aspect to writing good code that LLMs just aren’t good at. My guess is that it’s likely related to reasoning and creativity, which LLMs are pretty terrible at. Still it’s a good brainstorming and research tool. I’ll keep doing the code crafting though :)

snarkyboojum
Автор

This interview must be one of the top ten TOEs. Seriously, though, Gabriele Carcassi is truly brilliant.

Curt, weighing up the rationality and limits of Academia won't necessarily answer the question of why Physics in Academia has lost its spirit of adventure and become increasingly brittle, though.

chrisgea
Автор

@12:50 what? One can define a linear order in the 2D real plane using an affine parameter along a space-filling curve.

Achrononmaster