Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@veritasium says : We have a tabletop game launching! Pledge your support now - https://ve42.co/KickStarterD>> <<@ShakaZulu-s5n says : be one with the newness. Accomplish definism>> <<@sabitkondakc9147 says : god plays dice, watch out guys!>> <<@alokmaddheshiya6673 says : Hindi language>> <<@hersch_the_blu says : Well great, I now understand more and am having an existential crisis.>> <<@richardmcbroom102 says : More insanity is not the solution to insanity.>> <<@mintusaren895 says : moss to musk pen guin in iceberg.>> <<@TheCalmOlive says : Haelt ver marma yaelt ael aem fraem thae Andromaeda gaelexy aend pharesics aes vaery praemative yaelt daent taek aento accaent thae aenterdaemaensional aespect aef graevety>> <<@2ManyNamesTaken says : Just throwing a thought out there that I've had for years. Is it possible that God is found in ORDER and Evil/Satan is found in ENTROPY? -- The universe seems to detest order .. at least the order attempted by man. - And the moment we declare a vector or attempt to order something, the universe sets about trying to turn that order (intention) into chaos. - At times, it can bear a striking resemblance to demonic activity. - Sure, with enough effort, we overcome that force .. that is, until we fail that test and we end.>> <<@K_and_D_animation says : I came here to learn and found smth more beautiful... I'm crine>> <<@JuanSamillan-l3c says : Confinados en el espació y aniquilados por el tiempo nada es reversible somos mediciones únicas>> <<@richardmcbroom102 says : For "starters," the life cycle of birth, expression and death is necessary for any organism to evolve and survive into the future. The limit to life expectancy is profoundly dependent upon the rate of change for the physical constants and the implications for DNA replication. This evolution is known as TOP DOWN cosmology, where the very-present uncertainty of the physical constants is mute testimony to their rate of change. This is near certain: Imagine a universe beginning with a single “particle” of gigantic mass that spontaneously divides into two smaller masses (with a field that obviously must exist to unite them, like, say, primordial electrostatic gravity, a quantum relationship modulo 2). Imagine that, over “time,” the process of division continues, producing “newer,” lighter “particles” and forces that unite them, “programmed” for future expression when, per chance, they become irrationally un-reconcilable by quantum probabilities. (Note: That cascade of particles is presently observed as “nuclear decay,” where heavier elements spontaneously cascade into a spectrum of heavier-to-lighter elements.) To see how rapidly the NUMBER of observed particles (of increasingly smaller mass) can grow in a short amount of time, just multiply "2 x 2 =," repeatedly, on a small calculator– in a very short time the numbers go off the scale! Next, just imagine that IN THE PROCESS OF DIVIDING heavier masses eventually form masses to become galaxies (seemingly coming from “nowhere”) at each epoch of division (and extinction). Again, this process is known as “TOP DOWN cosmology.” (Note: The Higgs boson previously existed by top down cosmology, but can only be temporarily found by high energy collisions while never-having-existed by bottom up cosmology.) In the end, you have present-day smaller galaxies, PLUS the cosmic heat signature of NOW-EXTINCT past elements (including massive galaxies), known today as the “cosmic microwave background radiation.” (Note: Smaller early galaxies are required by BOTTOM UP big bang cosmology, where falsely-predicted smaller primal galaxies form larger galaxies over time, and where the falsely-predicted cosmic microwave background radiation would be “smooth.”) In actuality, the OBSERVED cosmic background radiation is actually “lumpy,” and OBSERVED primal galaxies are actually larger! Again, TOP DOWN cosmology wins! I call this theory “The Origin Theory,” as an extension of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species.” Again, please leave the ultimate origin and direction of our currently-complex universe (either with TOP DOWN or BOTTOM UP cosmology) to lesser-probabilities of 50:50, so as not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater." My TOP DOWN theory of cosmology says that in order to reconcile static gravitational and Coulomb effects (a valid grand unification theory goal) there is a value, a number R, such that Ke^2 = RGm^2, where K is the Coulomb constant, e^2 is the square of the charge on an electron, G is the universal gravitational constant and m^2 is the square of rest mass of an electron– what can be simpler than that! The calculated value of R is 4.16574 x 10^42 power. Given that the latest “breakthrough” in fusion technology recklessly announces controlled fusion energy when it provides ignition WITHOUT accounting for energy-out Vs TOTAL energy-in (I still remember “cold fusion”), knowing that the calculated value of R is 4.16574 x 10^42, where the Coulomb repulsion is that many times more-intense than gravitational attraction, means that local ignition, compression and containment needed for sustained fusion reactions are collectively unattainable. Clearly, the evolutionary direction of the universe must be countered and reversed to sustain a local fusion reaction– a physical impossibility! Yet, much money and time is being WASTED on attempts to “find a way” (apparently to justify continued reckless population growth on this fragile planet)! The problem does not exist with fission reactions (which have their own set of intractable problems), because energy release follows the direction of universal evolution. What is R? (Numbers and predictive ability matter, rather than finding explanation after a discovery, presently being done with BOTTOM UP BBT.) Per my TOP DOWN cosmology, the radius of the universe on a quantum level is R = Root (M/m), where M is the total mass of the universe needed to unite gravitational and electrostatic forces and m is the rest-mass of an electron, yielding, Ke^2/ R^2 = RGm^2/ R^2, where R^2 has been newly-discerned (by me) to be the square of R. The calculated mass at a quantum level, including “missing mass,” is M = 1.58079 x 10^55 power Kg, and the calculated radius of the quantum realm is R = 4.16574 x 10^42 power measured in instantaneous, dimensionless units. M is undefined in the quantum realm, yet partially discernible as the observed mass Mo of the universe in the macroscopic world. The number of unit circles (or squares) in the quantum realm is R^2 = 1.73534 x 10^85 power. It is a quantum attribute that area of unit squares and number of unit squares are indistinguishable (no need for citation, as all stated derivations are my own). Everything is separating or visually expanding. With top down cosmology, probability favors the presence of extra-terrestrial life, but distances mean that it is very difficult to detect-- still everything has always been quantum-connected (“not locally real”). Per my theory, the total mass M needed to reconcile gravitational and electrostatic states is M = Mo /(2Pi – 1) (alpha^2), where Mo is the OBSERVABLE mass of the universe, (2Pi – 1) is the Bell inequality turned upside down (ever an inequality in the macroscopic world, and equivalent to Euler’s “proof of God” in the quantum realm, where M is UNDEFINED), and (alpha^2) is the square of the fine-structure constant ( here identified as an optical magnification factor, twice-applied for virtual and real expression, moving 2-dimensionality to instantaneous 0-dimensionality). Again, in the quantum realm, M is undefined, because the radius is equal to the circumference, meaning that Pi = 1/2. The number of unit circles (or squares) in the universe is M/m, where m is the present-day rest mass of the electron. For a unit circle to become a unit square, Buffon’s needle problem becomes applicable, where one side is electrostatic and the other is gravitational. In order for the PROBABILITY to equal 1/2 (regarding Bell’s inequality AND Buffon’s problem), Pi = 4, meaning that Pi = 1/2 AND Pi = 4, implying that 1 = 8; hence, the qubit (used in quantum computing) is emergent (my observations and derivations– no citation needed). Using my TOP DOWN cosmology, the rate of change of alpha is -2.7958 x 10^-17/ year, agreeing with current predictions, based upon a PERCEIVED age of the universe of 13.799 x 10^9 power years. For very large R the definite integral of R over time T approaching origin of the universe to the present day is approximately 1/2 of R^2, verifying perceived dichotomy (again, a weird quantum nuance, where areas AND number of unit circles or squares are indistinguishable). In the quantum realm, the term (2Pi – 1) = 0 can also be considered as the sidereal rotation of a unit circle within a unit circle (created by Buffon's needle drop probability). As a physicist, I have been promoting this TOP DOWN model since1979. For those who would state (not me) that this is a “fun theory” (with its fulfilled prediction of larger primordial galaxies), demanding the math; then, when presented with the mathematical model finding the much-sought-after hidden “missing mass” and quantum gravity, implying that I am a mathematician with little relevance to physics: The physical world can instruct the mathematical world, IMO. In addition to reconciling the Coulomb constant and the universal gravitational constant, I have explained the significance of the little-understood fine-structure constant, alpha. If you would simply “run with it,” you have the information to calculate the age and rate of expansion of the universe (much older than the presently-accepted age of the universe, hidden by quantum effects). Here are three obvious “predictions:” -Per TOP DOWN cosmology, there is understandably a paucity of antimatter in the local universe. -Hydrogen-rich stars and galaxies of equivalent mass, respectively, previously and inappropriately deemed to be colliding under BOTTOM UP (BBT) cosmology are actually and appropriately DIVIDING under TOP DOWN cosmology, which respects and predicts this behavior from evolutionary changes regarding critical mass (witness our own galaxy and Andromeda, representing main sequence evolution where a finding of "not currently-believed to be colliding" was recently made). -The current relative abundance of elements is reconciled by main-sequence TOP DOWN evolution, not requiring multiple solar cycles, exceeding even the presently-accepted age of the universe per BOTTOM UP BBT.>> <<@lyndonfring6421 says : An equation has to account for everything for balance or else it wouldn't be and equation. For all their calculations, physicists couldn't zero it all out so they figured and created entropy to fill the gaps.>> <<@WayneRiesterer says : If entropy was going to eventually result in a universal heat death, then all the laws of equilibrium would already be violated. Einstein would also turn over in his grave with his famous equation E = mc² and Le Chatelier may as well go back to the blackboard and reimagine how the universe works. Views of entropy, disorder, non-determinism and quirky contemplative experiments like Schrödinger's Cat are derived from a polarised perspective that is human-centric. A bunch of physicists proclaiming that the cat is neither alive nor dead, or that the state of the life of the cat is non-deterministic is context-constrained by ignorance. One may imagine the physicists grooming each other's pride with imagined insight as the cat meows inside the box. In a similar manner, what is considered random really only speaks of the limitations of human capacity to establish deterministic state representations due to the complexity involved and because physical systems at near-fundamental levels of scale are extremely dynamic. The latter part of this is why some scientists imagine that an electron is best represented by a probability distribution which is really only a spatially-weighted measure of ignorance stemming from the limitations of human insight. Speaking of 'death' in heat death also uses a word that people don't really truly understand. So many people imagine they have it all figured out when they bury some bones in the ground, yet can't really account for how a bunch of molecules come to have independent free will in the first place. For all of the scientific discoveries, not a single person can account for all the aspects of a single grain of sand, yet imagine they can determine what the fate of the entire universe is. The universe is dynamic, it balances itself out and life in 2026 isn't the same as it was 4.2 billion years ago. Life in another googleplex years may not be the same as it is now, but between now and then, I'm sure people will learn a lot more about how the universe 'actually' works and we'll see how that matches up with current views.>> <<@timtrewyn2042 says : Begs the question, if the past is infinite, why didn't the heat death of the universe occur long, long, long ago? If time stops, then what is an oscillation in that state that still has vast energy? Oscillation implies time.>> <<@arthurmario5996 says : earth radiates slightly more heat due to the radioactive decay.>> <<@dirkcampbell5847 says : Mind-altering content. The earth has to radiate out all the energy it gets from the sun otherwise it would have cooked long ago. The sun emits low entropy (high energy) photons and the earth converts them into twenty times more high entropy (low energy) photons which it emits into space. That's how life enables the earth to maintain its comparatively low temperature. Or did until humans came along and started burning fossil fuels and destroying life llike there was no tomorrow. As greenhouse gases increase and life reduces, the earth heats up and becomes uninhabitable for humans. The problem is self-correcting, fortunately, because the demise of one set of living beings creates opportunity for a better-adapted set to move into. My money is on the sand cat.>> <<@henrywyckoff4301 says : The Carnot Engine. Something every undergraduate physics student learns about.>> <<@anirudhadas8440 says : This should be a documentation like NatGeo in TV's rather than some brainrot for kids.>> <<@FlavioPhysics says : I am a physics teacher. I have read numerous books, watched many videos, and used various AI tools, yet I have never encountered an explanation as clear, intuitive, brilliant, and enjoyable to listen to as this one! Congratulations on your magnificent work, Doctor! Warm greetings from Brazil!>> <<@stuartbaker666 says : albedo 0.39>> <<@richardmcbroom102 says : The empirical method is most reliable in finding truth in the physical world. It employs the logic of mathematics in finding most-probable outcome, given a controlled set of variables. Religions are not concerned with that, and often depend upon intuition, emotions and customs, among others, not dependent upon objective reality found in scientific endeavors like physics. Given that it is generally understood in the scientific community that the universe came from a single massive event, to begin to understand where we came from, there must be a theory that has reliable, predictive value. There is always the unknown (or "God of the gap"), like when questioning the origin of the initial mass; but that is not required in order to posit the question, "Given initial conditions like a single mass (nothing can be simpler or more ordered than 'one'), aka, 'cosmic egg' or 'primal atom,' how did that initial mass (generally accepted as most-probable by all of the scientific community) transform to become the universe seen today?" There is no absolute certainty-- the closest to that is found in abstract math-- In application there is always an uncertainty, like when counting apples! The best that can be done in the physical world is to "bet on the odds." There are two most-probable, very basic answers to "The Question," ie, top down cosmology OR bottom up cosmology-- both are incompatible with one another, and there can be no "sitting on the fence." Given that top down cosmology, when properly understood, is broad-enough to predict everything so far seen. like by the JWST, for example, while bottom up (Big Bang or Standard Model) cosmology must be constantly revised with ad hoc explanations every time there is a new finding, top down cosmology wins! Top down is not properly understood, because it is commonly interpreted to mean that there are many realities caused by cascading events; but this is not the case, because everything seen and unseen remains causally connected by quantum entanglement. "The universe is not locally real (Nobel Prize already awarded)." Again, nothing is simpler for explaining the beginning of life, consciousness, space-time, and everything else than "one.">> <<@standardabweichung9817 says : 1:49 well earth in fact is heating up lol. we do keep energy here>> <<@romeski says : Kind of makes me think about AI chips. Data centers are being stood up like nobody's business. They paradoxically are a source of low entropy ordered knowledge, and intense emitters of waste heat.>> <<@iliasb2761 says : more I learn more I become closer to Allah, everything is amazing and scary at same time>> <<@Noir_sama2340 says : I came here to learn about physics but I'm leaving with a profound life lesson. entropy is the ultimate reminder that nothing stays perfect on its own. whether it's our relationships, health, or skills if we don't put in constant energy, things will naturally fall apart. brilliant video btw❤>> <<@richardmcbroom102 says : With anthropogenic global warming reaching a tipping point where there is earth darkening from melting ice, this time it involves the whole planet like never before. We just don't seem to be able to help ourselves. Put a microbe in a nutrient bath, and after a few days the bottom is coated with dead microbes.>> <<@Da-van says : How would we know if we were In That most probable spot in the universe, for the longest time and then the least probable thing happened as the big bang and we are see the most probable starting to happen through time.>> <<@scootscootriot says : It's entropy, it's not a human issue. Entropy, it's matter of course.>> <<@zack__zack_Stream_Highlights says : Nice Video>> <<@richardmcbroom102 says : No better than unthinking microbes that destroy their host.>> <<@Klipped96 says : 4:20 nahhhh not here too, i am tired boss, dog tired 😭🙏>> <<@michaelschmaloewski4661 says : Entropy and order British Parliament>> <<@dmzwrites1853 says : Ok, the claim that all you need for a plant is time and is bogus biology>> <<@dannyuno says : Genuinely I think entropy is easier to understand if people just used osmosis as an example>> <<@KrezelAldovino says : Me acting smart 🤓🤣 but barely comprehending and trying best to grip the concept HAHAHAHA>> <<@danielc2694 says : I appreciate the effort that goes into creating historical content. I would encourage you to double-check your sources and compare information from multiple independent references rather than relying on a single source. The statement that "Russia invaded France" is incomplete without the historical context. The conflict began when France invaded Russia in 1812. Russia later entered France in 1814 as part of the allied coalition that defeated Napoleon after his failed invasion of Russia. AI can be a useful starting point, but it's always worth verifying its answers against reliable historical sources to ensure the information is accurate and presented in the proper context.>> <<@BhawarLal-w3f says : Vides😮all😅band😮block😅idhar😮jarurat😮not😮never😮>> <<@BrookeBradford-r8w says : I hear “entropy” and my mind goes to Isaac Asimov’s “The Last Question”…>> <<@bultaso says : so what do we get from the sun?>> <<@Swankthe____ says : So if life exists to assist entropy, I am the most effective human at this, so happy to know its a feature and not a bug.>> <<@brianchambers6853 says : I know about entropy of the hot bar. Just look at one by the end of the day, there's food spilled all over. Seriously, another superb video, thanks!>> <<@ButWhyTho-d5n says : I appreciate this channel a great deal thank you>> <<@Savage-lx5yj says : Excellent!>> <<@천상의7신 says : 말하자면 그 물고기에 아무도 잡을 수 없는 곳에 달력스럽게 풀어주려 했습니다만>> <<@천상의7신 says : 강력한 비가 내려와 여러분 정원 앞에 물고기의 한 마리가 있다면 여러분 그 물고기를 잡아서 드실 겁니다>> <<@천상의7신 says : 오늘은 간탄하겠죠?. 강력한 비가 내리면. 물고기가 길을 타고 올라가는 장면 말입니다>> <<@adrianmckellar1571 says : The universe is entropy? Concentrated energy spreading itself out evenly over all of the available space?>> <<@adrianmckellar1571 says : So when we look at planets to see if they can support life, we are really asking if they are close enough to their energy source that the cycle of entropy hasn't made it's energy unusable yet? Or is that an oversimplification?>> <<@christiannordvall4021 says : This would seem to be the physical explanation behind Murphy's Law: "Everything bad that can happen, will happen." Toast will always land butter-side down, one of each par of socks will always go missing, the bus will always be late on the exact day you have an important interview... Unless you actively take measures (expend energy) to prevent it.>>