Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Einstein’s Other Theory of Everything" video.

No, not really. ;-)
1
@fuseteam Einstein was trying to make a classical field theory. At that point in his life physics had passed him by decades ago. Technically Einstein misidentified quanta as corpuscles in his Nobel prize winning paper on the photoelectric effect and he never corrected himself. He constantly kept trying to classicize the world, even though that's a pointless exercise (a classical world can not contain any matter) .
1
If we are, then it's the strangest black hole... so strange that it doesn't look like one. ;-)
1
There is no such thing as "matter". Matter is an emergent property of spacetime.
1
@BlackEyedGhost0 There is literally nothing to split. Structurally the phenomenology of this universe is fully understood. It's worthwhile to point out that Galileo might already have had the Theory of Everything around 1630, when he basically gave an equivalent of Einstein's Elevator to express that relativity was an important property of nature. He could not have known just how important it was, but it took us 400 years to go from his relativity principle to a fully worked out theoretical framework that can elaborate the consequences of relativity systematically. It took this long because one can not just sit down with pen and paper and guess ones way through these equations, even though in hindsight the math is pretty obvious. We always need observations and experiments to guide us step by step. That is why it is so unfortunate that the public discussion is driven by pen and paper theorists rather than the people who are actually designing experiments (they are busy and don't care about public outreach). The public thinks that physics is very esoteric. In reality everything that happens at places like CERN is rather hands-on and professional. Critics like Sabine are, at best, driven by their frustration with the slow progress at the experimental front... but that's a matter of technology and investment. One can't go from Galileo's telescope (which was worse than the worst ten bucks binoculars are today) to JWST in a generation. One can't go from his fall experiments to LHC without centuries of effort by millions of people. That's just the price of knowledge.
1
You have been saying that for ten years? Curious. Physicists have known this for over 90. You are one full human lifetime late. You can pick up your Nobel at the dumpster of the car wash nearest to you. I put it there. ;-)
1
What do you mean by "that composes matter"? Matter is a phenomenon that lives in an energy range between, at least, 1e-6eV (electronic fine structure, spin-spin interaction etc.) to 10^11 eV (nuclei) at the atomic level alone. One can extend that downwards and upwards by many orders of magnitudes if we take solid state effects into account. So depending on how you want to look at it, the "frequency range" of matter spans between 17 and maybe fifty or more orders of magnitude.
1
Dark matter fields had been detected much earlier than most of the other fields of the standard model. Science history is sometimes weird. We did, by the way, have the Theory of Everything since roughly 1630, we just didn't know what to do with it. ;-)
1
Supersymmetry is mathematically almost inescapable. That is hasn't been detected, yet, is a simple matter of our limited experimentally accessible energy range. If you want to see the toy example for this that has been confirmed experimentally, the exact same theory predicts that in two dimensions bosons and fermions are replaced by systems that have neither symmetry: anyons. Experimental evidence for such systems has been found in 2020. This ain't rocket science. It's much, much more complicated... and you just don't have the necessary intellectual curiosity to learn the amount of math that it takes to understand it. ;-)
1
Nothing is falling in the geometrodynamic picture. Without interaction everything is, at all times, moving on the straightest lines available to it. :-)
1
Nobody of importance ever said that the universe began tiny. What we can see of the visible universe today may have "begun" (in the sense of our modern clocks) in a volume that was much smaller, maybe the size of an orange. The problem with such "comparisons" is that they convey absolute scales that the universe most likely doesn't care about. Try to imagine the universe as a fractal. Not only is there no "bottom", there is no scale at all. You can zoom in as much as you like and you can zoom out as much as you like... it always looks the same if you are looking at a large enough volume with large enough resolution. The problem is that "large enough" in case of the universe may imply hundred orders of magnitude (or hundreds, potentially even thousands). That's just too much for the human visual system to handle. Maybe we can make a logarithmic plot of sorts that shows this properly. And ultimately... if there is no scale, then there is probably not even a range of scales for the repetitions of patterns, i.e. there are always patches that are arbitrarily large before a pattern repeats. That's like a hyper-fractal. I can't visualize that. ;-)
1
@Danny_6Handford "Many famous and main stream scientist think..." Stop right there. What scientists THINK is NOT science. Science is the rational description of nature. All I ever remember seeing in the primary (papers) and secondary literature (textbooks) are formulas and plots for the density of the universe. That's what the theory predicts. It does not predict size. Can you show me a paper that contains a size prediction or, even better, a size measurement? "...that the size of the universe before it started to expand..." Nobody has ever seen a non-expanding universe. I don't know where you are taking that idea from? Diagrams that stop at some arbitrary time scale? That's a choice by whoever made the diagram, it's not an actual measurement of an initially static universe. There are suggestions out there that the universe is inflating eternally, but those are extrapolations. There is no data and there is not even math to arrive at that conclusion. What the universe does on unobservable scales is unknown and will potentially stay unknown forever. "The math appears to support this idea..." Science is not math. Math is just a description of what we observe. We can extrapolate beyond what we have seen and sometimes that extrapolation is correct. Often it is not. You might as well be throwing dice for all your cosmological needs if you go "by the math". Nobody in physics works that way. We know at all times what has been observed and what is pure extrapolation. In this case everything before the electroweak unification scale is complete extrapolation. That doesn't get you anywhere close to "the universe was the size of an atom". "We now know that our universe produces billions of black holes and I am probably not the only one that thinks black holes are the “seeds” for the creation of a new universe but only a tiny percentage of them will create a new universe." OK, that's just poetry in motion now. There is not even math to support the idea that what's inside a black hole is a new universe. The math that we have predicts an extremely hot and violent environment that cooks all information about the past out of what fell in. What we "believe" based on the extrapolation of "the math" is that what comes out of a black hole is mostly featureless black body radiation. Only a tiny percentage of the infalling baryonic matter can re-emerge as baryonic matter. Maybe not even that.
1
That's why the mathematicians are only awarding the Fields medal to mathematicians under 40. If you haven't done it by that age, it's unlikely that you will ever do it.
1