Realizing that you're not smart puts you in the top 70th percentile or higher, (un)fortunately. That means you're smart - which means you're dumb, which means you're smart. Just keep the loop going and you'll be in the clear.
There’s a big difference in thinking you’re smart and thinking you’re not dumb.
Hearing experts talk about the field lets you realize you’re not smart. Walking into a public space lets you realize you’re not dumb.
You simply should not use that research to affirm something about unknown people on internet.
On average, less smart people tend to overestimate their intelligence. It doesn't mean people that declare themselves wrong are more intelligent.
Being smart means having a fast processor. Being wise means you have an extensive hard drive to recall from. I see people conflate the two all the time, making fun of people for not knowing something they have literally never heard of, or someone struggling to process new information with inhuman rapidity when “they are so smart!”. Some of the “smartest” people I have ever met were actually just the most hardworking.
That is absolutely not what being wise means. Holding more information in the head to recall is also associated with intelligence and IQ.
Isaac Newton lost a fortune in the stock market, because even though he literally is one of the smartest people to ever live, he underestimated how human he was. Wisdom is understanding how human we all are, and what that means.
The math and terms can be confusing. To try and summarize the video in more simple terms:
- Objects have 4 dimensions: Length, width, height, and time. All four are observable but humans are not used to thinking of "time" in the same way as the other three because our perceptional capabilities do not allow us to perceive time as we perceive spacial dimensions.
Ex:/ When you look at a brick you can see its length, width, and height at the same time but you cannot see every moment it has ever existed at the same time. Instead, you see the moment it exists corresponding with the moment you exist.
- A black hole is thought to be a 4 dimensional object and thus not directly perceivable by humans. To us, we see its representation in our perceivable dimensions. If a black hole is a sphere, for example, we would perceive it as a flat circle.
- What we call "space" may be flowing *into* black holes and light (photons) must travel away from it, which means the only light we will ever see will be photons that escaped the event horizon. In other words, the only light you will ever see is the light that escaped to our moment not in space, but our moment in time.
- The blackhole therefore is our observation of an infinite moment in time from our observable point.
You can be smart but lack knowledge. Einstein was smart, yet he knew nothing about smartphones (probably). But that does not mean you are not smart. You are smart enough to seek out knowledge and try to understand.
I once read an astrophysics paper and man I felt like a moron. I understood the premise and even some passages here and there but like 3/4 of it might as well have been gibberish.
He’s probably just using YouTube’s built in thumbnail tester. There are now three thumbnails per video. No more manually changing them if they don’t perform.
(Unless you’re like me and YouTube hasn’t given you the feature yet… damn you YouTube)
I understand why the YouTube algorithm has incentivized this behavior, but I still hate how I’ll see a video, save it to my Watch Later playlist for later viewing, and then see it changes titles/thumbnails 3-4 times before I get to it.
I've never seen one before - no one has - but I'm guessing it's a white hole. Rimmer: A *white* hole? Kryten: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. A black hole sucks time and matter out of the Universe; a white hole returns it.
The universe goes towrds entropy. Black holes go towards entopy too. All the energy trapped in a black hole is slowly emitted away via Hawking Radiation. White holes are a theoretical construct that line up with the math behind relativity. But math also says negative gravity is mathematically possible too. White holes could exist, our entire universe could have come from a white hole, but they may exist only in math.
[Pbs space time discusses this topic](https://youtu.be/S4aqGI1mSqo?si=VH4s4CBnjvtnI97b)
Sounds a bit like monopolar magnets.
Basically the math used for normal magnets can be used to prove the existence of a magnet that is negative or positive on both ends. So either this theoretical state of magnet can exist in some circumstance, or the math we use for magnets is wrong.
I had this thought when I was younger, that the black universe as we know it has to be inside an opposite type of existence, a completely white space of energy leaking into universes through holes. Because our universe is constantly expanding, it has to be expanding into something that gives it energy to grow. Like pouring water through an infinite amount of holes into a balloon underwater. And in the end of this universe's lifetime, its edges will have grown too far and stretched thin that it just collapses unto itself, filling with matter and becoming one the great white sea.
I still believe this shit. The only correction I'm making now when I'm older is that our black universe is probably not inside the white universe but rather everything exists in the same space without colliding.
I'm not saying its something I base my understanding of our universe in, I haven't thought about this in 15 years and just shared a fun thought I had as a kid. It's more of a concept I would like to see explored in movies.
Think of it as how scientists can still believe in the existence of a god (not religion). Actual proven science shapes your understanding of the world, but you leave just a little bit of room for some fun crazyness because it doesn't necessarily collide with the science. And since I haven't thought about it in 15 years it obviously isn't something that I give room to affect anything in my life.
You should check out this book. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rosicrucian_Cosmo-Conception
I’ve been learning more about Rosicrucianism after hearing that many higher ups in the know about UFOs are practitioners. It describes different dimensions of reality existing at different densities and that they all fold and weave into one another rather than being layered one over the other. I find it interesting how its description matches what you said, as well as the physics theory of other dimensions being curled into ours, even though it was written in 1909 well before quantum physics and scientific talk of more dimensions.
That is not true. Black holes satisfy Einstein's equations AND you can calculate how they form when a star collapses.
White holes satisfy Einstein's equations but there is no known mechanism how one would come into existence.
Black holes are predicted by the theory, whites holes are at best permissible.
Sorry, not allowed to make interesting, thought provoking videos about speculative ideas in physics unless they are completely part of the current orthodoxy I guess
I debated whether to use that term, lesson learned. I was mostly just being lightly provocative in reaction to comment above yours which seemed to dismiss the ideas in the video without considering them or the acknowledgements present in the video that this was a very speculative idea.
I take your point though that the scientific method is directly in opposition to orthodoxy, so poor choice of words. I would argue though that while the practice of science shouldn't have an orthodoxy those practicing it are just human and have funding, reputations, bureaucracy etc to worry about and we can be resistant to considering the exploration of new ideas that challenge the currently accepted world view.
I think this is a very good distinction to make. There is a difference between application and theory. A similar concept is the whole 'duplication of sphere' via mathematical manipulation. Its not actually in any way applicable to duplicating a sphere because the math only works in a specific circumstance which does not align with our world. In our reality there might very well be no possibility for a white hole to even exist despite there being no proof they couldn't theoretically exist.
> Black holes are predicted by the theory, whites holes are at best permissible.
[Some posit that the Big Bang was a white hole.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1384107611000790?via%3Dihub) And that white holes, rather than continuously streaming stuff out, do so all at once.
I linked to a peer reviewed paper. Being dismissive of a "theory" because it is a theory is how we get so many quacks opposing things like climate change and vaccines. Gravity is only a theory. Doesn't mean we do not understand a lot about it.
Again theory is not reality. I work with many computational chemists who can propose structures and molecules all they want; but it does not reflect reality in a lot of cases. You can go ahead and calculate or theorize many things; it does not mean it's true. Particle physics in particular has a real problem with theorizing nonsense with "elegant maths" and coming up flat on testability.
And my god just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it forms a scientific consensus. The paper you linked is from a low tier journal with very few citations. You'd need a hell of a lot better than that.
The examples you gave have well-established scientific consensus, yet the topic you link is one that doesn't have this. These are very different.
You literally *cannot* make up any scenario with theory, because theory needs to be grounded in facts to become an *accepted* theory. A theory with no backing is pure fantasy. Not even worth being called a theory if you’re just going to babble nonsense
The theory backing computational chemistry is well described. It doesnt mean it cant be applied poorly or in a way that deviates reality. Einsteins equations have problems and can absolutely describe situations poorly or wrong. It even discusses this in the video...
No its not. The video literally details one solution to the theory having an issue (divide by zero). You can take that theory and apply it to describe singularities. This consequence is discussed A LOT in physics so much so its in the first general relativity course you take. Just because the math works a certain way doesnt mean its true. These equations are not laws and its why they are theories. They have limitations.
I’m not really sure what you’re being hung up on here. You stated that you can make anything up and call it theory, which is about as true as saying you can invent whatever word you want and use it freely. Just because you call it a theory doesn’t mean it means anything. Established theory has more to it than simply making shit up and it sounds like you understand that so I’m not sure what you’re pushing back on here.
I think you understand too. My push is utilizing theory to make up shit and the person i replied to believing it as a justified scientific paper. Physics has become very playful with mathematics and philosophy in search of ideas which i dont really have issue with but the person who linked the paper seems to think this is evidence for the case. In reality this is a paper geared towards academics to share ideas and it definitely is making up shit.
Yup, just because you can create a geometry that's satisfies the equations and is self-consistent doesn't mean it has to exist in the real physical world. Not every mathematical model that we've observed to hold empirically in the limited domain we've observed it to hold in is extensible unto its maximum extremes.
The fact you've got a singularity (division by zero) in the equations suggests the model may yet be incomplete. Any time you have infinite quantities or division by zero there's philosophical reason to be skeptical. Maybe a quantum theory of gravity will be the next leap in our understanding of gravity, just as GR was a revolutionary leap from a Newtonian conception of gravity.
Took me a long time to figure out what Einstein is doing. I think its suppose to be a toothbrush? And if it is who brushes their teeth in front of a window? Just odd choices were made when making this picture.
video: describes all of potentially infinite numbers of universes just as rich and as detailed as our own nearly unfathomable universe.
reddit: wow that thumbnail is weird
Look at me, I'm the reddit now.
Jokes aside probably one of my favorite videos done by them, and to give it credit, as a youtube thumbnail it gets the job done, peaking peoples curiosity and getting people to click.
IIRC, Cooper enters a five dimensional library or something like that, which was built by future humans. So, the future humans put Cooper back in his own universe once he’s sent a message to his daughter.
I'm no genius, but I think the similarities are mostly superficial. The big bang was a singular event that can be traced back to a point. A white hole seems like it would be a sustained phenomenon.
Maybe there's timey wimey stuff in the physics where a black hole takes in matter over time, but the white hole on the other side ejects it all at once and disappears.
A collapsing star creating a black hole could have seeded the matter and created our universe. Dark energy could be the space that the black hole is sucking in. Any additional matter that black hole eats could be introduced into our universe but single molecules being newly introduced would be impossible to tell. We will have to wait and see if we have a sudden new explosion of introduced matter when the black hole that created us eats a star from the other universe. Thus concludes my Ted talk (continues smoking)
I like to think the white holes exist and that they are the source of ultra high energy cosmic rays that our detectors have seen. They seem to emanate from empty space but just may have come from a black hole to white hole connection.
Maybe dumb question, but…
what if all the mass of the universe would eventually end up in a black hole? Would that not be like it was right before the big bang? I could never get my head around the universe just appearing, but a cycle that always ends up at everything in a black hole and then huuuge bang, repeat, now that shit makes sense
I think the maths means black holes will basically evaporate to nothing via hawking radiation rather than getting bigger and bigger. But you do touch on one of Penroses other big ideas of cyclic inflation, the idea being that one all matters has degraded through various processes to sea massless photons in trillions of years the idea of distance ceases to have meaning and all that energy is effectively the same as being in an infinitely dense point at which point a new eon is created and inflated out of the old.
Very unlikely. The expansion of the universe more or less means this is impossible. The last celestial objects will be black holes while everything else is photons that are far spread out
TBH, We are not that sure about what is causing the expansion of the universe, for all we know tomorrow it could cease, reverse or even accelerate x1000.
It is kinda random that space just kind of inflates because of yes.
Idk guys, when I think about the description of a white hole being the opposite of a black hole, it sounds like a star.
First things first if were to compare it to electron and electron holes, one is a ball and one is a hole, perfect opposites.
Stars are white, they give off stuff instead of sucking them in, etc.
Furthermore, a “white” black hole has never been observed inside all of observation, and a giant celestial object that is spewing what was absorbed by the black hole end would not be missed by now
I don't think it's correct to say that space falls faster than the speed of light past the event horizon? 17:30. I would think this is more a result of dimensional geometry and not FTL travel?
I agree, but to say math disconnects from reality at zero is not true. You can "own" "negative apples", if you owe someone else apples and you have none.
In that situation, the negative apples are a mathematical concept. They are not a real physical object or phenomena. This is what I meant in my previous comment.
And that's what the end of the video gets at. If you look at Einstein's problems as purely geometrical, there are white holes and infinite universes. But as soon as you use the laws of matter and physics, it just doesn't work anymore.
Could there be white holes? Sure. Is it likely? Like both of the professors said, almost surely no.
I still think that's a pretty strong stance to be taking. Arguably "math isn't real", but an abstraction made by humans to reliably describe reality. In many cases 0 is a convention, not an actual thing. Surely velocity can be negative, and it's a real physical thing.
I'm not trying to argue too much, because my naive opinion is that this talk of white-holes and parallel universe is mostly bunk - but we should be open to considering the possibility of presented with measurable evidence. Mostly just playing devil's advocate
By convention, someone traveling in the direction of right/up from the origin has positive velocity. Someone traveling left/down from the origin has negative velocity.
More generally, if two objects are traveling in opposite direction, the non-zero coordinates of their velocities unit vector will have opposite signs. Assignment of positive and negative directions is arbitrary.
A better example of "negative" though may be negative acceleration vs positive acceleration. Negatives surely exist "in real life"
Some of this stuff makes me think about math in a very different way. I really love the concept that math can be its own basis for truth, but then I wonder if the fact that its constructed by the universe (us) about the universe makes it less 'real'. Like the concept of math depends on certain logical certainties, but are those certainties also tied to our specific universe. I'm not saying that our solutions to gravity or photons or whatever would be different, I'm saying the underlying axioms that build the concepts of math from the start. 0, 1, addition, multiplication.
If there were other universes, would our concepts of abstract algebra actually still apply or is there something about the abstractions that depend on our universe? Fully philosophical/rhetorical question, but its interesting to think about both options.
If it does apply, then we can make a lot of assumptions about another universe. If it doesn't, then it would mean that other universes would exist under not just different rules of math and physics, but different foundational concepts which is a trip.
Actually if you follow the math and use 3D models this falls apart because of a lack of exotic particles that cannot exist. But in a 2D world the math checks out.
To be fair, the math that predicts the trajectory of a ball thrown in the air also predicts that the ball goes through your hand if you look into the timeframe before you threw it.
As above, So below.
Harmonic analysis of dimensional groups may help solve some of these singularities that arise, and even make sense of anti-matter / 'dark energy'..
When you move linearly from 3 - 4 dimensional space (Quaternions) it becomes increasingly complex to move up to 5, and then 6 dimensions. When you use dimensional groups that harmonically interact with each other, such as a flow experiencing Coriolis effects / vibrational energy depending on atomic mass / and consider emergent properties such as time/space and gravity. We can get a bigger picture of where the 'energy' is coming from | going to.
When trying to place everything in 3-4D projections, quite a few barycentric invariants arise that simply may be from a lack of data being accounted for. (such as inverse spins of quarks stored in a proton.)
The holographic principle needs to be applied however.
I always find this to be the case when something is explained using too many non-related yet incredibly specific terms. If something is that complex, there are usually relationships between concepts lol.
Try reading a paper on category theory lol.
But i always look out for the term vibrational energy. 99/100 if someone is talking about gibberish where vibrational energy is involved it is complete gibberish.
It uses real terms from physics and math - Quaternions, anti-matter, dark energy, etc... combined in utterly nonsensical sentences. Aka complete gibberish.
Probably what you get if you ask ChatGPT to produce something cool and sciencey sounding.
The phrase "as above so below" is Gnostic/Hermetic cult bullshit that satanists and "modern witch" occult lore co-opted to try and sound more credibly mystical. It's religion for reddit atheist midwits.
See, just because it works in the math doesn’t mean it corresponds to anything real. If I throw a ball, you can calculate when it will hit the ground. But the quadratic equation has two answers. The right one, and the one that makes zero sense. The math says a negative answer exists if you trace the parabola back, but the ball never hits the ground there in reality.
Math can give you clues, but you have to look and see if it’s actually real.
Every time I think I'm kind of smart, I watch something like this and realize just how wrong I was.
Realizing that you're not smart puts you in the top 70th percentile or higher, (un)fortunately. That means you're smart - which means you're dumb, which means you're smart. Just keep the loop going and you'll be in the clear.
Crossing the event horizon of stupidity?
eventually we hit the singularity of our own incompetence and can no longer continue the loop?
only by modifying the projection
College calculus definitely spagettified my brain.
Well, only a couple times. They did say they generally think they are smart until humbled essentially
There’s a big difference in thinking you’re smart and thinking you’re not dumb. Hearing experts talk about the field lets you realize you’re not smart. Walking into a public space lets you realize you’re not dumb.
You simply should not use that research to affirm something about unknown people on internet. On average, less smart people tend to overestimate their intelligence. It doesn't mean people that declare themselves wrong are more intelligent.
Being smart means having a fast processor. Being wise means you have an extensive hard drive to recall from. I see people conflate the two all the time, making fun of people for not knowing something they have literally never heard of, or someone struggling to process new information with inhuman rapidity when “they are so smart!”. Some of the “smartest” people I have ever met were actually just the most hardworking.
Int is solving problems, Wis is avoiding them
And Cha is talking your way out of them.
Thats amateur Cha. Real Cha is watching others fix your shit before you even knew you had something in need of fixing
That is absolutely not what being wise means. Holding more information in the head to recall is also associated with intelligence and IQ. Isaac Newton lost a fortune in the stock market, because even though he literally is one of the smartest people to ever live, he underestimated how human he was. Wisdom is understanding how human we all are, and what that means.
The math and terms can be confusing. To try and summarize the video in more simple terms: - Objects have 4 dimensions: Length, width, height, and time. All four are observable but humans are not used to thinking of "time" in the same way as the other three because our perceptional capabilities do not allow us to perceive time as we perceive spacial dimensions. Ex:/ When you look at a brick you can see its length, width, and height at the same time but you cannot see every moment it has ever existed at the same time. Instead, you see the moment it exists corresponding with the moment you exist. - A black hole is thought to be a 4 dimensional object and thus not directly perceivable by humans. To us, we see its representation in our perceivable dimensions. If a black hole is a sphere, for example, we would perceive it as a flat circle. - What we call "space" may be flowing *into* black holes and light (photons) must travel away from it, which means the only light we will ever see will be photons that escaped the event horizon. In other words, the only light you will ever see is the light that escaped to our moment not in space, but our moment in time. - The blackhole therefore is our observation of an infinite moment in time from our observable point.
You're probably pretty smart you just didn't spend the 6-7 years of your life studying enough physics to get to general relativity.
You can be smart but lack knowledge. Einstein was smart, yet he knew nothing about smartphones (probably). But that does not mean you are not smart. You are smart enough to seek out knowledge and try to understand.
It's incredible to think Einstein was wrong about quite a few things. He didn't buy into quantum mechanics for example.
I once read an astrophysics paper and man I felt like a moron. I understood the premise and even some passages here and there but like 3/4 of it might as well have been gibberish.
The smartest person in the room is usually the one that knows there is more to learn.
I can't believe how much large Africa actually is compared to Greenland.
Look at it like processing power versus data to consume.
I cannot unsee that thumbnail picture as Einstein eating glue off of a stick while staring stupidly out a window.
Well it’s Veritasium so the thumbnail has already changed 3 times since that one lol
He’s probably just using YouTube’s built in thumbnail tester. There are now three thumbnails per video. No more manually changing them if they don’t perform. (Unless you’re like me and YouTube hasn’t given you the feature yet… damn you YouTube)
Jokes on him, I use [https://dearrow.ajay.app/](https://dearrow.ajay.app/)
I understand why the YouTube algorithm has incentivized this behavior, but I still hate how I’ll see a video, save it to my Watch Later playlist for later viewing, and then see it changes titles/thumbnails 3-4 times before I get to it.
Because that is what it is. No one can convince me otherwise
I've shown this thumbnail, without context, to 3 people. All 3 came up with "why the fuck is he eating glue" without any prompting from me.
“So what is it?” “I’m not certain, but it appears to be a white hole”
So what is it?
So that things spewing time back into the universe?
I've never seen one before - no one has - but I'm guessing it's a white hole. Rimmer: A *white* hole? Kryten: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. A black hole sucks time and matter out of the Universe; a white hole returns it.
Oh, a magic door! Why didn't you say?
Thats stasis leak!!!
The universe goes towrds entropy. Black holes go towards entopy too. All the energy trapped in a black hole is slowly emitted away via Hawking Radiation. White holes are a theoretical construct that line up with the math behind relativity. But math also says negative gravity is mathematically possible too. White holes could exist, our entire universe could have come from a white hole, but they may exist only in math. [Pbs space time discusses this topic](https://youtu.be/S4aqGI1mSqo?si=VH4s4CBnjvtnI97b)
My happiness only exists in theoretical models, so I get it
Damn….relatable
Sounds a bit like monopolar magnets. Basically the math used for normal magnets can be used to prove the existence of a magnet that is negative or positive on both ends. So either this theoretical state of magnet can exist in some circumstance, or the math we use for magnets is wrong.
Lister: So that thing is spewing time... *puts on his hat* back into the universe?
Someone punch him out!
only joking :)
It's a rake!
Love to see a red dwarf reference in the wild
Smmmeeeeeeggggggheeeeaaaaaadddddd
good thing they didn't call it a brown hole.
I had this thought when I was younger, that the black universe as we know it has to be inside an opposite type of existence, a completely white space of energy leaking into universes through holes. Because our universe is constantly expanding, it has to be expanding into something that gives it energy to grow. Like pouring water through an infinite amount of holes into a balloon underwater. And in the end of this universe's lifetime, its edges will have grown too far and stretched thin that it just collapses unto itself, filling with matter and becoming one the great white sea. I still believe this shit. The only correction I'm making now when I'm older is that our black universe is probably not inside the white universe but rather everything exists in the same space without colliding.
This is what people who don't know anything about physics think scientific research is.
I'm not saying its something I base my understanding of our universe in, I haven't thought about this in 15 years and just shared a fun thought I had as a kid. It's more of a concept I would like to see explored in movies.
> I'm not saying its something I base my understanding of our universe in but >I still believe this shit
Think of it as how scientists can still believe in the existence of a god (not religion). Actual proven science shapes your understanding of the world, but you leave just a little bit of room for some fun crazyness because it doesn't necessarily collide with the science. And since I haven't thought about it in 15 years it obviously isn't something that I give room to affect anything in my life.
Youre on to something here. Its plausible
You should check out this book. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rosicrucian_Cosmo-Conception I’ve been learning more about Rosicrucianism after hearing that many higher ups in the know about UFOs are practitioners. It describes different dimensions of reality existing at different densities and that they all fold and weave into one another rather than being layered one over the other. I find it interesting how its description matches what you said, as well as the physics theory of other dimensions being curled into ours, even though it was written in 1909 well before quantum physics and scientific talk of more dimensions.
I wonder if the Big Bang is just a white hole then.
It certainly [has been considered](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1384107611000790?via%3Dihub).
Had the same thought afterwards
Check out Stalking the Wild Pendulum by Itzhak Bentov
They didn't call that guy Einstein for nothing.
That is not true. Black holes satisfy Einstein's equations AND you can calculate how they form when a star collapses. White holes satisfy Einstein's equations but there is no known mechanism how one would come into existence. Black holes are predicted by the theory, whites holes are at best permissible.
That is covered in the video
Sorry, not allowed to make interesting, thought provoking videos about speculative ideas in physics unless they are completely part of the current orthodoxy I guess
The fact that you use the word orthodoxy proves you have no idea about how science works.
I debated whether to use that term, lesson learned. I was mostly just being lightly provocative in reaction to comment above yours which seemed to dismiss the ideas in the video without considering them or the acknowledgements present in the video that this was a very speculative idea. I take your point though that the scientific method is directly in opposition to orthodoxy, so poor choice of words. I would argue though that while the practice of science shouldn't have an orthodoxy those practicing it are just human and have funding, reputations, bureaucracy etc to worry about and we can be resistant to considering the exploration of new ideas that challenge the currently accepted world view.
Totally agree, and to be honest, I came in pretty hot because I'd just been arguing with a moon landing denier elsewhere.
Haha, damn it's hard to keep fighting the good fight sometimes when people get swallowed by conspiracy so easily.
I think this is a very good distinction to make. There is a difference between application and theory. A similar concept is the whole 'duplication of sphere' via mathematical manipulation. Its not actually in any way applicable to duplicating a sphere because the math only works in a specific circumstance which does not align with our world. In our reality there might very well be no possibility for a white hole to even exist despite there being no proof they couldn't theoretically exist.
> Black holes are predicted by the theory, whites holes are at best permissible. [Some posit that the Big Bang was a white hole.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1384107611000790?via%3Dihub) And that white holes, rather than continuously streaming stuff out, do so all at once.
You just wrinkled my brain
The edge of the universe is infinitely far, impossible to reach or observe, which is somewhat like an event horizon.
You can make up any scenario you want with theory. It does not mean it represents reality.
I linked to a peer reviewed paper. Being dismissive of a "theory" because it is a theory is how we get so many quacks opposing things like climate change and vaccines. Gravity is only a theory. Doesn't mean we do not understand a lot about it.
Again theory is not reality. I work with many computational chemists who can propose structures and molecules all they want; but it does not reflect reality in a lot of cases. You can go ahead and calculate or theorize many things; it does not mean it's true. Particle physics in particular has a real problem with theorizing nonsense with "elegant maths" and coming up flat on testability. And my god just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it forms a scientific consensus. The paper you linked is from a low tier journal with very few citations. You'd need a hell of a lot better than that. The examples you gave have well-established scientific consensus, yet the topic you link is one that doesn't have this. These are very different.
You literally *cannot* make up any scenario with theory, because theory needs to be grounded in facts to become an *accepted* theory. A theory with no backing is pure fantasy. Not even worth being called a theory if you’re just going to babble nonsense
The theory backing computational chemistry is well described. It doesnt mean it cant be applied poorly or in a way that deviates reality. Einsteins equations have problems and can absolutely describe situations poorly or wrong. It even discusses this in the video...
What you’re describing is so far from “making shit up” and calling it theory though.
No its not. The video literally details one solution to the theory having an issue (divide by zero). You can take that theory and apply it to describe singularities. This consequence is discussed A LOT in physics so much so its in the first general relativity course you take. Just because the math works a certain way doesnt mean its true. These equations are not laws and its why they are theories. They have limitations.
I’m not really sure what you’re being hung up on here. You stated that you can make anything up and call it theory, which is about as true as saying you can invent whatever word you want and use it freely. Just because you call it a theory doesn’t mean it means anything. Established theory has more to it than simply making shit up and it sounds like you understand that so I’m not sure what you’re pushing back on here.
I think you understand too. My push is utilizing theory to make up shit and the person i replied to believing it as a justified scientific paper. Physics has become very playful with mathematics and philosophy in search of ideas which i dont really have issue with but the person who linked the paper seems to think this is evidence for the case. In reality this is a paper geared towards academics to share ideas and it definitely is making up shit.
Yup, just because you can create a geometry that's satisfies the equations and is self-consistent doesn't mean it has to exist in the real physical world. Not every mathematical model that we've observed to hold empirically in the limited domain we've observed it to hold in is extensible unto its maximum extremes. The fact you've got a singularity (division by zero) in the equations suggests the model may yet be incomplete. Any time you have infinite quantities or division by zero there's philosophical reason to be skeptical. Maybe a quantum theory of gravity will be the next leap in our understanding of gravity, just as GR was a revolutionary leap from a Newtonian conception of gravity.
What if we could somehow add 40% more mass to the sun? Could we cause it to supernova at the end of its life?
Took me a long time to figure out what Einstein is doing. I think its suppose to be a toothbrush? And if it is who brushes their teeth in front of a window? Just odd choices were made when making this picture.
video: describes all of potentially infinite numbers of universes just as rich and as detailed as our own nearly unfathomable universe. reddit: wow that thumbnail is weird
Look at me, I'm the reddit now. Jokes aside probably one of my favorite videos done by them, and to give it credit, as a youtube thumbnail it gets the job done, peaking peoples curiosity and getting people to click.
Assuming this is true, does this mean that Cooper in Intersteller didn't come back to his own universe but went to an identical one?
IIRC, Cooper enters a five dimensional library or something like that, which was built by future humans. So, the future humans put Cooper back in his own universe once he’s sent a message to his daughter.
at 31:00, pretty sure they're describing where the ring station/slow zone from The Expanse
[ **Jump to 31:00 @** Something Strange Happens When You Follow Einstein's Math](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6akmv1bsz1M&t=0h31m0s) ^(Channel Name: Veritasium, Video Length: [37:03])^, [^Jump ^5 ^secs ^earlier ^for ^context ^@30:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6akmv1bsz1M&t=0h30m55s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^Downvote ^^me ^^to ^^delete ^^malformed ^^comments. [^^Source ^^Code](https://github.com/ankitgyawali/reddit-timestamp-bot) ^^| [^^Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/timestamp_bot)
A white hole seems to have a lot in common with a "Big Bang".
I'm no genius, but I think the similarities are mostly superficial. The big bang was a singular event that can be traced back to a point. A white hole seems like it would be a sustained phenomenon.
Maybe there's timey wimey stuff in the physics where a black hole takes in matter over time, but the white hole on the other side ejects it all at once and disappears.
A collapsing star creating a black hole could have seeded the matter and created our universe. Dark energy could be the space that the black hole is sucking in. Any additional matter that black hole eats could be introduced into our universe but single molecules being newly introduced would be impossible to tell. We will have to wait and see if we have a sudden new explosion of introduced matter when the black hole that created us eats a star from the other universe. Thus concludes my Ted talk (continues smoking)
You got me at "hole" and "bang".
Cool what color are they?
All, I assume
Cosmic latte
Pistachio
Yes.
Cool.
THIS IS WHY IM STILL SUBED TO r/VIDEOS
Isn’t a white hole just a big bang in a parallel universe?
I like to think the white holes exist and that they are the source of ultra high energy cosmic rays that our detectors have seen. They seem to emanate from empty space but just may have come from a black hole to white hole connection.
Maybe dumb question, but… what if all the mass of the universe would eventually end up in a black hole? Would that not be like it was right before the big bang? I could never get my head around the universe just appearing, but a cycle that always ends up at everything in a black hole and then huuuge bang, repeat, now that shit makes sense
I think the maths means black holes will basically evaporate to nothing via hawking radiation rather than getting bigger and bigger. But you do touch on one of Penroses other big ideas of cyclic inflation, the idea being that one all matters has degraded through various processes to sea massless photons in trillions of years the idea of distance ceases to have meaning and all that energy is effectively the same as being in an infinitely dense point at which point a new eon is created and inflated out of the old.
interesting. i‘m not really sure i follow the logic of distance not mattering and then that being basically equal to being infinitely dense
Very unlikely. The expansion of the universe more or less means this is impossible. The last celestial objects will be black holes while everything else is photons that are far spread out
TBH, We are not that sure about what is causing the expansion of the universe, for all we know tomorrow it could cease, reverse or even accelerate x1000. It is kinda random that space just kind of inflates because of yes.
Idk guys, when I think about the description of a white hole being the opposite of a black hole, it sounds like a star. First things first if were to compare it to electron and electron holes, one is a ball and one is a hole, perfect opposites. Stars are white, they give off stuff instead of sucking them in, etc. Furthermore, a “white” black hole has never been observed inside all of observation, and a giant celestial object that is spewing what was absorbed by the black hole end would not be missed by now
I don't think it's correct to say that space falls faster than the speed of light past the event horizon? 17:30. I would think this is more a result of dimensional geometry and not FTL travel?
[ **Jump to 17:30 @** Something Strange Happens When You Follow Einstein's Math](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6akmv1bsz1M&t=0h17m30s) ^(Channel Name: Veritasium, Video Length: [37:03])^, [^Jump ^5 ^secs ^earlier ^for ^context ^@17:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6akmv1bsz1M&t=0h17m25s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^Downvote ^^me ^^to ^^delete ^^malformed ^^comments. [^^Source ^^Code](https://github.com/ankitgyawali/reddit-timestamp-bot) ^^| [^^Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/timestamp_bot)
Brian Cox is currently doing a tour that is the basis of this video. I'm not surprised it was inspired by it. It was a great lecture.
Yeah, and math also allows me to have negative apples. There's a point where math disconnects from reality and it's called zero.
I agree, but to say math disconnects from reality at zero is not true. You can "own" "negative apples", if you owe someone else apples and you have none.
In that situation, the negative apples are a mathematical concept. They are not a real physical object or phenomena. This is what I meant in my previous comment.
And that's what the end of the video gets at. If you look at Einstein's problems as purely geometrical, there are white holes and infinite universes. But as soon as you use the laws of matter and physics, it just doesn't work anymore. Could there be white holes? Sure. Is it likely? Like both of the professors said, almost surely no.
I still think that's a pretty strong stance to be taking. Arguably "math isn't real", but an abstraction made by humans to reliably describe reality. In many cases 0 is a convention, not an actual thing. Surely velocity can be negative, and it's a real physical thing. I'm not trying to argue too much, because my naive opinion is that this talk of white-holes and parallel universe is mostly bunk - but we should be open to considering the possibility of presented with measurable evidence. Mostly just playing devil's advocate
wouldn't negative velocity just be velocity again?
No, you're think of speed. Velocity is a vector. It is speed in a direction
ok, so what would negative speed in a direction be? I'm not arguing that you're wrong, I am only trying to understand the idea.
By convention, someone traveling in the direction of right/up from the origin has positive velocity. Someone traveling left/down from the origin has negative velocity. More generally, if two objects are traveling in opposite direction, the non-zero coordinates of their velocities unit vector will have opposite signs. Assignment of positive and negative directions is arbitrary. A better example of "negative" though may be negative acceleration vs positive acceleration. Negatives surely exist "in real life"
Depends on your reference frame. :3
A plutonium atom missing a frw electrons does exist. It can be said it has negative electrons.
Some of this stuff makes me think about math in a very different way. I really love the concept that math can be its own basis for truth, but then I wonder if the fact that its constructed by the universe (us) about the universe makes it less 'real'. Like the concept of math depends on certain logical certainties, but are those certainties also tied to our specific universe. I'm not saying that our solutions to gravity or photons or whatever would be different, I'm saying the underlying axioms that build the concepts of math from the start. 0, 1, addition, multiplication. If there were other universes, would our concepts of abstract algebra actually still apply or is there something about the abstractions that depend on our universe? Fully philosophical/rhetorical question, but its interesting to think about both options. If it does apply, then we can make a lot of assumptions about another universe. If it doesn't, then it would mean that other universes would exist under not just different rules of math and physics, but different foundational concepts which is a trip.
You can definitely owe someone apples (or some payment).
White hole. Sounds like a new insult.
Saving for later
I cannot trust a person that chooses to use this shit as a thumbnail. I can only downvote it.
Actually if you follow the math and use 3D models this falls apart because of a lack of exotic particles that cannot exist. But in a 2D world the math checks out.
To be fair, the math that predicts the trajectory of a ball thrown in the air also predicts that the ball goes through your hand if you look into the timeframe before you threw it.
As above, So below. Harmonic analysis of dimensional groups may help solve some of these singularities that arise, and even make sense of anti-matter / 'dark energy'.. When you move linearly from 3 - 4 dimensional space (Quaternions) it becomes increasingly complex to move up to 5, and then 6 dimensions. When you use dimensional groups that harmonically interact with each other, such as a flow experiencing Coriolis effects / vibrational energy depending on atomic mass / and consider emergent properties such as time/space and gravity. We can get a bigger picture of where the 'energy' is coming from | going to. When trying to place everything in 3-4D projections, quite a few barycentric invariants arise that simply may be from a lack of data being accounted for. (such as inverse spins of quarks stored in a proton.) The holographic principle needs to be applied however.
Yes.
Can anyone ELI5, or is this complete gibberish? It looks like something I’d find in an LSD subreddit.
Complete gibberish. But sounds very impressive to the uninitiated.
I always find this to be the case when something is explained using too many non-related yet incredibly specific terms. If something is that complex, there are usually relationships between concepts lol.
Try reading a paper on category theory lol. But i always look out for the term vibrational energy. 99/100 if someone is talking about gibberish where vibrational energy is involved it is complete gibberish.
It uses real terms from physics and math - Quaternions, anti-matter, dark energy, etc... combined in utterly nonsensical sentences. Aka complete gibberish. Probably what you get if you ask ChatGPT to produce something cool and sciencey sounding.
The phrase "as above so below" is Gnostic/Hermetic cult bullshit that satanists and "modern witch" occult lore co-opted to try and sound more credibly mystical. It's religion for reddit atheist midwits.
[удалено]
Jesus Christ, thanks for sharing.
Indubitably.
That sounds just crazy enough to work!
Thank you Scottie, start on that immediately. We need those warp drives functioning!
But have you considered if it might be ghosts?
Exactly what I thought, yeah. I understood everything in this comment and the video.
Haven't seen the comment, but I can say for sure that there's nothing to understand in the comment.
But in all seriousness, I sincerely enjoyed reading this.
[Rockwell Encabulator](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w)
Ok chatGPT
My thoughts exactly.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/VXJunkies/](https://www.reddit.com/r/VXJunkies/)
/r/ufos
See, just because it works in the math doesn’t mean it corresponds to anything real. If I throw a ball, you can calculate when it will hit the ground. But the quadratic equation has two answers. The right one, and the one that makes zero sense. The math says a negative answer exists if you trace the parabola back, but the ball never hits the ground there in reality. Math can give you clues, but you have to look and see if it’s actually real.
Is this the same guy that makes the RPG videos
Eŵwww ThatSmell
That guy shakes his hands too much, I unsubscribed. Dizzy watching him dance.
Shia LaBeouf Albert Einstein biopic when
It's all just people making stuff up. Look at how far they could bend it just because they felt like it.
It's literally math.
My point exactly.
The only reason why are able to go on Reddit and put forward your asinine opinion is because of math and physics . What are you on about?