The method of science is taught in schools, what's missing in the classroom is the philosophy of science that ties it all together

it's unfortunate that we don't teach complex numbers and fourier at a much younger age; a lot of videos on QM are physicists being way too anxious and apologetic about this stuff.

Infrared rays have a longer wavelength and less frequency which means less energy. So when the photons of infrared dont have the energy to excite the electrons and get absorbed by them ,how does infrared not pass through?

Do the virtual particles create drag?? If you push a marble in outer space, would they slow it down a bit?

The size of a Plank Length is small. You're welcome

Shouldn't the Event Horizon people get a Nobel prize for actually taking a picture of the thing?

Great video

Is there a way that this structure could generate a magnetosphere?

im 18 days older than this video.. and i'm watching it because i was researching about the uncertainty principle and wondered what exactly h, plank's constant, was. crazy.

I don’t believe this can or even should matter to anyone who does not deeply understand quantum mechanics mathematically. The core issue seems to be axiomatic within quantum mechanics rather than any observable discrepancy. The loan analogy is essentially the same as Brady’s question in my opinion, at least to the extent that the both metaphorically describe and external deficit which is not visible under any observable limits. On the more scientific description, I have difficulty understanding how the concept of renormalization doesn’t already qualify as a scrambling of information? I don’t understand how describing a chain of events that happens in a finite time with an infinite mathematical process can be shown to maintain availability of information. Certainly I don’t claim this as a refutation of quantum mechanics generally but the necessity of an arbitrary measure of information being maintained even within a singularity seems like a case of putting the cart before the horse. I don’t doubt there are misunderstandings and counterexamples that can be put against understanding but I offer them in the hopes that someone can speed up my learning process in the YT comments 😂

The concept of the luminiferous aether, a medium through which light was once thought to propagate, was discarded with the development of special relativity. In modern physics, fields such as the electromagnetic field fulfill the role once attributed to the aether, describing how particles interact and propagate without the need for a medium. So, while the idea of aether has been abandoned, fields like the electromagnetic field serve a similar purpose in our understanding of the universe. All particles are carried by a medium … except photons which act like a duck, and mathematically are a duck and show evidence of being a duck … but let’s not use that dirty word that up until the 1800s all of physics (inc ancient) was based on … aether. Nothing is ‘screwy’ when you understand the medium that got removed… Lorentz would be rolling in his grave much like De Broglie … 😅

i loved this video ...until it mentioned clocks, because that part has never made sense to me... could be a dyspraxic thing, but: why would the refected light reach for the sensor / why wouldn't it miss the sensor? likewise, why would light reach for the moving mirror? & on subject of coffee: if running with liquid spilling, which direction does liquid go a) ahead of you, or b) behind you? surely it would never land on a sensor that's moving forwards unless the sensor was strategically positioned behind the moving cup... likewise with the light, plus the light would have to be fired at an angle to reach the moving mirror (dyspraxic-friendly explanation for the light/mirror/sensor thing would be greatly appreciated ❀

😠😡👿😤🤬🗯💢

More energy than every star in the observable universe combined 🙃

Literally doing this in Physics right now! Such an interesting concept

very clear and informative explanation 😚 i have my physics hl exam tomorrow and i really love this topic . pls pray for me

Could layers of timespace have this effect?

This is really interesting! Thank you.

Small galaxies feed the large galaxies via collisions.?

Here's How the "Greenhouse Effect" Works (my 6th great explanation method of the same thing). Suppose there's average 345 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation into the surface and 199 w/m**2 of LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere. Just Suppose. The LWR is manufactured by collisions of infrared-active "Greenhouse Gas" molecules in the troposphere. The fact that the total of 345+199 = 544 w/m**2 isn't split evenly into 272 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation each into the surface and out of the troposphere top means there's a "Greenhouse Effect" from those gases in the troposphere and an obvious measure of "Greenhouse Warming Effect Factor" is 345/199-1 because if they were both 272 then Factor would be 0.000 and if there was more heading up than into the surface then the Factor would be -ve (it would be a cooling Effect). ------ So I figure how much more GHGs I need to get 1 w/m**2 extra of global heater Earth's energy budget imbalance (EEI) and mix those GHGs in the troposphere with a big spoon and INSTANTLY 2 things happen: - LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere drops from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2 - LWR radiation downwelling and penetrating the surface jumps from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2 There's been no temperature change but a global heater of 1 w/m**2, 510 terawatts, 16 Zettajoules / year, just got turned on (the total, net, heater or chiller is the sum of all heaters & chillers in operation). The reason why LWR up from the top of the troposphere dropped from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average higher up than before because there are more absorbing molecules to get past, and higher air is colder so it manufactures less LWR (fewer collisions than warmer air and less violent). The reason why LWR down from the bottom of the troposphere (into the surface) rose from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average lower down than before because there are fewer absorbing molecules to get past, and lower air is warmer so it manufactures more LWR (more collisions than colder air and more violent). ------ That was the "Greenhouse Effect". I omitted the stratosphere because it works backwards for well-mixed GHGs CO2 & O3 (but normal operation for H2O gas) causing slight cooling to offset a bit of the warming so it can't be visualized for both combined. I neglected to bookmark the scientist talk where he showed the calculations from 4 or 5 teams with the Greenhouse Effect at top of troposphere and slightly smaller Greenhouse Effect at TOA because the stratosphere works backwards (just apply my simple correct science explanation but backwards). It's a complicating detail not required to explain the "Greenhouse Effect" physics. It just means my "1 w/m**2 extra of global heater" was a slight exaggeration to keep it all simple, maybe 0.9 or 0.85 or 0.8, I dunno, it's irrelevant). ------------- So now that I've instantly turned on ~1.0 w/m**2 extra of global heater the ocean, land & air warm over the next 2,000 years and after 2,000 years my 198 w/m**2 above has finally crept back up to 198.95 w/m**2 and warming stops, by which time my 346 w/m**2 downwelling into the surface has jumped to ~347.7 w/m**2 and the warming has stopped. It stopped at 198.95 instead of 199 because the "window" 9-13 microns went up by 0.05 w/m**2. As I pointed out the numbers aren't scientist accuracy because I ignored the stratosphere complication because I'm explaining how it works not calculating a quantity except in the ball park for illustration.

Bernoullis theorem does not predict air molecules meeting of the top and bottom wing air . In fact the only thing that's is applied in this example is the velocity pressure relationship . . You also kinda forgot to mention Newton's laws must be obeyed .

The cartoon at 4:08 has the following 2 properties: - It is an obvious scam, a silly outright falsehood that could only fool blokes with no science education at all, - It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the physics of the greenhouse effect in Earth's troposphere.

[6:39] in studying body language they refer to this as a clustering of individual signals. One or two ambiguous signals are never enough but if they show up as a cluster of at least three signals it's getting more and more sure the signals have been interpreted the right way.

Mantis shrimp 🦐🐈

Build a bigger better LIGO with that dollar?

I’d love to see how life would evolve on a toroidal world.

I enjoyed your presentation. thank you for sharing. Since radiation is the way heat moves thru 'space', how is it that the Earth can radiate heat in the presence of the atmosphere? Physics says the heat would move up thru the atmosphere via conduction and convection overwhelming any contribution from radiation. This would mean that there is little to no IR for CO2 to absorb, thus no greenhouse effect. Am I missing something?

Red bozon is named after the great bozo clown

There needs to be a movie about this guy. He was amazing. A great autistic scientist.

Such clarity! Easily the best explanation I've seen on YT!

The word "truth" is always replaced by the word "fact" in the context of scientific inquiry. Truth is relative, facts are eternal.

From what ive seen this all makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the 1st world spending billions on reducing small increments of CO2, the 3rd world spending millions releasing far more CO2. What also doesnt make sense is that the only renewable energy source is solar or wind, which requires replacement and large amounts of energy to produce. The movement to nuclear seems the only logical outcome of all this when modelled on resource supply and access. Follow the money

Is earth actually flat?? Are flat earthers telling the truth?

Make video of 3 body problem. Not a netflix series but the real 3 body problem.

6:32 Is so funny when you realize it's a ringtone you have for home telephone.

So Neutrinos CAN "mutate" like in 2012?

So what you're saying is, "aliens." It's always aliens.

Smoke doesn't always mean fire.

Rest in peace, Peter Higgs.

I recently took an Astronomy 101 course and at one point it we were tasked to write about whether it was worth us investing millions of dollars into the development of telescopes, but the prompt was entirely framed around the premise that these telescopes were being used to find life or habitable planets around other stars. Obviously these are interesting prospects that are worth exploring, but they're such a tiny part of what new telescopes are being designed to study, and even then nothing we can detect currently (short of direct contact) even comes close to being conclusive regarding extraterrestrial life. There are simply far too many confounding variables. To suggest that the search for life is the core motivating factor behind telescope technology is an insult to the entire field of astronomy. The fact that this poor framing of the role of astronomy made it into a college astronomy course, even an introductory one, is appalling to me. Poor science communication, as described in this paper, is a part of the problem, and it's even bleeding into education.

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)

Is math fixed.

More Prof. Merrifield please!

Now in 2024 watching this and having seen the insane results that JWST has enabled astronomers to find, this was worth every penny of the crazy amount it cost. Amazing that it worked and the images that have been released 🥰 I know the raw data is more valuable, but much like Hubble, letting the average citizen see something as tiny as a protoplanetary disc or even a direct image of an exoplanet orbiting its star (!!!) is so powerful. Helps people realize how "small and precious and beautiful we are" and that we really are just one species eeking it out on an insignifigant rock and look what we can accomplish when we cooperate rather than fight

Great song by King Buffalo.

"I forgot the way the earth turns"? You lost me here.

From my understanding if the major radius is more than 3x the minor radius the Donut planet is not stable (thanks to bead formation). But I can't seem to get solid answer if it is stable (metastable) if the major radius is less than 3x the minor. Is there no proof either way as of now or did I just miss it?

The man will be missed. One of the last and best of that generation

Great vid. I believe the UN have protocols in place on how to communicate the finding that we are not alone. I suspect evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life will have a huge impact on society eg religious beliefs