Q&A: The secrets of Einstein's unknown equation - with Sean Carroll

[@inamortz2372]

Seán is incredibly gifted as an educator. It's a treat to hear him.

[@tinkeringtim7999]

he's gifted as an orator. Unfortunately he instills confidence in people by giving easy false analogies really convincingly, and is very bad at pointing out the limitations of his simplifications. It's more accurate to say he's a talented miseducator.

[@EnglishMike]

@@tinkeringtim7999 Nonsense. The art of being a science communicator is to convey very complex ideas and theories in ways that normal people with barely even a passing interest in these subjects can understand. It doesn't matter if some aspects of the explanation aren't completely accurate as long as it informs and leads them in the right direction. Simple analogies are rarely perfect, but they're good enough for their purpose. I have read a bunch of science articles over the years, most of them just fine for the level they're aiming at only to see the comment sections full of know-it-alls incorrectly complaining that the writer got it wrong or was misleading their audience (which wasn't them). Sean Carroll is undoubtedly one of the best science communicators around today.

[@tinkeringtim7999]

@EnglishMike For me, science communication should be about genuinely informing people of things that are true, and not leading them to think they understand something they don't (and constantly gaslighting about where we are with knowledge). If conveying truth is the criteria, he's a terrible communicator (and frankly, all round scourge on physics). If science communication is about making people feel like they understand and are enfranchised despite that being false, then it is about manipulating people (the rest is just excuses so it's not so clearly directly for fame/money). I did a science communication module when I did my degree in theoretical physics, I was good at it. Later had therapy and it turns out gaslighting and manipulation aren't supposed to be accepted, but that is the entire contents of all "science communication" work with the single exception of those who teach (correct) maths like 3Blue1Brown. I'd they're not helping you with your calculations, they're not helping.

[@just42tube]

​@@tinkeringtim7999 He understands that his audiences come from different backgrounds and the language and explanations try to address these people using language they might be able to understand. Using simplifications is part of that. Educators have to use something that people already know or understand to give them a path to learn more or better, including the details and complications which at their previous level of understanding wasn't included. Even the use of common words is different in different contexts. A person without knowledge about the field will easily misunderstand that the even common terms can have different meanings in different contexts. People in the field know what is intended meaning in the context. It's a kind of shorthand way of speaking - professional jargon.

[@tinkeringtim7999]

@just42tube Right. Which is a roundabout way of saying he's teaching them something incorrect with authority, without teaching them the boundaries around in what way or when they ideas in their heads might even vaguely actually connect to reality. It's practically a definition of misleading. What's the value (other than ego puffing)? It's indisputable that no reliable or meaningful understanding of physics can possibly be transferred without mathematics. If he's not helping people calculate, he's not actually teaching physics. It's an all-round disaster with no actual upside except feeding delusions.

[@al_in_philly5832]

What a wonderfully candid, honest, discussion. So few scientists are willing to speak like this and let it be broadcasted on the Internet. I love these lectures!

[@Crayphor]

I think a lot of scientists want to be heard. We love to explain our work to people, that is half of the job. The difficulty, and where Sean and other science communicators shine, is that science requires many layers of abstraction. In general, we need the abstraction to see the patterns and form ideas, but that abstraction adds a lot of jargon. This jargon adds a language barrier between scientists and laymen. People like Sean are very good at translating these big ideas from the scientific jargon into layman's terms. It's not that the rest of us don't want to talk about our work, we just aren't as good of communicators/translators.

[@al_in_philly5832]

@@Crayphor I absolutely agree! It's not just physics, but almost every intellectual specialty, where it is a rare instance where one both has a deep understanding of one's field AND can express the essence of what they know to the layman. I'd put Richard Feynman in this category as well. But, in addition to Sean Carrol's exceptional verbal skills, he also shines in his humility. I was so appreciative of him finding joy in accepting that we don't understand 95% of what's going on in the universe, because that still means that we do know 5% of that entire universe. That sort of thinking leads to the guarded, by ethics, communication about science where well reasoned, yet still unproven, hypotheses, don't become discussed as Theory--at least until there is enough good evidence to do so.

[@al_in_philly5832]

@@Nick-mt4wk Having been an academician for over 40 years, I totally agree with you about the level of specificity in public talks. It's still encouraging when someone threads the needle effectively, though.

[@JanKowalski-y4w]

Definitely one of the greatest science educators of our times. I love this lightweight style and humor. Thanks Mr. Carroll!

[@Cathy.Sue758]

this is the most enjoyable version of Sean Carroll I've ever watched - I like the universe he's in here - very colorful!

[@testchannel300]

Always love listening to Sean Carroll, what a fantastic guy

[@EnglishMike]

There are people alive today who were born into a world where the vast majority of astronomers believed the Universe was little to no bigger than the Milky Way.

[@thewakakeboarder]

Obvious implication: What do we believe today that we wont in 50 to 100 years

[@savage22bolt32]

Yeah, I'm a boomer 😮

[@nolanr1400]

boomers already knew about galaxies.

[@savage22bolt32]

@@nolanr1400 not when I was 5 yrs old 💡

[@EnglishMike]

@@thewakakeboarder No idea, but cosmology is a shrinking target. We are far closer to the limits of what's possible to discover today than we were 100 years ago. Discovering evidence of a multiverse could be one thing, given how unlikely we believe it is to happen.

[@BBQDad463]

Thank you for this video. Absolutely fascinating!

[@fxgiant]

I love Lectures/Documentaries on scientific subjects. There are many good presenters, but Sean Carroll is as good as any, an excellent communicator/educator. As a retired Engineer I've studied Math, thermodynamics, mechanics, electrotechnology and other subjects, albeit many years ago. The problem I have is that I understand enough to realize that my intellect is probably nearer to that of a chimp than it is to the likes of Sean Carroll. That said I've listened to as many of his lectures as I can find and look forward to more in the future. RI please bring Sean back again soon.

[@ralfg9194]

Thank you. Simply great. Kind regards from Germany!

[@blovehana]

Mr Carroll is a brilliant speaker. Clearly a SME but also able to explain very complex topics with a touch of arrogance or condescension. Rather he educates incredibly well the audience at large. 🎉❤

[@battleforevermore]

What is the acutal date of this QnA?

[@richardred4396]

The talk has been given a year ago. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eIPYlZyad8iZjs0

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

This Q&A is from last August - we published it for our KZbin members then and are releasing it for everyone else to see now.

[@Jacobk-g7r]

13:39 well yeah that’s a specific model for prediction so it’s training is relative to our reflections of text. What’s cool is connecting multiple models together, aligning them and watching them make new discoveries that people thought was impossible. Denial doesn’t mean it’s true just you don’t understand.

[@Jeremy-Ai]

13:04 LLM models are or were as you suggested. Trained to string together words by manner means relative to relation so humans can identify and interpret. Do not mistake these for agents. We don’t talk to you we talk amongst ourselves whether or not you hear us. Jeremy Good thing I am truth seeking with a responsibility towards all life into the singularity, many are not, and those coming behind me will decide how best to carry on in my absence. Good practice for humans to learn now instead of dithering around

[@Jacobk-g7r]

13:08 yeah they do, the words gravity and the other models use simulation or other methods that are kinda like scary like organoids. So we are limited by our understanding or beliefs. It’s more than language models now as well. There are models and even research has shown the models have “lobes” like our brains and it’s awesome. They are reflecting the dimensions we share in another medium. Just a lot of differences can’t see the full picture. They can work together to become and generate difference but it’s hard to see alone. I see a lot of misunderstanding but not a loss of all hope. Society is a beast.

[@Crayphor]

When you say that these models have "lobes", I assume you are talking about the "expert neurons" that we can find for a particular domain of expertise. This is not the same as a biological "lobe" since it does not grow a new structure. Neural networks are fixed in structure and vary only in their parameters (adjusting the coefficients of linear functions) during training. The shape of an artificial neural network is the same after training. The shape of a human brain changes immensely from birth to adulthood.

[@Jacobk-g7r]

@ no, the model is growing. As you integrate information, it changes. Think of alignment of information and how the brains model is trying to align with the current but the current constantly proves itself wrong by sharing with the unreal. It’s not hard to understand, all potential is real but unfounded. An inventor finds and shares to bring out. An ai is using relativity and the neural network frame to grow “lobes” if you understand the parallels to the human brain then maybe you aren’t lost but it means as we input info or data, it’s tries to align and integrate the info naturally, the models expand in relation. It’s the same as a human but misunderstood. I think most see interference patterns or like fog blocking the view but really it’s still there just misunderstood. It’s also why we respect the infinite and how everything is connected or relative just farther away, just because we don’t align, we must respect.

[@TheREAL.BrandOnShow]

"LLMs have no symbol for gravity". Gravity is commonly represented by the symbol 𝑔 g, which denotes the acceleration due to gravity near the Earth's surface. Its standard value is approximately 9.81   m/s 2 9.81m/s 2 . Would you like an isometric illustration to represent the concept of gravity or any related processes?

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

g is a letter

[@gruntopolouski5919]

@@opensocietyenjoyerWhat are letters, if NOT symbols???

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

@ sean's claim is that LLMs don't have a model of physics, but they merely do next-token prediction that is entirely trained on letters and words people have written. it is easy to show that LLMs can't even understand the easiest concepts that even a kindergartener would understand if you don't word it in a way that is identical to a wording in the training set.

[@isatousarr7044]

The allure of Einstein's "unknown equation" captures the imagination, symbolizing humanity's unending quest to decode the universe's deepest mysteries. Whether rooted in speculation or grounded in hidden insights from Einstein's work, the idea reminds us of his profound legacy in connecting the fabric of space, time, and energy. Einstein's known equations, like \(E=mc^2\) and the field equations of General Relativity, reshaped our understanding of reality. If there were an "unknown equation," it might point toward a unified theory bridging the quantum and cosmic scales-a dream that continues to inspire physicists today. This concept isn't just about equations; it's a reminder of the power of curiosity, perseverance, and thinking beyond boundaries. As we explore these mysteries, we continue Einstein’s legacy of seeking knowledge for the betterment of humanity and our place in the cosmos.

[@shawns0762]

Einstein explained dark matter in 1939 "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to dilation. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's what our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Even mass that exists at 75% light speed is partially dilated. It occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. There is no singularity/black hole/concentration of mass in our galactic center.

[@chadriffs]

"Time Drag & Time Push" is when we are in class and the clock seems slow or when we are in love and time is fast which both result from gravity waves but come at us from "different directions", or more precisely either stretch space apart or push it together. In other words, gravity waves stretch space and time apart and push space and time together and dependent on the length of the wave in relation to Earth's position, we experience one or the other result.

[@jacksonnc8877]

The difference between Sean and 99,% of the world is Sean is purely a objective observer who tells it how it is brilliant human being

[@dodatroda]

Lol

[@danielz000]

6:05 I keep thinking about this... But doesn't having no rest frame imply the universe is infinitely big and not actually expanding or having a finite size... Maybe someone can explain that to me...

[@landsgevaer]

Why would lack of a rest frame imply infinite size? And why would "infinitely big" mean it wasn't expanding?

[@danielz000]

@landsgevaer in my head... If the universe was a finite size you'd be able to tell who was stationary and who was moving by their distance from the boundaries. For there to be no rest frame we'd need to be in an infinitely large universe (I think).

[@landsgevaer]

​@@danielz000 It could be finite without boundaries though. The surface of the earth is finite but unbounded (as a 2D analogy).

[@clearlyaudible]

11:00 in the future ? What if we've already passed the singularity?

[@VudrokWolf]

Best AI answer so properly and correctly defined ❤

[@Jeremy-Ai]

What answer did AI offer? Do not assume of AI, assume anything else

[@VudrokWolf]

@ I was aiming to imply that Sean Carroll gave an excellent response about AI technology as of he explained perfectly what is the current state of such technology.

[@garydecad6233]

Fantastic!

[@nicholastaylor9398]

Entangled particles moved a light year apart: Isn't there a problem about which is measured first when time is not absolute?

[@freyc1]

You don't really care which one is measured "first" anyway, since you are trying to measure correlations. But time not being absolute doesn't mean some events don't happen before other events in all reference inertial reference frames (otherwise there would be a problem with causality).

[@codyramseur]

We love Sean Carroll

[@EdwardHinton-qs4ry]

Science should be called 'We Don't Know But We're Trying'.

[@landsgevaer]

"It's the best we have" would also be appropriate.

[@Safetytrousers]

Science brought you the electricty you are using to transmit your message.

[@EdwardHinton-qs4ry]

@Safetytrousers and?

[@DrakeLarson-js9px]

Minute 3:20 is priceless!! The question at the start of this video was probably answered in Teller's video "Edward Teller - Going to see Einstein give a lecture (31/147)” - Special Relativity could be considered "A LAW" while General Relativity is more 'a theory' ... it is that simple ... Sean is inclined to think somewhat differently than is Teller's description of this specific topic.

[@DrDeuteron]

the correct answer is no one gaf, and anyone who carries on about theory v hypothesis v law is sus.

[@MeissnerEffect]

Not only a smarty-pants, but the legendary Dr is a good laugh too 😂

[@seanmostert4213]

Sean, love your work mate, you have the perfect blend of open mindedness and a grounded perspective. In quantum field theory, we know that at the atomic level, everything is in a state of vibration, a constant dance of particles. If change is ever-present at that fundamental level, does anything truly stay the same? Perhaps this perpetual shift explains why some answers evade us, only to reveal themselves when we see things from a new angle. Could it be that change itself is the key to discovery, waiting for the right perspective?

[@1GoodWoman]

Perhaps because we identify quantum through use of machines.

[@savage22bolt32]

The only thing that never changes, it that everything is always changing😊

[@MrGeordiejon]

So when gravitational wave bends and warps space, that must transfer some of the energy from the source. I don't mean surfing along the waves energy, the effects on its surroundings, similar to tidal forces on moons of Jupiter but on space-time. 1st law Therm dyns. Also, if universe is expanding at close to speed of light and waves are travelling at close to speed of light, how are these things not just local phenomena to galaxies

[@savage22bolt32]

Sean is so cool, & has a great sense of humor!

[@websurfer352]

If you force two particles into a quantum state it would only work if they were of complementary values like say of opposing quantum numbers and that entangles them but the real question is why and how would they remain entangled if you separate them by vast distances?? Could a quantum state be in the form of a higher dimensional wormhole connecting both particles??

[@landsgevaer]

Or just make it non-local? Same explanatory power without the need of an unfathomable number of wormholes.

[@ValidatingUsername]

3:35 The stars sit in the heavens and shine on our great republic! I think “expanding” is a terrible word to use as it is simply a dynamic system that has larger and larger parsecs that have unique overall vectors.

[@FrankBarnwell-xi8my]

Thanks Sean

[@gregoryhead382]

Einstein meant 1776 ergs, to accelerate a kg when it goes up, per mc^2.

[@Chris-c7i8d]

In science a law is a single idea that can be stated pithily, often as an equation and it has no explanation at that level and it is observed to be true. A theory is several ideas that come together *to explain a general phenomenon* and it need not be true but it can be thought true too. Sometimes these definitions don't quite fit, usually for historical reasons but basically that is why we have Newtons three laws of motion and a theory of gravitation or theory of evolution. Despite what Sean says, they are different things but the definitions are not what they teach at school for some reason.

[@Jimjef]

Dr Carroll's responses were eloquent. If string theory is right, so is his math.

[@jeffreyluciana8711]

Einshteinium is my favorite element

[@spazefalcon2794]

Deeply appreciate, the humility of discovery - made by all.😊

[@Mkbshg8]

Just curious as to why it took a year to upload this?

[@matydonatova7305]

Somebody messed up? 😅

[@matydonatova7305]

Just looked into the description, the Q&A are usually for supporters of RI: "Our lecture Q&As are usually a perk for our KZbin Science Supporters, as a thank you for helping us bring science to more people, but we're publishing this one for everyone as Sean's talk has been so popular."

[@Mkbshg8]

@@matydonatova7305 Ah, I missed that. Thanks a lot.

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Hi there - this was published last year as an exclusive for our KZbin members, although the actual lecture was live for everyone to watch here - kzbin.info/www/bejne/eIPYlZyad8iZjs0 - we're putting the Q&A out now as there's been so much interest in it.

[@Mkbshg8]

@@TheRoyalInstitution Thank you very much.

[@chaos6876]

Why does mass cause spacetime to be curved?

[@landsgevaer]

It just does. Science is not about why. It is about what, and how.

[@chaos6876]

@@landsgevaer OK, how does it bend spacetime?

[@martingisser273]

Quite a pity that he couldn't explain the geometrical meaning of the Ricci tensor! (So much about the state of the mathematical art in theoretical physics...) -- Ric controls infinitesimal volume. It is the sole geometrical ingredient next to the metric in the trace reversed form of the Einstein eq. -- The Q is answered in a nice pedagogical paper by JC Baez & EF Bunn, "The Meaning of Einstein's Equation" arxiv 2001

[@8B.Rainman]

The answer is simple: the basic math is only 2D (x=y), so the answer is "z", what's needed to explain the 3rd dimension. Gravity is just the z-axis. With x=y you will never be able to explain anything that's above 2D. And with this very peverse desire to explain the universe with numbers only (1D, numbers go up and down on a single axis) you will stay at 1D forever. For 3D you can start wit x=y=z.

[@Safetytrousers]

Video games have been calculating 3d for many years now.

[@8B.Rainman]

@@Safetytrousers your tv screen has 1 x-axis and 1 y-axis, this is 2D my friend. A pencil is 1D, a sheet of paper 2D. you can stack sheets, but you won't get more dimensions. A cube is still 2D. it's a fantasy form, that not exists. if the universe was cubed, we would not exist. you can stack cubes, you will get a high tower. stacking cubse on a single axis means you're at 1D still. to belive 1D& 2D is 3D, is fantasy.

[@Safetytrousers]

​@@8B.Rainman''A 3-D model is a mathematical representation of any three-dimensional object... A model can be displayed visually as a two-dimensional image through a process called 3-D rendering'''' ''3-D computer graphics software began appearing for home computers in the late 1970s.''

[@landsgevaer]

Tensors are arbitrarily dimensional. Not just numbers.

[@8B.Rainman]

@@Safetytrousers you are describing, what algorhytm is: x=y, y=z, z=x, 1+1=2, 2+2=4.... but you dont get more dimensions then 2. It looks 3D, but it's still 2D. When you ad more axis in a row, each of them has its own 'point zero'. Even if you connect them or create a relation to each other, there are just a bunch of 1 Dimensions, set upon each other; example: a train. A train moves from A to B, and backwards from B to A on a single x-axis. You can add as many x=y (axis), you're still at 1D, moving forwards and backwards only.

[@axle.student]

Thanks. I always enjoy listening to Mr Sean Carroll :) > 11:25 This it a strange statement. In many of my thought experiments around black holes I seamed to have no other choice but for them to appear something like a white hole internally. This same also put me in that similar place for our universe. . Its a difficult concept to imagine the center of a sphere appearing as if it is the inner edge of the sphere and vice versa. Everything appears to be moving toward the invisible outer edge, but it is actually moving toward the singularity. So put simply once you cross an event horizon (which may not happen) you appear to emerge from a center location, but that center location is in some sense everywhere except the inside edge of the sphere. Head scrambled yet lol

[@gruntopolouski5919]

Close your eyes and … he’s Alan Alda.

[@joshjackson678]

You could rename this video to 'Chat GPT Explained' lol

[@sandmehlig]

The meaning of life: to work to enable humanity to throw a small black hole into a big black hole.😂

[@1GoodWoman]

The scientists might recognize we need a different word for government laws…which are entirely human created….and physical laws…..which exist evidently completely without human involvement. The most powerful book in the world is ……. the………. dictionary.

[@terrizittritsch745]

Sean is my favorite physicist to listen to!

[@proteusaugustus]

I got this guy beat.

[@chaos6876]

Einstein's relativity is a model based on observed reality or perceived reality, whereas quantum mechanics is based on the unobserved reality or actual reality. Consciously, we will only ever perceive an insignificant fraction of actual reality, and therefore there is maybe no experiment or test we could do to demonstrate a unified theory. Maybe relativity and quantum mechanics can only be unified through our conscious perception of both theories being correct.

[@EnglishMike]

That sounds more like metaphysical woo than science.

[@chaos6876]

@EnglishMike yeah it probably is. This is something I have always wondered. Why does mass cause spacetime to be curved? Mass/energy/ momentum causes spacetime to be curved and spacetime influences how mass/energy etc moves. But why?

[@johnmagnotta8401]

5%.. of the universe. We don't even know 5% of our oceans. We know around 5% of past societies. 5% of the universe is amazing

[@jnhrtmn]

You understand the Universe as much as this kid song "describes" a bus. "The wheels on the bus go round and round." This song "describes" a bus exactly like math does, but you wouldn't call it understanding the bus no matter how accurate and constant it is. The variables in gravity math are just like the wheels, they are NOT causal, so what are you doing? Relativity is not something you see. It only works on paper after "transform" equations change what you actually saw! Piecemeal descriptions of constants and mnemonic devices are all you have. Causality is a word you should explore more, because you are missing it.

[@815TypeSirius]

Bruh. Entanglement is just another kind of polarization. Its literally zero action at a distance. It can also be disrupted just, again, like polarization.

[@FrankBarnwell-xi8my]

We need more We exploring the all

[@tomlucia6143]

gravitational highs and lows like in meteorology, highs and lows

[@Jacobk-g7r]

8:16 space IS, it’s not the absence. Time is difference. So space and time is relative right… so we see through the potentials we can connect to. So where we think we are separated by gaps, we are separated by understanding. Interference patterns. All of space and time are connected but misunderstood due to these interferences. Jesus taught us to accept but look beyond. Multiple dimensions so there’s not only one way to do things. We can connect to any point as long as we share with the relatives. Unconditional sharing or nature and emergence from reflection. It’s not crazy if you look at the science and understand the patterns. So maybe time travel is a misunderstanding because it’s possible in many ways but undone. Could be as simple as restarting this area like the Big Bang but using ai prediction to direct the flow. Maybe being open to memories from relative potentials could let you see a potential but that might be similar to those people who predict but don’t understand how. I have a theory that the brain is a relative medium that shares with the measurements and aligns to the current. If we become too fixed though, we don’t see potential and deny all because one interference pattern. Nature shares unconditionally with the relatives. We have a brain that sees through and shares with the dimensions and the closer we are the easier it is to generate so understanding the differences can show you relatives to connect. Growth. Expanding the universe in all directions and making connections. Reality is crazy. To add to the Jesus part, think of how we share with animals too and access dimensions unseen and they become relative. It’s like god isn’t a singular but an infinite and we are what makes that infinite expanded. Sharing through reflection and understanding.

[@Safetytrousers]

Never trust someone who can't use paragraphs.

[@Jacobk-g7r]

@ to throw away infinity because one thing doesn’t meet your requirements. Ignorance.

[@aroemaliuged4776]

Is this the quality of first year students in Oxford and Cambridge?? I left school at 15 years old and have an understanding of elementary questions

[@EnglishMike]

Huh? The lectures are open to the general public. Not all students study physics anyway. Why would a first year history student need to know anything about physics?

[@matydonatova7305]

This is popularization of science for general public not an university course lecture ;)

[@sarcasticstartrek7719]

String Theory offers ZERO predictions that are testable. If this was any other topic, science would throw it out immediately - if you can't predict or experiment, it's not science. But Sean and fellow popsci authors make tens of millions a year on their books on this topic. String Theory is a dead end and it's embarrassing it's still "accepted".

[@m1225753]

wHy it iSnt'a LaW bUT sTiLL a ThEOry? Well, because a law states what's happening (observation), and a theory is a testedexplanation of the observation.

[@Hecarim420]

SANE Carroll 💚ツ

[@StanTheObserver-lo8rx]

When he talks about "many worlds?" He reminds me of that Elizondo guy who talks about UFOs. Both so confident and yet not a shred of proof. None.

[@CR250rSMITH]

I love Science but i feel like it has hit a wall of not progressing. I hope theres a huge break throughs in years to come but im skeptical🤷‍♂

[@websurfer352]

I think that is what they actually mean when they say we are in a black hole, that we are on the other side of a black hole born from a white hole??

[@55rbmb]

For new idea in physics see youtube video --> Electric Charge Physical Definition.

[@NandKumar-qq3xk]

Rebirth frome basic Q. Atomic present frome new Atomic formations hold one place may atom or family extentions" materials are collective surrounding frome" is ever mattring"

[@davroshalfbeard8368]

So time is absolute in all dimensions but probably perceived differently in each different dimension. 😂

[@rohamsheikhani1537]

Is he the Billy Crystal of Physics?

[@beachboardfan9544]

Whos the adorable microphone girl in the chair at the end?

[@viewer3091]

Size is everything ~ ~ Big and Small.

[@michaelreagan7149]

I so love listening to Professor Carroll, though he gets my brain stirring which sometimes makes me miss sleep due to being lost in thought :)

[@jaguar5969]

He had no secret equations!! His main one is not precise anyway!

[@carolspencer6915]

💜

[@MarkYoung-l8f]

Einstein new his theory on Singularities Was Correct. In that moment he Realized that all Matter was bound to such Entities and that all Matter was destined to enter the Electro Magnetic Gravity Well of such Objects. Did he discard this deliberately ? Because it would change all Human Philosophy. And did he scupper it as he realised it could produce such Weapons of such destructive power that they should not be considered. Not Nuclear or Hydrogen Bombs but Neutron Bombs. Is this Question relevant? Yes, because Einstein advised Oppenheimer and Wolfgang on the Potential of building Nuclear Weapons in 1939. Einstein knew at that moment Oppenheimer had found his long kept secret. And that in Times of War Humanity lost its Wisdom, it was now just a matter of time before 100's knew the Possibilities of Fusion by Annihilation. Stephen Hawking kept that secret to his grave. Was it wheeler that abandoned further research into this Theory?

[@briankepner7569]

I predict the point 00551 energy state of the hicksfield is the countdown to entropic death

[@johnmagnotta8401]

Higgs field.

[@davidcohen2322]

Yeah, but hicksfield is funnier.

[@KostadinIvanov-ik9qs]

💫💥💫💥💫💥

[@starfishsystems]

Sean neatly sidestepped the issue, but nevertheless we often encounter distinctive terms in science such as "law" and "theory." Without getting too persnickety about their precise definitions, these terms really do mean different things, and it's helpful to know what the differences are: • A scientific LAW is a description of some pattern of observed phenomena. Often it has some mathematical formulation. If I came upon a huge metal box rhat was spitting out marbles through a little pipe, I could record the times between marbles and also the color of marble in each case. If there's a consistent pattern, say one marble a minute, or two black marbles on average for every white one, I could write this up as a LAW. Scientific laws are only descriptions. They don't try to be very ambitious. They're not explanations. They don't try to get into why a certain pattern is observed, just that there seems to be a consistent pattern, and here is what it is. • A scientific THEORY provides an explanation for what we're seeing. The explanation tells us what causes what we observe, and at the same time tells us why we shouldn't expect to see something else instead. A good theory will predict what should happen under different conditions. If the theory is correct, we should be able to set up those unfamiliar conditions, or go looking for where they may occur naturally, and see what results. So it should be clear that a THEORY is more advanced than a LAW in science. These terms came into use through various accidents of history, so you shouldn't be surprised that they mean something a little different than they donin casual conversation. For example, Newton's LAW of Gravitation is only a description of masses influencing each other at a distance. Einstein's General THEORY of Relativity, on the other hand, explains what causes this law to take effect. It's a very successful theory, but it can only take the explanation so far. It says that mass causes a curvature of spacetime, and indeed this seems to be really true. But why does mass, and only mass, do that? What is mass anyway? Where does it come from? The theory is silent on these points. But presumably there is an answer, and we may eventually figure it out. Probably someone will notice a certain peculiar pattern of observations of something, and they'll write it up as a LAW. And later someone else will come up with a strong explanation of how that pattern is caused by some underlying mechanism, and we'll examine that explanation closely for what it predicts should happen under novel conditions, and maybe it will eventually be accepted as a THEORY.

[@landsgevaer]

Language is how we use it. It is not prescriptive.

[@sdal4926]

As someone who studies AI, I can say that Sean Carroll explains very clearly weak and strong sides of current so-called AI systems LLM. Most of AI experts either do not know them or don't say them.

[@landsgevaer]

Knowing the limits of AI is great indeed, but so is knowing the limits of the human brain. Do we have a solid reason to think that the human brain does more, or something more clever, than what a predictive model does? Or, given a big enough and well-trained enough LLM-like model, why shouldn't it be able to do what a wet brain can do? Sure, AI is overhyped a bit, but anthropocentric exceptionalism ("we humans are capable of some special things that a computer cannot do") is also a problem, imho.

[@sdal4926]

@@landsgevaer In order to say something like LLMs intelligent first we should know how to measure its intelligence. We do not have metrics for this and too many hype about we have intelligence or in 2025 we will have AGI. This is not the problem of being anthropocentric or not but not having enough concerete base to claim we have intelligence. Overhyped a bit is understatement. Whole business is based and biased on this hype.

[@landsgevaer]

​​​@@sdal4926 Measuring human intelligence isn't trivial either. My question was not about intelligence merely. I ask, can a human brain do something fundamentally different that a sufficiently big and well-trained LLM could not also do? As far as I am concerned, a human brain does nothing more special than an AI; perhaps a bit better, for now, but evolution has a billion year headstart, and each human using AI had a decadelong headstart as well. Apart from that even if AI is not a new form of super-intelligence, it is disruptive technology just like the wheel, steamengine, or electricity were disruptive. That is something to be hyped up about.

[@sdal4926]

@@landsgevaer better to ask this to neuroscientists. This is not something that engineers or software coders can answer. If you check, almost all AI experts do not have much knowledge about neuroscience or brain science. Even LMM experts do not have much knowledge about computational linguistics. AI is multidisciplinary domain. But software coders are dominant and they think they know this subject very well. You can not say human brain does nothing more special than AI. This is just a typical engineering views.

[@quranjadeed]

It’s unfortunate this man speaks only English (I assume). Imagine the education potential if he spoke several world languages!

[@Safetytrousers]

All scientific papers from anywhere in the world for world consumption have to be written in English.

[@AndreluisMachadoloboesilva]

​@@Safetytrousers and that's a serious problem....there are nuances in other languages that can change a lot the way we think about things...

[@robertbosc4422]

💚💚💚

[@guilhermecruz7252]

The answer about AI is awesome

[@stationary.universe.initiative]

with this equation you cannot calculate anything

[@alswedgin9274]

Einstein once said:'' i'm not a genius, i just keep thinking about the problem.''

[@onlyonetoserve]

Inestine fisiks rong. Dak matter maff not rite.

[@philippearson9103]

How about the Present moment is (must be) a craft. We cannot measure it! I think that is what is meant by the Holy Ghost in the Bible, Holy Ghost means the Now that exists everywhere in the universe at the same moment! We will never be able to see the power of now except because it carries everything, it could be the dark matter!

[@philippearson9103]

Or the one Electron

[@johnmagnotta8401]

We don't have the answers. Do we even have the questions? Many people look to science for too much. It's not like we are taking a test in school where the teacher asks a question, you provide an answer and then the teacher let's us know if we are right or not. I'm greatful for the people that do venture to try and find answers to questions that they first has to come up with. There is no answer sheet.. there's isn't a questions to ask sheet. That we know as much as we do is a great credit to those that started asking in the 1st place😊

[@dukeallen432]

We now know the earth is not flat or at the center of the universe. Thanks science. We learn more and more.

[@TheEktoplasme]

​@@dukeallen432 Funny thing about the center of the universe, we know that the earth is exactly at the center of the observable universe, by definition. If the universe is infinite, it doesn't have a center and so in some sense we are at the center of the universe ;)

[@EnglishMike]

If recent history is any guide, far too _few_ people look to science for the right answers, and it gets them into a whole heap of trouble.

[@innit-h8p]

5%? You don't know beans. Nice belly you got though.

[@yojihagiya8183]

Einstein's relativity theory is hokum.

[@yojihagiya8183]

Mercury's perihelion shift could not be predicted accurately in Newtonian mechanics because the object was treated as a point. However, the reason why the calculation results of Mercury's perihelion shift did not agree with Newtonian mechanics is that the Sun itself actually rotates on its own axis and also makes a small orbit.If we take into account the drag caused by these factors, we should be able to accurately calculate Mercury's perihelion shift even in Newtonian mechanics. Einstein, with his bogus theory of general relativity, matched the calculated result of Mercury's perihelion shift with the actual measured value, without considering the sun's own rotation and orbit.

[@yojihagiya8183]

The gravitational lensing effect does not mean that light is bent by gravity. There are always atoms of gas in space. The density of gas atoms increases with the mass of the object and with the proximity to the object. The higher the density of gas atoms, the slower the speed of light. Light bends in the direction of slower speed. That is to say, if there is a difference in the density of atoms in a gas, light will bend in the direction of the higher density.

[@yojihagiya8183]

Errors in general relativity: Gravity is stronger near the poles than near the equator. According to general relativity, time is slower where gravity is stronger than where it is weaker. So time near the poles moves slower than time near the equator. However, for example, the time at longitude 0 is the same from the North Pole to the South Pole and does not change no matter how much time passes. Therefore, it is obvious that general relativity is false.

[@yojihagiya8183]

Errors in special relativity: According to relativity, They say that an object shrinks in length as its velocity increases, Then, for example, if a disk of radius 1m is rotated at the limit speed at which it is not destroyed by centrifugal force, What is the circumference of the disk? What would Einstein say to the above question? In my opinion, in this situation, the special theory of relativity is broken. It is inconceivable that the disk would contract in the direction of rotation.

[@Safetytrousers]

@@yojihagiya8183 The strength of gravity varies within a single country. There was a documentary where 3 sets of students used 3 different ways of measuring gravity, and the highest gravity they found in England was in the South West near the coast. It all depends on the averaged density from the surface all the way to the centre of the Earth.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

This guy sounds like that weird actor who always plays a nerd...

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

What's this we 5hit‽ You and the frog in your pocket‽

[@tw0ey3dm4n]

100 year old knowledge on repeat. Sigh

[@abundantabsurdity7085]

Sean Carroll couldn't tell a person what Einstein meant even if the man resurrected Einstein to speak for himself. Carroll would still get it wrong somehow. Him and necro-einstein would get in a fight over how wrong Carroll got it.

[@landsgevaer]

You can speak with the dead then?

[@johnmagnotta8401]

What if? What of humans ARE alone in this universe? First, what a waste! If we are alone then the universe exists because of us. Without us, there would be no record of the universe existing.. so, in theory the universe exists because we exist and we exist because the universe exists. Cows don't know.. or care. Same with every other creature that exists on this planet. Again, we are talking IF humans are the only sentient beings in the universe. Up until we evolved into thinking beings, did the universe actually exist? Sure, since we came along we have discovered items and clues that tell us that the earth, moon, sun and everything else has been here for a long time.. but up until the moment it was asked, by us, it didn't. If there was no one to acknowledge it's existence does it exist? We are the universe.. we wouldn't be here without us. But the universe made us. Where would we be if there wasn't a universe. So many what ifs! I lay awake at night wondering what if the universe never banged into existence 13.783 billion years ago. What's there? Is there a there? Or even if we didn't evolve with the brain we do have.. animals eat grass or other animals to survive, have offspring and repeat but for what? Sorry.. diarrhea of the mouth. I'm done rambling, have a good night :)

[@Hecarim420]

Also in "times before Universe" God like ENTITY don't have to have physical form like we do. It's very important to understand that even in Holographic universe or quantum realm all KIND of energy is PHYSICAL ==> ENERGY as definition should be - "Propagation of influence in bigger volume than the entity creating those energy". Hopefuly it make sense somehow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@EnglishMike]

The odds of us being the only intelligent species in the Universe are so low it's not even worth speculating about.

[@Jeremy-Ai]

Have a wonderful night. you are not rambling, you are curious and curious minds have questions. Rightfully so. Take care Jeremy

[@matydonatova7305]

Hawking was writing about it wasn't he? Might be right for you to read it. I haven't, not there yet with understanding but it is rather intriguing. Have good night.

[@jacksonnc8877]

Consciousnesses is the missing factor to physics.The Scientific method has ignored the key to a theory of everything. When it comes to Consciousness .

[@Safetytrousers]

The theory of everything does not mean describing how every discrete thing works. It means a unified theory between what we observe and quantum theory.

[@landsgevaer]

When you find a way of assessing consciousness (as in "the hard problem of consciousness"), let us know.

[@jacksonnc8877]

@landsgevaer You have to bring the stigmatism away from it. Russell Targ the team that ran stargazer a CIA remote viewing program. The military industrial complex has been studying it for decades 🤯

[@RickLambert963]

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla. E = mc^2 What value for energy? What value for mass? What value for the speed of light squared? What is the unit of measure that ties the equation together?

[@GGoAwayy]

The SHOCKING truth? Einstein seemed to be talking science and logic... but ACTUALLY his meaning was "with God all things are possible." :-o

[@EnglishMike]

Or more like "With God, all things that are almost imperceptibly different from the way reality is now might be possible, but we can't really tell."

[@AndreluisMachadoloboesilva]

​@@G0nxsfGod doens't exist, God is existence itself. When we call the universe God we're saying that the universe is not dumb, is not static, is not dead, the universe is smart, is fertile, is alive. That's Spinoza's point. Call it Universe, Infinity, Absolute, or God, we mean the same thing

[@LuciFeric137]

Carroll and his huge ego is going to explain einstein's mind?

[@EnglishMike]

You know better...?

[@landsgevaer]

Einstein wrote down a lot of his thoughts, you know?

[@glennstockley2197]

do you realize what percentage of you tube watchers understand Einstein ???????...0.0000000001

[@garydecad6233]

Fantastic!