Sean Carroll says yes, Eric Weinstein says no. Who is correct?
>we have to quantize gravity>no we have to gravitize quantum>suck my dick>no you suck my dicksabine was right about these guys
>>17087948Modern physics is just ugly jewish trannies arguing about untestable unprovable theories involving gay strings or quantum gravity or whateverGrim
What if we BigTum the weak and strong nuclear forces?
>>17087948
>>17087952KEKFpbpAnd they both take Einstein’s side over BohrEven when scientists agree on something they will bicker like homosexuals
>>17087948Yes
>>17087948If quantized gravity exist, there should be something inside the Quarks that could be subdivided in finite quantum values, like the Electron's spin or its quantized Energy level.Am I right ?I guess the CERN is still chasing it.
>>17087948yes but only gods chosen can understand it
>>17088015Or if you've done some years in College in Physics or Maths.
>>17087948I was visualising it and there's a thick loop circle floating from them that is used to calculate gravity. Funny thing is one time when I fell asleep I free fell right through the middle of the loop and quantum jumped into someone. The loop uses it's centre to calculated out gravity.
>>17088028Hello Donnie Darko.
>>17088020no that only gives you the jewish approximation
>>17087972>>17087990saar
>>17087993the idea would be that the property of momentum is being redistributed in the universe by the gravitons.you could say thats similar to how photons redistribute EM energy in the universe toward a heat death. so gravitons are pushing everything toward momentum death.it's just that those changes are insanely tiny, with much less effect than what low energy photons will cause.the best bet is to try to figure something out with colliding black holes since they would theoretically bleed enough momentum to observe some quantization
>>17087948Does quantum porn exist?
>>17087948>Does Quantum Gravity exist?This is like asking whether early-universe magnetohydrodyamics exists. It is a well-established field because applying thought experiments is easy: what are the implications of the theory in realistic scenarios that are unfortunately inaccessible to current-day experiments. But certainly there was a time in the evolution of the universe when these currently very ephemeral parts of physics did matter much more >Sean Carroll and Eric Weinsteinneither of them are worth listening to for even a second. Weinstein is obviously a bad actor—his theory he can’t even defend without putting on his decades-delayed manuscript that it is “a work of entertainment”. Pathetic. Sean Carroll is a joke of a physicist whose specialty is so far away from quantum gravity (he’s a vanilla astrophysicist whose credentials are basically equivalent to Neil DeGrasse Tyson) that he can be dismissed out of hand. It is very telling that he thinks that appearing on Piers Morgan alongside Eric “muh insignificant conjecture about Chern-Simons that I never published for stolen by Witten sob sob” Weinstein is a dignified thing to do. This just makes Carroll look as retarded as everyone should have always thought he was: very much so
>>17088170just to follow up: I posted this last post without having listened to the Piers Morgan show that is the topicI listened to it just now and basically all I have to say is that: 1) I was right coming into it 2) Eric is more unhinged than ever and comes across as a schizo and 3) Sean is totally unprepared to defend physics on this level. Eric got all “muh fiber bundle theory” on Sean and Sean was a deer in headlights. A true representative of physics should at the very least know how to disarm a “fiber bundle” idiot but he failed. Apparently he wasn’t on /sci/ when we had Yukariposter dining that 8 years ago
>>17087948Actually it's called Brownian gravity via quantum Stochastic walk.
>>17088500https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_Brownian_motionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes_model
>jew says no. kike says yes.pivotal discussion
>>17088512Sean Carroll is Irish.
gravity is an information-theoretic phenomenon and quantum physics isn't ontological, gravity can't be described quantum mechanically in the same way that a single cell doesn't describe how a creature functions, because a creature is a result of many cells interacting in their own peculiar way.
>>17088170>Sean Carroll is a joke of a physicist whose specialty is so far away from quantum gravity (he’s a vanilla astrophysicist whose credentials are basically equivalent to Neil DeGrasse Tyson) that he can be dismissed out of hand.So he's not a quantum theorist? Why is he always harping on about the many worlds interpretation?
>>17088566That’s his sideline interest and really not his specialty. If you look through his “papers” on the topic most of them are unpublished and just sit on arXiv and none of them really ever get citations. I think they’re mostly just some sort of cross between popsci and outreach to philosophy departments. It isn’t important physics and physicist pay very little attention to it. Anytime the term “interpretations” comes up it is almost always not actual physics (though some of his other stuff doesn’t mention interpretations—but still gets ignored by the physics community)there really are very few people who are “quantum theorists” per se like this type of work—overwhelmingly theoretical physics work in high energy theory, condensed matter theory, and a few other minor things like e.g. cosmology or information/computation theory. But people who work on “foundational” quantum theory not in those fields usually take the title “Mathematical Physicist” (which is more expansive than just quantum foundation theory.) An example of someone I would consider doing real work in “quantum theory” in a relatively pure form is Carl Bender, whose mathematical virtuosity makes Carroll look like a toddler, his papers actually get published in prominent physics journals unlike Carroll, and his citations are off the charts compared to Carroll
>Even when scientists agree on something they will bicker like homosexuals/thread
>>17088605Damn. Carroll really presents himself as a heavy hitter, but he's actually a lightweight. Hmm. Oh well.
>>17090171Many such cases:>Bill Nye>Sabine>Larry Krauss>Neil Tyson>Brian Cox>Brian Greene>Michio Kaku
>>17087948How dare you cast shade and dispersions of the kind that I wouldn't seek to cast on you, but I will now. I'm not seeking your favor, nor do I need seek your approval. As you know, you failed to gain tenure at the University of Chicago. You're not highly regarded in the field. You're not a leading person in the field. The equations that Natty Seiberg and Ed Witten introduced were mine, all mine! Your intellectually insulting aspect reminds me of you as the Marie-Antoinette of theoretical physics influencers. You have a serious problem with dark energy that's going to go right through having a problem with Lambda-CDM which eventually will be a problem with the Einstein field equations. Imagine a world where Elon Musk and Sam Altman continue to compete for better and better AIs. What would you say if at some point those AIs read my paper and said "Holy cow, that is exactly what we've been missing?"
>>17090178Carroll shouldn't be in the same category as most of those jokers or Weinstein in my opinion. Weinstein is clearly a scam artist. Which theoretical physicist is work listening to if you want to get an idea of things without reading papers and going through the math? I like Ethan Siegel because he's not afraid to call out Penrose on his wacky CCC theory.
>>17087955It's an esteemed Rabbinic tradition
