The Man Who Corrected Einstein

[@malvinmalvin]

"What biases do you have?" I don't have any biases, at all. I am completely unbiased, and everyone who says otherwise must therefore be wrong.

[@mantisshrimp9637]

I love this man

[@AyanKhan-if3mm]

Really?

[@sarah12232]

Lol

[@kuratse205]

What? You are wrong! You have biases unlike me, a saintlike human! How DARE YOU SAY I AM WRONG. s/

[@kunalkashelani585]

@@kuratse205 saints are the biggest a-holes you will find!!

[@architt4331]

I love your Einstein's stick figure with that hair

[@maxnieves4641]

Kinda looks like a bug with human body

[@DoubleDom777]

Max Nieves now I’m not going to be able to unsee that

[@noahway13]

He wasn't bald on top tho...

[@burtosis]

Wow that makes way more sense. I was wondering how bernie sanders could have possibly created stress energy tensor calculations. Maybe I should watch with the sound on.

[@justpaulo]

Friedmann's one is pretty cool too!

[@BenjiM514]

“Someone proved Einstein wrong” *when the two smartest kids in the class have different answers*

[@bloodlust_9890]

Like me and my friend braulio Were in 4th grade and we solved 10!

[@zaksszn]

BloodBath YT1 cool we have got an r/youngpeopleyoutube say something funny plz

[@rufodeer5421]

@@zaksszn a*

[@okejan3646]

@@zaksszn like me do 100x100 and we diffrent answer we 10000000000000

[@invizible8426]

I’m like the smartest kid in my class

[@MelissaJetzt]

My senior physics capstone project in undergrad was on quantum locality and contextuality, particularly looking at various proofs and disproofs of Bell's Theorem. Which was very confusing as an undergrad, trying not only to learn the proper math and physics behind what I was studying but carefully combing through the logic of the proofs and disproofs to figure out what was right or wrong. My advisor thought it would be an interesting project because there's a guy who is regarded by most in the field as a quack who is very adamant about his disproofs. Even navigating the academic politics of that was tricky. In some ways, I kinda wish I saved that for grad school instead but I digress. It gave me an interesting perspective on what is true and false in physics. And it was a major exercise in trying to distance myself from both the bias to agree with Einstein and the bias to disagree with the critic. Everyone wants to agree with Einstein because he came up with what is now a critical part of physics. But as you say, even he was human. He made mistakes. We all do. In that way, I think the best scientists among us are the level-headed ones with enough empathy to clearly separate correctness from popular biases. I just wish academia could be less political. And physics, especially, to be less egotistical. It is a plague.

[@Hyporama]

Wow. Such unrestrained observation. Unusual. Troubling.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

@@Hyporama BALANCED attraction and repulsion is fundamental regarding what is physics/physical experience, or there wouldn't be SPACE OR TIME. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. What makes gravity, ON BALANCE, a constant force is that it cannot be shielded (or blocked). Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy (in and WITH TIME) consistent WITH what is invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. SO, a photon IS at the center of WHAT IS the Sun; as this would then CLEARLY be consistent with the requirement of time AND SPACE. (Consider what is invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE.) Carefully consider what is THE EARTH/ground ON BALANCE. Consider what is a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE ON BALANCE !! Consider what is perpetual motion, AND consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Notice what is the associated black “space” AND the dome AS WELL. NOW, carefully consider WHAT IS THE SUN (ON BALANCE); as TIME is NECESSARILY (AND CLEARLY) possible/potential AND actual (ON/IN BALANCE). CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites ON BALANCE; as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky (ON BALANCE). Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. Indeed, the ultimate mathematical unification (AND UNDERSTANDING) of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); as this CLEARLY explains F=ma AND E=mc2. AGAIN, consider what is TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE !! Again, carefully consider WHAT IS THE MAN who IS standing on WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground ON BALANCE !! BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental (ON BALANCE). By Frank DiMeglio

[@xtac6435]

ayo what this mean bruh

[@MukhtarAbdulGhanee]

@@xtac6435 lolll

[@Arrogan28]

Sadly it's not just a critic on Physics, but on society as a whole I'm afraid. The issue is that so much of our economic position in life is tied to perception, rather then reality. And when a guy who throws a ball with a nice spiral can make literally 100-1000x times the salary of even the most successful physicists, it's crazy what society deems as worthy of praise, and the heaping of riches, and fame, and vs some brilliant breakthrough in math, or physics that come often barely make the news. I remember it was said that people who have so little power, when they find themselves suddenly with power, find it very seductive, because they have never had that before in their lives. Same with money, people who have never had money before, have no idea of what to do when they get money, and sometimes can lose all their money because of it. Society is crazy, we train physicists to learn the math, but what about dealing with success, or failure. So now people are going to try to choose to work on things they feel like will open those doors for them, etc, rather then what the physics is telling them they should investigate. That's the thing about Einstein, he was basically completely outside the academic circles, so he investigated what interested him, not what his graduate advisor told him to do... he had to do it all on his own, and that in many ways I am sure is why he was so successful. If Einstein was trapped in the present day university publish or perish environment, I have no doubt it would have likely crippled his output...

[@FullersFlexing]

"even geniuses make mistakes" *Yes, yes I do.*

[@sylv512]

algebruh moment

[@Kakashi___Hatake]

Everytime

[@MrOrangeonion]

I know the feeling.

[@-danR]

been -their- there, done that

[@eamonburns9597]

@@-danR *they're

[@johnchessant3012]

"If you don't want to make silly math mistakes like Einstein, try Brilliant"

[@arsim612]

I'm getting deja Vu

[@thingsiplay]

lol missed opportunity about the best advertising.

[@ShafiqIslam]

This is incorrect: Einstein realized the equations of General Relativity implied an expanding universe. He added the "cosmological constant" to the equations of GR to obtain the solution of a static universe, which is what everyone thought was the case, and at the time there was no reason to assume otherwise. The observations WERE NOT good enough to determine the universe was expanding -- those came in the 1920's, or about a decade later. Friedman simply obtained the solutions Einstein had obtained and did not make any extra assumptions. Einstein then considered adding the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder." You're misrepresenting the development of the ideas about cosmology that stemmed from GR.

[@maczetamaczeta189]

@@thingsiplay minutephysics actually used this very same line in his previous video about Einstein's constant, so no missed opportunites here. Just a repost by some youtube user.

[@HarshKumar-sz8xk]

@@ShafiqIslam Hey, if you want to copy somebody's else comment then atleast attach their name to it(Gildardo rivas) no matter if you do it for a good purpose.

[@TheYeetiest]

"The Friedmann Solution" Einstein: ;_;

[@52flyingbicycles]

TheYeetiest YT the only acceptable correction from Friedman

[@Finkelfunk]

Also Einstein: *Is literally the most famous physicist ever to have existed next to Newton*

[@additivent]

*Is this a Post-Weimar Germany Reference?*

[@axollyon]

That physicist's name? Albert Einstein.

[@kkyrusobad]

"The Friedmann Solution" Einstein: T_T

[@fgremmelspacher8775]

Einstein made a mistake. Me (struggling with medium math): "Heh...what a loser."

[@klobiforpresident2254]

Wait, what's medium maths?

[@fgremmelspacher8775]

@@klobiforpresident2254 Maths, still slightly red in the center.

[@klobiforpresident2254]

@@fgremmelspacher8775 Figures. My maths must be English then, because it's dripping red liquid from the corrector's pen.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

@@klobiforpresident2254 maths with the dead

[@appa609]

F Gremmelspacher what’s medium math?

[@meldeebueno]

At least Einstein admitted his mistake. Like a true scientist would.

[@eternaleffect2499]

Yeah unlike *cough walter lewins cough* who is too arrogant

[@juanjoseperez6282]

@@eternaleffect2499 what did he do hmmm???

[@phenomenalphysics3548]

Yes!

[@eternaleffect2499]

@@juanjoseperez6282 there was a some controversy between walter lewis and ELECTROboom you can check it out yourself by seeing their videos. There was some disagreement over kirchoff voltage law and faraday's law. Where walter lewid was very arrogant and rude over it. In the end it was turned out that it's a matter of wording and modern definition.

[@juanjoseperez6282]

@@eternaleffect2499 thank you, I'll definitely check it out.

[@gildardorivasvalles6368]

This is incorrect: Einstein realized the equations of General Relativity *implied* an expanding universe. He added the "cosmological constant" to the equations of GR to obtain the solution of a static universe, which is what everyone thought was the case, and *at the time* there was no reason to assume otherwise. The observations WERE NOT good enough to determine the universe was expanding -- those came in the 1920's, or about a decade later. Friedman simply obtained the solutions Einstein had obtained and did not make any extra assumptions. Einstein then considered adding the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder." You're misrepresenting the development of the ideas about cosmology that stemmed from GR.

[@pabloagustin8775]

You are right Sir. This video is very basic and misleading about the cosmological constant

[@Rysussybaka]

True.

[@Altobrun]

don't forget that there is a cosmological constant or a 'vacuum energy' to the universe as was observed in the 90's when we learned that the universe wasn't just expanding it was accelerating. Even Einstein's bad ideas are good if you give them enough time.

[@gildardorivasvalles6368]

@@Altobrun: well, Einstein couldn't foresee what would happen later -- he was brilliant, not clairvoyant, and it was he who called it a blunder-- not me. But the notion of a cosmological "constant" started to appear before any observation of accelerated expansion. It was brought back even before, as quantum field theory was developed and slowly matured from the 50's and onward. The observation required very meticulous and precise measurements that had to wait for the appropriate technology to come about

[@appa609]

Mora well there was no data. Einstein was basically worldbuilding

[@domainofscience]

Great video! It is good to (try) and be aware of our biases. Anyone else notice that our biases seem to get more entrenched the older we get? Sometimes I tell an older person something different to what they believe, and it is like they have not even heard me.

[@Akknights]

Woah u had only 4 likes whyyy? Big fan

[@FeigerNazi]

so you assume that every person ("older"?older than you??) who is older (than what?) is the same? Nice demo of a biased youngster; I guess every young person believes older persons are biased?! You start to see your stupidity here....?!

[@doctaflo]

Most brains start shrinking almost as soon as they’re done growing-around age 25. it’s subtle at first, and if you live right or have good genes, the process is slower, but it accelerates over time. younger people just have more pliant minds on average. interesting side note: on autopsy, it was shown that Einstein’s brain, even aged over 70 years, showed many of the characteristics of a younger brain. but there’s a reason his most outlandishly creative contributions to science came in his early 20s. ditto Newton. (and Hawking... and most radical, paradigm-shattering scientific renegades :0)

[@FeigerNazi]

@@doctaflo everyone should know that. But I guess that`s also the reason why you cannot take someone younger than 25 serious if it`s about questions concerning life at all. "Always" when someone does not get the point of irony or sarcasm I know they`re not yet 25.... ;)

[@yasyasmarangoz3577]

@@FeigerNazi nice name

[@Pimp482]

Even geniuses make mistake...learn, don’t be arrogant

[@jasondelong83]

"A true master is an eternal student" - Master Yi

[@user-og9nl5mt1b]

it's good to say that , but everyone is arrogant these days , do u even follow that urself .

[@kuratse205]

When writing a quote do check your english first :4head: mistakes* Not "...learn" use 'accept them,' and change "don't be arrogant" into "doubt yourself." So now go fuck off with your quote making, its not inspirational, helpful nor the truth.

[@kucingtepijalan3459]

@@kuratse205 rude

[@Pimp482]

k no

[@spiderman6347]

This is one of the best minutephysics videos I've watched in a while

[@rbl4112]

I just like that I can mostly understand it!

[@robertofontiglia4148]

This is one of the minutephysics videos there has been in a while

[@futurestoryteller]

You should watch the one on teleportation again, it'll make you never want to watch this channel.

[@peterjongsma2754]

Spider Man Except it's incorrect. See Comments .

[@irokosalei5133]

​ Except it's incorrect, like many of their videos...

[@curious_one1156]

Friedmann was "relatively" correct compared to Einstein.

[@basqye9]

"Generally" speaking, yes

[@ligmaenigma6498]

You could say both had a “special” thought process

[@emc9029]

"Theoretically"friedman was right

[@dan00b8]

We can say Einstein had an algebruh moment Aight imma head out

[@dybiosol]

bruh

[@jojoposter]

Oh fuck why did i laugh

[@eraybulgaria]

Hahaha, that was a good one ngl 😂😂🔥

[@imasiontist653]

:(

[@razi_man]

We gotta bruh moment here

[@markoschatziathanasiou6754]

You mean the man who corrected Einstein *but was actually right*

[@ViratKohli-jj3wj]

@*GOD DOESN'T EXIST* roflmao

[@Joe--]

Exactly, Friedmann got it right.

[@JorgetePanete]

@*GOD DOESN'T EXIST* WOOO

[@ettobaka9151]

666 likes

[@courtney-ray]

That’s usually what “correct” means so...yeah

[@yoda7104]

Usually love your stuff, but this is a really rough interpretation of the history here. In Historian Walter Issacson's Einstein: His Life and Universe (a very well sourced academic biography written with Einstein's own notebooks) The generation of the Cosmological constant came about because Einstein knew the equations he generated caused expansion/contraction and the current experimental picture said that wasn't the case. (Chapter 11 pg254 of the kindle version) His blunder was not sticking to his original mathematical guns and predicting a non-static universe, because he literally had it. Not salt about a bad derivative or whatever

[@Andromedon777]

I am basing my knowledge off of Brian Greene's book, but didn't Einstein had the cosmological constant at 0, but it is really an extremely small but significant number?

[@danielsteel5251]

@yoda7104 Exactly. But the fact that Einstein's having _doubted himself_ was in fact the true "blunder" doesn't jive with the ethos being pushed here (i.e., an attempted illustration of the necessity of humility before and cooperation with a broader community). Hence some gentle reframing was employed.

[@hammadsheikh6032]

Daniel Steel on the other hand, the historian may have missed this one exchange of article, response, and retraction. This is pretty substantive, but we cannot expect one historian scholar to know all and everything. This is coming from a humble scholar...

[@artdonovandesign]

Correct. BTW: that is a Wonderful book!

[@danieljensen2626]

That isn't necessarily at odds with the explanation here. This video says that the equations only gave a static universe if it was empty (which it obviously isn't), and the cosmological constant was added so it could be flat and still contain mass. And it's worth noting it isn't exactly a straight up mistake, but he only found one solution to an equation with multiple solutions, and didn't look any further because it was the solution he was expecting.

[@KyuVulpes]

How I think everyone should think, "How can I disprove myself, then how can I disprove that?"

[@lonestarr1490]

That doesn't suffice. A counterexample being wrong does not imply that your statement holds. Even all counterexamples anyone could come up with being wrong won't prove your statement. Because the only thing that proves - once and for all - that there cannot be a counterexample to your statement is a rigorous proof of it.

[@viliml2763]

​@@lonestarr1490 It's hard to check if some complicated proof is actually perfectly sound.

[@anuragbundela1483]

@@viliml2763 Not really. A logical rigorous proof would be easy enough to follow for someone with enough knowledge in the field.

[@thefourshowflip]

Lone Starr I think you missed the argument entirely; the original comment never made any claims that this gives any confirmation/proof/etc for a given claim. It merely asserts a normative approach to (what I would call) skepticism...it’s essentially the mechanism of falsificationism (that we can only ever have certainty about falsities, not of truth...we can rule out erroneous solutions with certainty, but there is no way to confirm any a posteriori knowledge claims) Further, I think you’re conflating those two categories of knowledge...a posteriori and a priori. Never mind the finer points that still trouble some philosophers (as to whether math/logic is a priori or not); there is no proof of any a posteriori knowledge that can be offered in the way you’re seeming to demand...there is no formal proof for the earth being the third planet from our sun; it just so happens to be the case, but there is no proof one could put forth that would necessitate it (after all, that is what a proof is; if the premises are true, then it necessitates the truth of the conclusion as well, but there’s absolutely no reason why this planet had to be where it is...the earth could well have been where Pluto is, and while life would likely be non existent were that the case, it’s still possible... ) Similarly, how does one make a proof for gravity? It is an empirical fact that we live in a universe in which the effects of gravitational interactions are observed (I hesitate to say gravity “exists” to refrain from opening a giant can of metaphysical worms), but a proof of gravity’s existence would either need to rely on observation (in which case, one needs to argue that something other than purely deductive reasoning CAN lead to necessarily true conclusions) or else would need to demonstrate that gravity is a necessary component of reality (that it is an impossibility for gravity to not “exist”).

[@thefourshowflip]

Vilim Lendvaj Arguably impossible; there have been several attempts (of varying success) to extend Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to all systems of axiomatic logic, and it seems reasonable to suspect this to be a valid application of Gödel’s reasoning in his argument against arithmetic-based axiomatic systems...essentially, this (generalization of Gödel’s argument) would argue that there can never be an axiomatic system which is both consistent and complete, simultaneously. A quick argument is as follows: Assume you can map every single statement to a single truth value (one to one); also assume that you have a complete and consistent system of statements and axioms. You have a dilemma when you encounter the following statement: “This statement is not provable in this system” If the statement is false, then that means it IS provable, but a provable statement must be true in any consistent system, because a proof demonstrates the necessity of a conclusion. (You might be inclined to think that you can prove things don’t exist, but you’re not proving a falsehood, you’re proving the negation of a falsehood as being true...it sounds like a trivial distinction, but remember, we are currently in the domain of philosophy and in philosophy this is NOT a trivial distinction. The important point to note is that FOR ANY proof, the conclusion is always true if the premises are true, EVEN IF the conclusion is a “negative” claim, like “therefore the square root of two cannot be a rational number”). So because any provable statement must have a true conclusion, then we know it cannot be false...but that means it must be true...that this statement cannot be proven by the axioms, but if the statement cannot be proven by the axioms, then we cannot have a complete system, for there exists some statement which exists outside the space spanned by the axioms. Thus we cannot have a complete and consistent system; that is, there is no minimum set of axioms which can be sufficient to account for all possible knowledge (there are some truths which can only be derived if we expand our set of axioms). Gödel proved this for mathematics last century...it may well apply to all formal logic, and if it does, then to say it’s hard to validate the soundness of an argument is an ENORMOUS understatement (and may be impossible depending on how we chose to define things like knowledge and justification...if we are required to be justified in accepting every entailment of all our beliefs, it’s simply impossible for us to know whether an argument is sound at all)

[@madlad255]

0:48 'He plugged in empty space' Ah yes, as you do.

[@aaamos16]

Einstein was focused on the universe (many lines of effort all at once). Fridman was focused on one piece of one part of Einstein's work. Glad someone picked up a pen to help him. Fridman is not greater than Einstein. And Einstein is a true gentleman for admitting his mistake and giving Fridman credit.

[@charlesbaoumar]

The beauty of physics! Many great stories like this

[@bumblingbiped5966]

Ok. But you're arguing against a claim that no one was making.

[@akademesanctuary1361]

Einstein didn't make a mistake though. Friedman gave three solutions. The one in question is just one of those selected to fit popular cosmology. That selection ignores the mechanism of light, Huygens-Fresnel, and what Hubble's law actually did (used depth of the field to recover focus to measure distance). Redshift happens with distribution to the field, not just motion. If you read the reports close you see a pattern of confirmation bias, where they literally contract the numbers to confirm their expectations. The Deep Fields should be your big clue the modern cosmology is BS. Big bangs work, but only by their original design on a galactic level.

[@sharkinahat]

"People find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right." -Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore

[@ilyamosin3090]

"I'm gay" -Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore

[@Ebani]

@@ilyamosin3090 Lmao, that was j.k rowling tho, Dumbledore died without ever saying that, luckily.

[@feynstein1004]

Nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak

[@popocraft4677]

That doesn't even make sense

[@NJ-wb1cz]

@@Ebani what's wrong with saying that you're gay?

[@machitoons]

"nails to hit" "T" I dig visual puns

[@aasyjepale5210]

that blue my mind

[@Some.username.idk.0]

I sea what you did there

[@sorryididntknowwhattochoos2678]

@@danielrunyon8534 The "T" is probably supposed to be a nail

[@Some.username.idk.0]

@@danielrunyon8534 blue and sea are puns

[@tonydai782]

@@danielrunyon8534 The "T" in Einstein's equation looks like a nail

[@omit4727]

I'm too early. I will return later when the comment section will be full of memes

[@abhilasha7344]

Or rather just *"Nobody: Absolutely no one:"* or *"about to end this man''s career"* or *"Who all breath hit like!"* or *"Am i joke to you"* format garbage

[@PopeGoliath]

@@abhilasha7344 don't forget about all the people who want to know your location.

[@avikdas4055]

You forgot who's watching in 2019? And who love ""insert channel"" or minutephysics?

[@GoodPooper8669]

Too early? it's already happening.

[@namethathasntbeentakenyetm3682]

Come back now.

[@TimJSwan]

Your intro alone is pretty much one of the best presentations of GR I've ever seen.

[@LAB360]

Wow this is interseting!

[@HTJFilms]

Yeah right ?

[@majorfallacy5926]

My bias is that tensor calculus is too tedious and thus it's okay to avoid learning it. You have just confirmed it.

[@blynnozaur]

Is Einstein human? Or is he dancer

[@dawidmarcisz9831]

His sing is Λ (lambda) His universe is cold And he's in Bern looking for the answers

[@feynstein1004]

Is he human? Or his he dancer? Paid his respects to grace and Friedmann Sent his condolences to Newton

[@SweBeach2023]

Friendmann was the son of a dancer though.

[@rishavbro6931]

@@SweBeach2023 yeah I know he was one of the fantastic four.

[@youknowwho8925]

Are you implying that dancers aren't human? 🤔😆

[@ksotar]

And poor Friedmann. In 1922 he corrected Einstein, in 1923 Einstein admitted that Friedmann was right. And in 1925, being 37 years old, during his honeymoon trip with his new wife in Crimea, he ate an unwashed pear and got diseased with typhus. And died shortly after in Leningrad. It is heartbreaking to even think how much more he could achieved, had he lived longer.

[@selimtopal1247]

This Einstein guy seems pretty smart. He should’ve been a physicist or something.

[@dentatusdentatus1592]

Or a patent clerk.

[@sheesmustafa9522]

😄😄😄😄

[@sonetagu1337]

Or at least, an musician.

[@pruthvirajshinde9991]

Ok millennial

[@sonetagu1337]

@@pruthvirajshinde9991 thx boomer

[@210rebelboy]

I'm impressed by Einstein that he admitted he was wrong and retracted his criticisms

[@Xzellent]

should be normal

[@Teddy_Miljard_of_Finland]

Oh yeah!

[@styyber]

I love the end note! It’s something I’ve embraced for ages, and you motivated it so well! Thank you :)

[@nothing9220]

Just with maths and imagination ... This man predicted the things, we are proving right with our technical advancements after a century...

[@gymcapybara9496]

Einsteins equation was so complicated that the first man to actually be able to use it correctly got an entire concept named after him.

[@2010sourabh]

May i knw who that man was?

[@General12th]

@@2010sourabh Did you watch the video?

[@Teddy_Miljard_of_Finland]

Maybe he was wrong?

[@pablocanovas2779]

Hmm, that title does go to someone else, Karl Schwarzschild, who anyone into black hole stuff will recognize that name

[@priyank5161]

​@@2010sourabhbruh friedmann

[@lenettasmith1894]

3:00 When you tell a joke and noone hears it but your friend says it louder and takes all the credit

[@zayanauntora9561]

;_;

[@enzoqueijao]

Tl;dr: Einstein got lost in the sauce and choked an equation. Friedmann found out and roasted him.

[@zyugyzarc]

do you use the operating system of the godly penguin?

[@DavidPimentel]

A good measure of one's intelligence is an ability to recognize and admit one's mistakes and correct for them in the future.

[@yathishbl3757]

Well we had a kid in our class who would recognize his mistakes and correct them which was a lot.....he'd score 30 to 40 in maths test ...so he's intelligent then 😂😂

[@DeconvertedMan]

When I'm wrong, I want to find out I'm wrong, then I learn something! :) Its great to be a skeptic.

[@k3dr1]

Its kinda clickbait, but it has no lie in it. Schrödinger's clickbait

[@Guimaster127]

Nah, it definitely is clickbait, but it's not misleading, which is what I think you're referring to.

[@finewinedaily4997]

Clickbait doesn't really have a formal definition, but it usually implies that the title is misleading or exaggerating the actual content of the video. Otherwise any interesting or creative title could be called clickbait.

[@Guimaster127]

@@finewinedaily4997 That's because many creative titles _do_ use clickbait. But clickbait isn't actually bad, you know. In fact, a good title must be at least a bit "clickbaity" to catch everyone's attention. What's totally wrong to do is creating _misleading_ titles: those that don't represent the content of the video. Here's an example: Let's imagine that someone creates a video called "(game title) - STORY MODE CONFIRMED" , and the video is about an interview in which the developers of the game confirmed there would be a story mode. The title is clickbait, but it does represent the content of the video, so it's not misleading. Thus, that would be a good title for the video.

[@kikones34]

I think clickbait has a bad connotation associated with it, as such I personally only use it for videos which do not fulfill the expectations form the clickbait title. I understand that some people might want to use the word in a more neutral way, though, but the stigma associated with it is there.

[@JorgetePanete]

It's*

[@rutvikrana512]

When I first started learning Flutter, I had mindset that coding and designing should be in different areas while making apps and don’t like flutter in beginning, but as I learnt more and more then I came to know that I was wrong at all, now I love flutter and advice people to shift from java/android studio to flutter. So that was my bias in beginning 🙂

[@silentgrove7670]

I am glad you mentioned the biases we have. Its important to have people we trust around us to challenge our notions. Often I wish I had such a person in my life.

[@Teddy_Miljard_of_Finland]

True!

[@arfn1973]

I like how this changed from physic explaining video to some philosophical video about bias.

[@rikwisselink-bijker]

His track record is not perfect: his Simpson's Paradox videos have such a heavy bias that he shut down the comment section on part 2 (which then moved to the comment section of part 1).

[@BIGywt]

Here we go something I wont understand but makes me feel CLEVER

[@nafrost2787]

"Something a little more in depth", shows one of their most basic courses when they have vector calculus, differential equations, special relativity and machine learning.

[@Tondadrd]

@@vesui2130 People can communicate in other languages. When you see somebody's bad English it might be their second language. Following this implication, then they probably mastered another language already.

[@nafrost2787]

@Vesui Well if you ask me, most of the daily challenges are more challenging and in depth than the math fundamental course. And besides that was a joke. If I had wanted to criticize, I would have phrased the comment differently.

[@omegaRST]

@@vesui2130 spend a little more time learning not to be a dick instead of criticising others, communicating is useless if what you say is stupid

[@KyleCulver]

One of your best videos yet! This was incredibly interesting.

[@elwin389]

after seeing a few of your videos, I really liked how you explain things @minutephysics good job

[@BangMaster96]

A true Scientist is always happy to be proven wrong, because he learned something new. I don't think Einstein was egoistic, he was probably happy that his Equations did in-fact predict the expansion of the universe. I think he was probably mad at himself for failing to realize it earlier.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

That's a total lie. Anyone who says that simply wants you to believe in scientific method, and it is indeed designed to fight against that exact human flaw. But scientists themselves can be as petty and butt hurt as any other people. In fact, pettiness and butt hurt are what often drives scientists to spend decades trying to prove that they are right and everyone else is wrong. And they sometimes succeed, sometimes posthumously. But oftentimes they do not, and the time they spend trying to prove themselves right is completely wasted.

[@ElectroNeutrino]

@@NJ-wb1cz I think the best way to put it would be an "ideal scientist". But we are still human, and don't always live up to the ideal.

[@coolguy284_2]

@@ElectroNeutrino Really it's not hard to approach the ideal if you try hard enough. waitbutwhy.com/2014/10/religion-for-the-nonreligious.html

[@wiseguy8828]

I’ve always assumed Einstein regretted the mistake because without it, he could have predicted one more thing that was unknown (expanding universe) and then when it was found to be true a few years later it would have felt great.

[@JapCarRealGood]

I love when I'm wrong, it's the only time I truly learn.

[@xxsigmaxx5858]

You are wrong. Einstein did not mistake a metric tensor determinant for a scalar. Not only is differential geometry a cornerstone theory for theories of relativity, it is also such an elementary error that it is impossible that Einstein could have made that mistake. Einstein had dealt with non-Euclidean metric tensors in his special relativity developed a decade prior to this theory! This would be the equivalent of writing dx/dt and cancelling out the d's because a derivative sign is misinterpreted for a fraction... in a book teaching calculus.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

WHY THE NOTION OF "CURVED" "SPACE" IS CLEARLY INADEQUATE, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA: The BALANCE of being AND experience is essential. Carefully consider the man who is standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Therefore, E=mc2 IS F=ma. This necessarily represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. THE EYE is the body. (The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO visible.) The BALANCE of what is BODILY/VISUAL experience is essential. Notice the black space of what is THE EYE. OVERLAY what is the eye in BALANCED relation to/with what is the Earth. Notice what is the BLUE SKY. (The Earth is ALSO BLUE.) Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. E=mc2 IS F=ma. SO, what constitutes the falling MAN (ON BALANCE) feels no gravity; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Therefore, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL resistance; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the rotation of what is the Moon matches it's revolution. Moreover, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as E=mc2 IS F=ma. Indeed, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. So, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is the Sun (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Ultimately and truly, time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience, as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand.) It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Notice the black space of what is THE EYE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) Indeed, the stars do twinkle in what is the night sky. THINK !!! THOROUGHLY consider what is A GALAXY. Great. In fact, stellar clustering proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Now, consider what is a spiral galaxy (for example). By Frank DiMeglio

[@zteak1066]

I love your videos but can you continue on the special relativity videos please

[@sorenmine7765]

"This nebular is quiet af" - Albert Einstein

[@xanthmardon584]

minutephysics: its very hard to tell you have biases minutephysics editor: what biases do you have? me: lol idk you just said its hard to tell how am i supposed to know

[@KennyT187]

This video has got it completely inverted. Einstein got a result which implied the universe is not static, so he plugged in the cosmological constant for the universe to be static.

[@PsyMongazoid]

Einstein was good at admitting when he was wrong. I've always respected him for that.

[@Teddy_Miljard_of_Finland]

This was new to me. Thanks!

[@JaydentheMathGuy]

*The Universe has entered the chat* *Calculus Student has entered the chat* *Einstein has entered the chat* *The Universe is now the admin of the chat* Friedmann: ...

[@autosalesrevival]

“If you are the smartest person in the world, doesnt mean you dont make mistakes” *- me*

[@Teck_1015]

"Understanding when we're wrong and graciously admit it" Hahahaha, tell that to flat earthers and anti-vaxxers hahahah, as if!

[@thecryingsoul]

They are also not scientists... or rational

[@st3435]

I want to thumbs-up this so many times.

[@TheViolaBuddy]

Part of the point of the statement, though, is to recognize that even if you do understand the fact that the earth is round and vaccines are overwhelmingly safe, your biases work in the same way that flat earthers' and anti-vaxxers' biases work. There are likely other false things that you believe just as strongly to be true and would be unwilling to admit that you're wrong about, even if they're not things that are so blatant. As the video says, all of us are human, after all.

[@yorumcuu3113]

@@TheViolaBuddy but if you are in the correct side there is no problem

[@gouraveshsharma9547]

The difference here between physicist and anti vaxxers is physicists have a ground in which they can agree and correct themselves however antivaxxers will make ubsurd assumptions to prove them right no matter what

[@LukeTaylor101]

Who said it first? Einstein: My Biggest Flops are your greatest hits.

[@InsaneDeck]

I have a bias to the left. As I'm walking down the street I slowly deviate towards the left, so I use counter weights to balance this bias and I can walk a straight line.

[@narfwhals7843]

are you sure you don't just live near a black hole?

[@InsaneDeck]

@@narfwhals7843 Never really thought about that... But it might explain why people say I look older than I actually am.

[@Andromedon777]

@@InsaneDeck Actually, the opposite would be the effect. You would look younger (and to you, be younger, but to them, be older in their own years.)

[@bakedutah8411]

You don’t need weights. Just turn slightly to the right. I do that all the time with UK supermarket trolleys that have a duff wheel. Worst case I’ve found myself pushing the trolley with it turned a full 45 degrees from the direction of travel. Looks daft but it works.

[@johnwythe1409]

Do the cops know you can’t walk a straight line. Lol!

[@GoRideLP]

this perfectly sums up my research paper ive written for school

[@zteak1066]

Wow! I didn’t know this was even a thing!

[@mattphillips538]

It's not scientists that are openminded (or even ethical), it's the competitive interplay between rival scientists which forces science as a whole towards an honest description of reality.

[@samreet25dhillon]

2:12 OMG man, he drew friedmann so accurately there. I can't take my eyes off it!

[@jmcsquared18]

2:24 "And Einstein eventually saw that Friedmann was right, so he admitted it and published a retraction of his previous criticism." Science, where changing your mind's a good thing.

[@johnsmith1474]

Wouldn't have mattered, the math is not dependent on Einstein accepting it.

[@jmcsquared18]

​@@johnsmith1474 Doesn't change the fact that changing your mind in the face of evidence is a good thing. At the very least, it's good for the person changing their mind. And when each individual's at their best, society's at its best.

[@johnsmith1474]

@@jmcsquared18 - You said, "science where changing your mind is a good thing." But changing your mind can be good in any field whatsoever. So your point is just kumbaya. The salient fact is that the correct equation was calculated not that some one person decided to accept it or not. Your extension to society at large (each at their best blah blah) is cliche piffle and a silly fantasy. Yes I am disallowing you your joy at your comment, because I want you to see it was trite.

[@jmcsquared18]

​@@johnsmith1474 "But changing your mind can be good in any field whatsoever." False. Counterexample: religion. My original comment was going to be, "said no bible verse ever," but I opted for a more positive remark. Does that tickle your fancy any better? My joy remains.

[@johnsmith1474]

@@jmcsquared18 "CAN" be good ... is always true. Read for content, avoid logical fallacies, stay honest with yourself you will have joy.

[@PADARM]

Einstein was totally aware of the Cosmological Constant he added. in your video you are talking like he wasn't aware of it. Funny 100 years later scientist are using his Cosmological Constant again to explain dark energy

[@LTVoyager]

When your ego causes you to speculate that Einstein’s ego caused him to regret his blunder.

[@alaididnalid7660]

Lol!

[@rdelozier1]

Well done. This is a good example of telling a technical story that has a much deeper human truth at the core. Thanks!

[@leojei]

I think it's equally tough to face the possibly being wrong+realizing+admitting being wrong, and knowing you're right+actually go after the titan in the field telling him he's wrong. Kudos, both Friedmann and Einstein!

[@alokdwivedi0609]

"...then he plugged in the universe..."

[@faye_isc]

It.s sooo beautiful when i see scientists having feelings 😂😂😂

[@kage9913]

I studied philosophy of science during my time at university, and this video does a great job summarizing one of the central themes-science is never an unbiased undertaking, deeply influenced by the pursuit of money, fame, and in some cases religion. The video also touches on this idea of “scientific anomalies” which is particularly relevant in Thomas Kuhn’s idea of Paradigms as well as Karl Popper’s notion of falsification. I think one of the key takeaways here is that scientific progress is a fairly arbitrary-what does “progress” really entail? For the most part, progress is only relevant in the scope of one scientific “paradigm,” which is really just a body of knowledge, ideas, tools, and methods that have been refined to build society’s understanding of nature. To illustrate what I mean, prior to Einstein, the prevailing paradigm was founded on Newtonian physics. It did a fantastic job explaining much of natural world; what could not be explained using Newtonian physics was seen as an anomaly and frankly irrelevant to the majority of the world. Scientific progress of an era/a paradigm is directly proportional to the amount of novel knowledge that could be produced within the paradigm; furthermore, the paradigms progress is limited by the number of anomalies it encounters/fails to explain. To all you other nerds out there, paradigm shifts and revolutions are a hassle to explain. I also realize that a number of scholars don’t see Einstein’s ideas as necessarily the beginning of a revolution and argue that we are therefore, technically in the same paradigm as Newton.

[@richardgreenhalgh9396]

The right hand side of the equation written is wrong, the equation should read LHS (curvature of spactime) =8\pi G/c^4 T_\mu u the constant G/c^4 is important and has dimensions, so even if we choose units so that G=1 and c=1 we must still include the dimensions and what better way to include them without loss of information by writing in the constant 8\pi G/c/c/c/c on the RHS.

[@abebass464]

The Man Who Corrected Minutephysics: Einstein realized the equations of General Relativity implied an expanding universe. He added the "cosmological constant" to it, because all other scientists told him that according to observations, the universe is static.

[@fastkar9806]

How cool would it be If minutephysics had the contract to teach science in schools.... Keep up the great work and thank you :)

[@Ciph3rzer0]

Will never happen because of the corrupt organizations in charge of curriculums and standardized tests. Plus, free doesn't make money, and as capitalists we are always slave to that.

[@iamsenpai9447]

The first person to should have corrected him was his teacher lol

[@clayrichard5067]

3:48 "Einstein, like all of us, was human" *sad alien noises*

[@vendybirdsvadl7472]

*sad AI noises*

[@BogdanGusiev]

What makes biases hard to overcome is the amount of your actions you have to reconsider when you question them. If you lived 30 years with some bias that now seems wrong, you need to rethink and live though all the situations where you've been using this bias once again like feel the guilt for proving a wrong thing to your friend, terrifying your colleagues with stupid requirements etc. That takes a long time usually comparable to the amount of time this bias was with you.

[@muscledog666]

That's why conversations are important And listening to the entire story

[@declanchampie]

When you correct the smart kid in class

[@RubenKelevra]

I think errors make us become more knowledgeable What I do know about Einstein led me to believe he was probably just upset about himself thinking in a completely wrong direction, than thinking making an error is wrong.

[@darrenzou2483]

Hes technically not wrong because he used the equation that can be used to prove all the outcomes. Its just that theres multiple solutions and he just wrote one

[@IslamDueren]

Einstein: I'm best Alexander Freeman: Hold my Telescope

[@ethribin4188]

The best part is that Einstein knew the correct formula. He just didnt believe what it said about the universe, because it so heavily disagreed with the then general concensis. So he added a factor the fit his idea of the universe. Only later did he remove it, because of the mentioned Friedman. Shows that even the greatest geniouses can make mistakes or have biases.

[@laurendoe168]

The way I heard the story, Einstein saw that his equations did not allow for a static universe and he worked on adding a factor that CAUSED the universe to be static... and that this was what he supposedly called his biggest blunder (adding a fudge factor because of his bias) and he gave up on the idea. Except that his added factor was correct but it had values that were unknown in his time - this added factor accounted for the expansion of the universe.

[@csstuff421]

I thought this guy was Lenin with glasses EDIT: "What biases do you have?" TAEHY- JK I'm not even an ARMY

[@rauanerkinbek7327]

Every 60 second in Africa a minute passes

[@anthonyt4154]

Together we can stop this

[@nicholasr79]

Also, 50% of Africans make up half of it's population.

[@dwitsha]

My bias is actually right: The Witcher game series is clearly superior to any other out there.

[@Ruhrpottpatriot]

Only when it isn't.

[@dwitsha]

@@Ruhrpottpatriot What're ye suggestin'?

[@Ruhrpottpatriot]

Baldurs Gate? HoMM? Diablo? Doom? Warcraft? Civ (well, except VI...)? SUper Mario? Zelda? Mech Warrior? KKND?Seriously, there are enough games and game series better than Witcher

[@dwitsha]

@@Ruhrpottpatriot M Y B I A S I S A L W A Y S R I G H T

[@Ruhrpottpatriot]

Naww. It's not really bias. I have the original version of witcher I standing behind me. I clearly remember how much of a clusterfuck that was. Especially the first one suffers from backtracking, repetitive quest, unmemorable locations and overall mediaocre writingYes, the third is good, but that doesn't make the series "clearly superior."

[@Andy-413]

I really like how you just get to the point and don't use a bunch of boring, unwanted information as filler to reach that minimum 10 minute for a double ad mark. For example, if this was on one of those other channels, you'd probably get a boringly long summarized biography of these two people instead with the last several minutes of the 15 minute video actually being relevant to the title. Thanks for not wasting our time 🙂

[@dreggory82]

This is a common theme among all the great thinkers, it seems like the pattern is: -Works hard to discover truths -is rewarded for hard work -defends ideas and wins -ego inflates -adds to the body of work, less rigorously (with bonus errors) -defends to the death, unable to accept errors -inflated ego bars further learning and no longer contributes positively. -younger, more spry and hard working individual adds to the truth -and the cycle repeats. Unfortunately for them the ego stops their ability to contribute. Fortunately for us this cycle seems to help us as a whole get closer and closer to the truth about reality. This has been recorded as happening since early philosophy with individuals like Hippocrates, Plato and Aristotle.

[@MrAqr2598]

Even Einstein Sometimes Makes Mistakes. The modern version of “Even Homer Sometimes Nods”.

[@guystudios9878]

Albert: Wow, I almost figured out how gravity fully works! Stilwell: I'm gonna end this man's whole THEORY.

[@bencushwa8902]

I'm clearly biased in favor of minutephysics. Prove me wrong.

[@Rement1]

Your obvious bias is that you think you're biased in favor of minutephysics. In reality you just like minutephysics, but you are not biased!

[@bencushwa8902]

@@Rement1 Your reply rings a bell for some reason....

[@anandshete9170]

His drawing was more satisfying that the actual video

[@rodneykawecki1770]

Yeah ... you know and all these predictions are in Isaac Newtons illustrations in his books. Newton was comparing his lenses where distortions occurred and newtons research became literal. But a gold mine for Einstein. Your not gonna add expansion to Einstein's legacy. Did you hear about the guy who built a space ship following relativity than found out it left out the thing about the bomb.

[@spplS.]

It's pronounced Ein"sh"tein , Not Ein"s"tein. (I'm German)

[@Q8Ubermensch]

In Arabic we pronounce it correctly, Einshtein.

[@yakov95000]

Relax bro Einstein didn't care too much,btw It doesn't matter that you are German,the fact is that both Einstein and Friedman were both Jewish, he can say Einstein/Einshtien doesn't matter both correct.

[@spplS.]

@@yakov95000 oh, thanks, that's interesting... and no, I am, was and will be totally relaxed 😉

[@nosoynadie6338]

The funny thing is that he wasn’t completely wrong, since the cosmological constant is used to understand dark energy

[@zdcyclops1lickley190]

It doesn't provide a understanding of dark energy. It provides a possible explanation of the observation that the expansion of space time is accelerating.

[@calm.aware.]

„Einstein was human.“ Blasphemy!

[@calebunga7271]

That one scene in a movie where the smart guy forgets to carry the one.

[@equesdeventusoccasus]

I was an information security forensic analyst for 26 years and had many interns. Their first day I gave them my rules for business 1. I can be wrong. 2. Treat everything as if it needed to stand up in court. 3. Document everything. 4. If you are positive you are correct refer to rule #1.

[@tiaxanderson9725]

What bias do you have? Subs > dubs

[@artaway6647]

Thats t r u t h