Just like sending through a phone or watching a LIVE video, lol. "WORMHOLES"
@yannpoco Says:
Love you daddy.
@katietree4949 Says:
Ive not read and trusted main stream media or 'journalists' online since they began talking about y2k.
@user-wq8cp3uv7d Says:
Does this mean that if a scientific breakthrough comes then I should ignore it.??🤔🤨
@techfan7808 Says:
The title and thumbnail are doing the exact thing you're addressing here. This is maddening.
@AndreaCrisp Says:
Thank you for this well presented and much needed video!
Google knows that I am a nerd and so the newsfeed on my Google Chrome homepage on my phone is full of science news. I quickly learned to not click on certain websites and some I've even asked Google to no longer recommend. Same on YouTube. So much clickbait.
Example - I just watched some channel's interview with a scientist who discovered that there could possibly be life on an exoplanet. This was based on info from JWST. The interviewer kept trying to hype it. "You are going to be the most famous human ever." The scientist smiled nervously and kept trying to redirect or explain that there's only a 50/50 chance and still a lot more observation and research to be done. While still impressive (a 50/50 chance), I did not finish the video or even give it a thumbs up, which is rare. I understand how YouTube works and always like every video, but this was so blatantly over hyped I just couldn't.
Plus we also have the anti-science and anti-intellectual movement being perpetrated by conservatives and corporations. With all of these issues and more we really have to work hard to figure out what's real and most people don't have the time, energy or f***s to give about it, so the lies get bigger and more airtime.
Overall, this issue is really making me want electrolytes. After all, "it's what plants crave." 🤦🏼♀️ It's very discouraging. Thanks for doing your part to shed light on the issue.
@stephenconnolly1830 Says:
"The first rule is you must not fool yourself... and you are the easiest to deceive " - Feynman
@TheFinius Says:
I think we're overlooking the public in this story. People are easily pulled in because the world has some truly large problems. Everyone is hoping for some miracle technology to save us. Fusion or superconductors are something that we could help. People need hope and it leads them to foolish or even dangerous beliefs. Not just in science but it everyday life.
@SuperYtc1 Says:
This video has got less views than average of his videos. 😂
@buttonasas Says:
"That is not going to win you the Nobel prize"
...is completely wrong - I think a bunch of laureates publish a ton of rubbish. But they do publish _something_ groundbreaking and _true,_ even if they arrive there in the wrong way (respectable!)
Then there's also the Nobel-adjacent prizes, like for economics. Daniel Hahneman has won one of these and he pushed an important piece of the puzzle in socioeconomics... while reading about, and even performing personally, numerous totally nuts studies that fail to replicate or have wild conclusions that don't follow the data at all unless you make ridiculous assumptions.
Two steps forward, one step back.
@donholmstrom6482 Says:
Thank you for including fusion in this hype discussion. The latest data I can find shows we are at about 2-3% output energy versus total energy input. The breakthrough was that they achieved sustained fusion reaction for a very short time. I am waiting for a video on why fusion energy may already be unnecessary and here is why.
We so fixated on the sexy fusion generation that we are overlooking the potential to fill all our energy needs by installing more existing clean sources (solar, water, wind, ...).
Another critically important issue is that the difficulty of fusion development is delaying the date we meet our energy needs using exclusively clean sources.
Yes, there are still some issues energy storage and transmission but aren't these much easier to resolve than creating production level fusion? Resolving these issues would be far less expensive and quicker than making fusion at production level.
This is a complex question that has not been addressed by anyone I can find.
@scoodeles Says:
Well of course they didnt actually make a real wormhole 😂 it was just a computer simulation
@williamcourtland5945 Says:
I want to converse about some new concepts of science.
No one can have these conversations.
I paid to go to school to talk about my Mathematics, they all said they could not help me.
I took the refund.
Why is plotting an alternating curve over 3 space hard? Why can no one help or talk about it, even if it is paid for?
Wormholes require conditions of near 100% mass. To tunnel through a black hole would just come out the other side, and make it a Torus.
A real Worm hole is in the hyperverse.
The Universe is smaller than the hyperverse, we are in it, it is parallel, but like the atom in the baseball are parallel, as you and the Universe: given external references: you are just part of your Universe, the atom is part of the Baseball you hold, the electron is part of the atom, of the Baseball you are holding in your universe, found sitting in your hyperverse. A hyperverse that is nearly 100% mass would require a wormhole of normal almost 0% mass to travel through.
Not really an issue... Parallel domains of the same dimension.
Time is the zero dimension, lines change position on a 2D plane, 2D planes are infinite in 3D, and there are an infinite 3D centers in 4D, like atoms, the baseball, you, and the Universe. Remember the center of the sun is not the center of the solar system. Domains and dimensions. A parallel dimension is over or under you in scale, as are their domains.
You teach like my teachers who could not answer the questions, then ignore my answers.
@paco3447 Says:
Well, pretty much like your wind-powered perpetuum mobile vehicle.
@funkyfox7996 Says:
you want a connection between gravity and quantum mechanics? look no further than a puddle. move your hand through the water and observe the little bits as they get caught in your hand's wake.
@titan6436 Says:
ha
@ONDANOTA Says:
a
@asherandai1000 Says:
This isn’t just a science problem. It’s a problem in almost areas. Easiest example to point to is… certain criminal accusations. A story comes out and everyone immediately jumps on it as if it’s undeniably true and can’t be questioned. People have been influenced to believe certain things are always true while certain other things are always false or overblown. The end result… well it’s not good.
The only real way to fix it, for science and for everything else, is for people to start thinking for themselves and stop jumping to conclusions. But I personally don’t think that’s ever going to happen.
@unixnut Says:
Putting Joe Rogan and Michiu Kaku next to each other in a montage about science communication is quite a move. 😆
@mitjapintar4609 Says:
we should talk more about nuclear fusion military research programs. because testing nuclear weapons is illegal they found a way how to do it while also get investment money. it will always be 20 years away.
@Melankurion Says:
Speaking of that superconductor guy.... bet he's happy with his life choices now. Nature released a news article about the stuff thats been happening to him over the past few years. It's kind funny in a 'you get what you deserve' kinda way.
@mreza913 Says:
There is no such a thing like wormhole instead of that we have space ways that we can use it and when our space ships are in these space ways we can move faster. These ways are like oceans rivers and streams that turtles and fish use it as highways
@divyasasidharan2960 Says:
That lk99 really pissed me 😭 i was so confused but couldnt find much about it so i pretended i never read that
@antonnilsson3793 Says:
the problem is that scientist lack media training, and I think it is important for them to be precise when it comes to these things which I know they can't help getting exited over scientific steps like this which is amazing but still, the media will use it for readers.
@SevenDeMagnus Says:
Hehe, they can't agree.
@jessicalee333 Says:
Before straining your eye muscles to read a science article, first warm up by rolling your eyes, hard. That will prepare you to go past the headlines of "Everything we knew about _____ is wrong!" or "This discovery rewrites the textbooks!" or "Einstein's theory disproven!"
@edmondleung6720 Says:
DSE English Part B2 be like
@98kag Says:
The issue with free market capitalism is that everything becomes a commodity. And we can all disagree on whether capitalism is or isn’t the best system we have, but what most people can probably agree on is that things such as science, research, healthcare and education should never be commodities. It is pretty obvious that free market rules harm science and fund allocation, since scientific journals end up looking for clickbait papers to publish, and that often leads to manipulated/fake results, poor science communication and pushes research towards pop research topics rather than boring but useful ones.
@healwithdeb Says:
I only watched the video because of the thumbnail
@CraigChristism Says:
What's crazy about this is that I bet everyone in this video is vaccinated with an untested MRNA vaccine
@adamwynn1001 Says:
There’s a saying in journalism regarding “breaking news.”
It’s more important to be right than to be first.
Unfortunately, that sentiment is often ignored.
Just watch the channels destiny or bright side. They’ll show you the truth.
@TGenoRock Says:
Thank you Veritasium for pointing this out analytically/scientifically!.. and stating the value of science. Now, you can actually demonstrate the importance of correcting scientific wrongs.. . You still have the video up that speaks to "13 Misconceptions about Global Warming"..
That video has not aged well. There is a ton of science that clearly disputes the catastrophic "climate change" narrative... this topic has perhaps been the most over-hyped topic of all. Fear porn produced for financial and political gain. Major industries pumping non-stop bad science.
Children have been scared into completely unscientific, honestly, cult-like herds. Most people don't know better, and $billions (trillions?) are at stake.. in an anti-science control-fest.
So, please.. do a more complete, and updated dive into the hype-machine around "climate change"... "net zero" madness... and bring reality, butressed by science to the fore... there are many brilliant scientists alive today that will engage and that have avoided the herd and fear porn surrounding the topic.
Be brave! Science depends on it in this click-bait, hyped-up herd world.
@jakstheoneandonly Says:
Yeah, now i’m fully convinced that journalism os single handedly holding humanity back on evolution.
@HandleHandled Says:
Scientists are trying to sell something? No, ya don’t say!😂
@Lehmannation1923 Says:
I fail to see how ignition is overhyped. Everyone who is communicating that breakthrough understands that we're not close to commercialized fusion reactors, and that the way NIF did their experiment is not scalable. The hype comes from the fact that this is the first major step energetically towards a possible future where we can commercialize fusion, one that thousands of people worldwide have been working towards for 40+ years.
@davestier6247 Says:
I often wonder what the greatest science communicator who ever lived ( It's Sagan, it's not close ) would think about this current sad state of affairs.
@moomoodeadcow Says:
Somehow I have a strong feeling about the subject of this video but I can't point a finger at it.
@itscolemartin Says:
I admire that Derek is so willing to acept and admit when he has been wrong. He sincerely just wants to find truth.
@NCStateOnTheRise Says:
I'm a nuclear engineer who specializes in reactor physics/fission reactor simulation. And I can tell you, we had a joke when I was in undergrad where one of my professors would say "time until fusion" (power) is a unit in and of itself since it's constant. It's always 30 years away. He would talk about how you could throw a ball up in the air and calculate how long it would take to come down in "time until fusion"s.
I'm not saying we'll never have fusion power, but we have fission right now, and I very much doubt that anyone alive when this video was released will live to see commercial fusion power plants. This is almost a consensus amongst non-fusion nuclear engineers.
The only nuclear power scientists/engineers who I know that think we'll have fusion in our lifetimes are those whose careers are focused on fusion power (so they're not exactly impartial). When I ask them why they are so confident we will figure it out soon, they say (without a hint of irony) that funding is so high now it has to happen. Funding for fusion has waxed and waned for literally decades, and we're not really much closer than we were 50 or even 60 years ago. Some breakthroughs, yes, but nothing that solves some of the fundamental physics and material problems with commercial fusion power. Funding alone does not guarantee figuring out a problem if it is far enough beyond our technological capabilities.
Would all the gold in the world dedicated toward advanced medicine have allowed ancient Rome to invent an MRI in 100 years time? I don't think so, they were too far behind that technologically to even know what to fund or where to begin. Just as we are with fusion. Even if we did solve all of the issues preventing fusion power (which I don't think we will, viable solutions may not even exist for some of the issues), there is no guarantee that fusion plants would be economically feasible at scale.
@Beinhartwie1chopper Says:
Too many ads
@40uldierb0Y Says:
This video is exactly why I'm sceptic of skepticism
@SteveWindsurf Says:
It's a virtual wormhole!
Ah ha, but what if our universe is also virtual, abstract in reality?
@vittorioanziano59 Says:
grande rovelli
@KyleNally Says:
It sounds like people got sold on the quantum computing wormhole version of L'Engle's "tesseract" from her novel "A Wrinkle in Time". The act of understanding the math and doing the calculations just... made the thing real.
" 'Tesser, sir!' she heard Calvin's voice through the red darkness. 'Tesser!' "
No. Just no.
@vomitkermit3446 Says:
If you overhype science then you have more ammunition to use against science to show how flawed it is. You can then use that to make people believe in your invisible man in the sky. This is being done on purpose.
@leonardzajdek3516 Says:
there is this book ... The Semantics of Science by Roy Harris ... the final chapter "Integrating Science" is readable on its own...
@ManyHeavens42 Says:
you can't take away, only add information, stop it
LATEST COMMENTS