Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn | Amanda Gefter | Talks at Google

[@MrPompin]

this is the first book i can read without get bored i was hungry when reading but i couldnt or didntwant to stop reading eat. just amazing i loved it i have a daugter and let me tell you something now i no what i have to do to teach her the fascinating world of physics thank you so much

[@paulbali9998]

her book weaves together a LAWT. and provides, what seems to me, a satisfying and surprising answer to what M Gardner called the Superultimate Question: Why is there something rather than nothing? Gefter's answer is: the something *is* a nothing.

[@jonathanbirchley]

A highly refreshing talk, very much in the spirit of the book. I very much like the personal and honest style in both ... physics with a human face. I thought the Q&A session most revealing. A couple of points for discussion "physics is all about uncovering the reality behind appearances", and "something is 'real' if it is invariant under all transformations." What Amanda is saying is that we strip the layers away from the surface like layers of an onion, in our search for an inner kernel which is, in some sense, the fundamental reality. What the questioning seemed to reveal is that, eventually, what we thought was fundamental (something is real if it is invariant under all transformations) is not the kernel after all. I suppose that as we make our domain of transformations ever more general, we impose ever more stringent requirements something if it is to be classified as 'real'. I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that when we have got that far, we are coming to the boundary of what is knowable at all.

[@sandyellis6068]

Perhaps we’ll discover that what is ‘real’ is the interdependence of all phenomena, and because of that interdependence, nothing exists intrinsically/inherently.

[@lambda4931]

Excellent info, superb delivery and honest. Great story about you and your dad too. I look forward to reading the book. Any other speaking engagements in the future?

[@marishkagrayson]

A science communicator par excellence!

[@loodog555]

Her mannerisms and expressions are exactly what I would have predicted from reading her book.

[@rufuscrackle]

Reading her book now. Has so much that makes me stop and think.

[@heavy1ick]

Congratulations! Waiting impatiently for the next book

[@lokeshparihar7672]

10:10 what is invariant is real 13:47 16:55 19:13 why particles are unreal? 32:13 ends

[@danielhall6373]

This was fascinating.

[@kieranryan6148]

@amanda gefter: the clue as to what „invariant“ is can be found in the first 102 seconds of this video from the two Ruperts: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIevlK2Hg7t4b7ssi=aJLvLnbcCwm4pVnt i‘m not saying it is definitively the answer but i have a warm feeling about it 😅

[@stevenbaker799]

If you assume that everybody in the world sees life in exactly the same way as you do it will not only lead to misunderstanding but a total breakdown in communication to one person who can not talk to the other

[@adrianbasheerchannel]

Fascinating :) I also thought that she has a much funnier sense of humour, than her audience seems to think :)

[@gyro5d]

I believe there are only 3 dimensions. Time is part of each dimension. Time is the measure of magnitudes. Space is created as matter is created between the torus and the hyperboloid, from the dielectric inertial plane, Wave theory. Blackholes (wrong name) in the.Universe I believe. X-axis = Holographic Universe, probability patterns. Y-axis = Ether, dielectric inertia, magnetism. Z-axis = Cymatics, sound patterns gave shape to everything in the Universe. The stronger the gauss, the smaller the magnetic field. The blackhole has a gauss strong enough that the magnetism can't escape from the matter in the blackhole, (iron, it's said). There's a X-axis and a Z-axis, but the Y-axis has collapsed into itself. So, they can be felt but not seen. Gravity is acceleration of incoherent matter centripetally into counterspace (inertia). Look at the electrons probability patterns in the Z-axis. They show the shapes of magnetism in our Universe, that's in the Z-axis. Torus and hyperboloid. I used to call it the scalable liquid crystal Uinverse. Now, incommensurabile ether lattice Universe.

[@stevenbaker799]

Tuning in a person not a radio

[@stevenbaker799]

Metaphor between the two

[@stevenbaker799]

From space to life

[@jakecarlo9950]

❤️❤️❤️

[@stevenbaker799]

Really

[@stevenbaker799]

Having a recipe for what you eat

[@jakobi108]

That is exactly what this is: semantics. word play. But, then again, along with deceit, that is (according to yourself) what you excel in. A rainbow in LA is not less real - your definition of real is that it should be observable from all angles and perspectives - because someone in Tokyo is unable to witness it. Thing is, you are mixing levels of reality. An elephant is an elephant in the realm of language and 5-sense reality (decoding information reaching the five senses by the pre-programmed (language) brain. If we CHOOSE to "view" the elephant from another another PARALLELL / CO-EXISTING level of reality, say quantum reality. Well, now our elephant is "nothing", that is to say, it's smallest "particles" are in flux - not ONE thing. A field of possibility. Even atoms are 99.9999% empty space, so where's the elephant etc? All you are doing is mixing levels of reality, each valid in itself, saying only "this" perspective is valid. Above all, at the primary experience level of NATURE and BIOLOGI (the human) is somehow less valid. It is even politically incorrect in this mad mad (((marxist))) driven world of semantic utopian reality. The Ocean needs its Waves as much as the Waves need the Ocean

[@stevenbaker799]

Entropy is ordinary life

[@robertkemper8835]

So, has Hawking's question, "Why does the universe bother to exit?" been answered? Is nothing really observing nothing? What are we, if not real? What are we doing here? Why here? Why now? Those answers are in the next book, I hope.

[@peterlambert5130]

The invariant your looking for might be Hegels Whole. The totality of the all and it's twin sister..nothingness.

[@stevenbaker799]

O

[@stevenbaker799]

Metaphor

[@tannerfaust433]

Philosophy not physics.

[@stevenbaker799]

Negative entropy

[@stevenbaker799]

Really