Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Calculus of Variations is what happens when you stop optimizing values and start optimizing geometries. The unknown isn’t a single x...it’s a whole curve y(x). And the thing you’re minimizing usually isn’t a formula you can eyeball...it’s an integral that judges the entire shape. For our first lecture, we... look at the famous Brachistochrone problem. Fix two points, switch on gravity, and ask a question that sounds too simple...which track gets a bead from A to B in the least time? Your intuition will betray you on the first try. It’s not the straight line. It’s not the drop hard then cruise sketch either. The winner is a cycloid...the curve traced by a point on a rolling circle. In the animation, the track is the moving character. We start with an imperfect curve, run gradient descent in curve-space, and watch the geometry reshape frame by frame as T[y] collapses until it locks into the brachistochrone. Pls see the comment below for the math breakdown. #CalculusOfVariations #Brachistochrone #Cycloid #Physics #Optimization #Mathematicsshow more

Mathelirium

32,919 subscribers

106,981 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Ask anyone who’s taken a course in Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs) what a solution to an ODE represents geometrically, and most of them won’t have a clean answer. When I first took ordinary differential equations, the pattern was always the same. Early on it turns into a speedrun of methods: separation of variables, integrating factors, variation of parameters, Bernoulli, exact equations. Then pretty quickly the course slides into hammer-picking. Spot the form, apply the recipe, move on. Too mechanical! And the real problem is what you don’t walk away with. You leave with a toolkit, but without a feel for what a differential equation even is, especially geometrically. That matters because in real modeling the equations you meet are rarely nice enough to reward memorised recipes. So you get trained to solve toy forms, while the actual subject stays blurry. The behavior. The flow. The shape of solutions. It wasn't until I watched the first lecture of Professor Arthur Mattuck that I realized I didn’t actually know what a solution to a differential equation represents geometrically. His point is almost embarrassingly simple. A first-order ODE is a slope field, and a solution is a curve that stays tangent to that field everywhere. The math breakdown: Write the ODE as dy/dx = f(x,y). At each point (x,y), attach a tiny line segment with slope f(x,y). A function y = y₁(x) is a solution exactly when its graph follows those slopes. At every x, the slope of the curve equals the slope prescribed by the field at the point on the curve. That’s the one line that ties both viewpoints together: y₁′(x) = f(x, y₁(x)). So solving the ODE and drawing an integral curve are the same statement in two languages. Once you see that, you stop obsessing over whether you can write y(x) in closed form. You start asking the questions that actually matter. Where do solutions flow. Where do they get trapped. Where do they blow up. Where does existence or uniqueness fail because the field isn’t even defined? That’s the perspective shift I wish every ODE course forces early. It’s also why I keep pairing math with animation. #DifferentialEquations #ODEs #VectorFields #AppliedMathematics #Mathematics #

Ask anyone who’s taken a course in Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs) what a solution to an ODE represents geometrically, and most of them won’t have a clean answer. When I first took ordinary differential equations, the pattern was always the same. Early on it turns into a speedrun of methods: separation of variables, integrating factors, variation of parameters, Bernoulli, exact equations. Then pretty quickly the course slides into hammer-picking. Spot the form, apply the recipe, move on. Too mechanical! And the real problem is what you don’t walk away with. You leave with a toolkit, but without a feel for what a differential equation even is, especially geometrically. That matters because in real modeling the equations you meet are rarely nice enough to reward memorised recipes. So you get trained to solve toy forms, while the actual subject stays blurry. The behavior. The flow. The shape of solutions. It wasn't until I watched the first lecture of Professor Arthur Mattuck that I realized I didn’t actually know what a solution to a differential equation represents geometrically. His point is almost embarrassingly simple. A first-order ODE is a slope field, and a solution is a curve that stays tangent to that field everywhere. The math breakdown: Write the ODE as dy/dx = f(x,y). At each point (x,y), attach a tiny line segment with slope f(x,y). A function y = y₁(x) is a solution exactly when its graph follows those slopes. At every x, the slope of the curve equals the slope prescribed by the field at the point on the curve. That’s the one line that ties both viewpoints together: y₁′(x) = f(x, y₁(x)). So solving the ODE and drawing an integral curve are the same statement in two languages. Once you see that, you stop obsessing over whether you can write y(x) in closed form. You start asking the questions that actually matter. Where do solutions flow. Where do they get trapped. Where do they blow up. Where does existence or uniqueness fail because the field isn’t even defined? That’s the perspective shift I wish every ODE course forces early. It’s also why I keep pairing math with animation. #DifferentialEquations #ODEs #VectorFields #AppliedMathematics #Mathematics #

Mathelirium

40,739 views • 5 months ago

When I first took ordinary differential equations, the pattern was always the same. Week 1 turns into a speedrun of methods: separation of variables, integrating factors, variation of parameters, Bernoulli, exact equations… and by Week 2 or 3 the course has quietly degenerated into hammer-picking. Spot the form, apply the recipe, move on. Mechanical! Fuuuuck!😫😫😫😫 The problem is what you don’t walk away with. You leave with a toolkit, but without a feel for what a differential equation even is, especially geometrically. And that’s a big deal, because in real modeling the equations you meet are rarely nice enough to reward memorized recipes. So you end up trained to solve toy forms, while the actual subject...the behavior, the flow, the shape of solutions stays blurry. This is why I’m biased toward the old-timers. Their old-school way of doing things always surprises me:...they’ll spend time on one idea until it sticks, instead of sprinting through a syllabus checklist. One lecture from them and you start noticing a contrast. A lot of modern teaching feels like "finish the content,". You get marched through techniques, but you’re not left with a single thought that keeps bothering you later...the kind of thought that actually pushes you toward research-level curiosity. MIT OpenCourseWare’s Professor Arthur Mattuck did that to me in his very first ODE lecture. One lecture, and your whole relationship with dy/dx = f(x,y) changes. In this segment, Prof. Mattuck is basically saying: A first-order ODE is a slope field, and a solution is a curve that moves everywhere tangent to that field. The math breakdown Write the ODE as dy/dx = f(x,y). At each point (x,y) you attach a tiny line segment with slope f(x,y). A function y = y₁(x) is a solution exactly when its graph follows those slopes:. At every x, the slope of the curve equals the slope prescribed by the field at the point on the curve. That’s the single line that unifies both viewpoints: y₁′(x) = f(x, y₁(x)). So solving the ODE and drawing an integral curve are the same statement in two languages!👌🏻 Once you see that, you can stop obsessing over whether you can write y(x) in closed form. You can start asking the questions that matter: where do solutions flow, where do they get trapped, where do they blow up, and where does existence/uniqueness fail just because the field isn’t even defined? That’s the perspective shift I wish every ODE course forces early and it’s exactly why I keep pairing math with animation. #DifferentialEquations #ODEs #VectorFields #MathAnimation #Mathematics

When I first took ordinary differential equations, the pattern was always the same. Week 1 turns into a speedrun of methods: separation of variables, integrating factors, variation of parameters, Bernoulli, exact equations… and by Week 2 or 3 the course has quietly degenerated into hammer-picking. Spot the form, apply the recipe, move on. Mechanical! Fuuuuck!😫😫😫😫 The problem is what you don’t walk away with. You leave with a toolkit, but without a feel for what a differential equation even is, especially geometrically. And that’s a big deal, because in real modeling the equations you meet are rarely nice enough to reward memorized recipes. So you end up trained to solve toy forms, while the actual subject...the behavior, the flow, the shape of solutions stays blurry. This is why I’m biased toward the old-timers. Their old-school way of doing things always surprises me:...they’ll spend time on one idea until it sticks, instead of sprinting through a syllabus checklist. One lecture from them and you start noticing a contrast. A lot of modern teaching feels like "finish the content,". You get marched through techniques, but you’re not left with a single thought that keeps bothering you later...the kind of thought that actually pushes you toward research-level curiosity. MIT OpenCourseWare’s Professor Arthur Mattuck did that to me in his very first ODE lecture. One lecture, and your whole relationship with dy/dx = f(x,y) changes. In this segment, Prof. Mattuck is basically saying: A first-order ODE is a slope field, and a solution is a curve that moves everywhere tangent to that field. The math breakdown Write the ODE as dy/dx = f(x,y). At each point (x,y) you attach a tiny line segment with slope f(x,y). A function y = y₁(x) is a solution exactly when its graph follows those slopes:. At every x, the slope of the curve equals the slope prescribed by the field at the point on the curve. That’s the single line that unifies both viewpoints: y₁′(x) = f(x, y₁(x)). So solving the ODE and drawing an integral curve are the same statement in two languages!👌🏻 Once you see that, you can stop obsessing over whether you can write y(x) in closed form. You can start asking the questions that matter: where do solutions flow, where do they get trapped, where do they blow up, and where does existence/uniqueness fail just because the field isn’t even defined? That’s the perspective shift I wish every ODE course forces early and it’s exactly why I keep pairing math with animation. #DifferentialEquations #ODEs #VectorFields #MathAnimation #Mathematics

Mathelirium

53,338 views • 5 months ago

What are Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are neural nets trained to satisfy a differential equation. The trick is simple. You bake the PDE residual straight into the loss. They came out of a very practical pain point. Classical PDE pipelines can be amazing, but they often demand a lot of setup work. Meshes. Stencils. Stability tuning. And once you build a solver, it’s usually tied to one geometry and one discretization choice. A PINN flips the workflow. You represent the solution itself as a smooth function uᵩ(x,t) and you enforce the physics wherever you choose to sample the domain. Most people first meet PINNs in the least helpful way. A pretty solution surface, almost no clarity on what was enforced to make it appear. In this series we keep the enforcement visible. We pick a PDE, represent the unknown solution as a flexible function, measure how badly that function violates the equation across the domain, and train it to reduce that mismatch at the points we sample. A normal neural net learns from labels. You give it inputs and target outputs. A PINN learns from an equation. You give it inputs (x,t), and it gets penalized whenever its output fails the PDE. Smaller mismatch means smaller loss. Bigger mismatch means bigger loss. That’s all “punish” and “reward” mean here. The network isn’t replacing physics. It’s just a flexible function that we force to obey the same calculus you’d demand from any candidate solution. The math breakdown: We start with a PDE on a domain Ω. Write it as uₜ(x,t) + N(u(x,t), uₓ(x,t), uₓₓ(x,t), …) = 0 for (x,t) in Ω A PINN replaces the unknown u with a neural network output uᵩ(x,t) Now define the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = ∂uᵩ/∂t + N(uᵩ, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², …) If uᵩ were an exact solution, we’d have rᵩ(x,t) = 0 everywhere. We may also have data points (xᵢ,tᵢ,uᵢ) from measurements or from an initial condition. The training objective is a weighted sum of squared errors L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ) with L_data(ᵩ) = meanᵢ |uᵩ(xᵢ,tᵢ) − uᵢ|² L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|² where (xⱼ,tⱼ) are collocation points in Ω L_bc/ic(ᵩ) = penalties enforcing boundary conditions and initial conditions The key technical step is how we get the derivatives inside rᵩ. We don’t approximate them with finite differences. We compute them with automatic differentiation: ∂uᵩ/∂t, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², … Then we differentiate the total loss L(ᵩ) with respect to ᵩ and train with gradient descent. That’s the whole idea. Learn a function, but make the PDE part of the loss, so the network is trained to be a solution, not just a curve-fitter. In the render, the main 3D surface is the network’s current guess uᵩ(x,t), drawn as a living sheet over the (x,t) plane. Hovering above is the neural scaffold, a visible graph of feature nodes and connections. The bright tension threads are the physics residual rᵩ(x,t). Each thread tethers a collocation bead on the sheet up to the scaffold, and it thickens and brightens exactly where |rᵩ| is large, with color showing the sign. As training runs, those threads go slack across the domain, not because we hid the error, but because the network has actually been pushed toward rᵩ(x,t) ≈ 0. #PINNs #ScientificMachineLearning #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

What are Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are neural nets trained to satisfy a differential equation. The trick is simple. You bake the PDE residual straight into the loss. They came out of a very practical pain point. Classical PDE pipelines can be amazing, but they often demand a lot of setup work. Meshes. Stencils. Stability tuning. And once you build a solver, it’s usually tied to one geometry and one discretization choice. A PINN flips the workflow. You represent the solution itself as a smooth function uᵩ(x,t) and you enforce the physics wherever you choose to sample the domain. Most people first meet PINNs in the least helpful way. A pretty solution surface, almost no clarity on what was enforced to make it appear. In this series we keep the enforcement visible. We pick a PDE, represent the unknown solution as a flexible function, measure how badly that function violates the equation across the domain, and train it to reduce that mismatch at the points we sample. A normal neural net learns from labels. You give it inputs and target outputs. A PINN learns from an equation. You give it inputs (x,t), and it gets penalized whenever its output fails the PDE. Smaller mismatch means smaller loss. Bigger mismatch means bigger loss. That’s all “punish” and “reward” mean here. The network isn’t replacing physics. It’s just a flexible function that we force to obey the same calculus you’d demand from any candidate solution. The math breakdown: We start with a PDE on a domain Ω. Write it as uₜ(x,t) + N(u(x,t), uₓ(x,t), uₓₓ(x,t), …) = 0 for (x,t) in Ω A PINN replaces the unknown u with a neural network output uᵩ(x,t) Now define the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = ∂uᵩ/∂t + N(uᵩ, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², …) If uᵩ were an exact solution, we’d have rᵩ(x,t) = 0 everywhere. We may also have data points (xᵢ,tᵢ,uᵢ) from measurements or from an initial condition. The training objective is a weighted sum of squared errors L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ) with L_data(ᵩ) = meanᵢ |uᵩ(xᵢ,tᵢ) − uᵢ|² L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|² where (xⱼ,tⱼ) are collocation points in Ω L_bc/ic(ᵩ) = penalties enforcing boundary conditions and initial conditions The key technical step is how we get the derivatives inside rᵩ. We don’t approximate them with finite differences. We compute them with automatic differentiation: ∂uᵩ/∂t, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², … Then we differentiate the total loss L(ᵩ) with respect to ᵩ and train with gradient descent. That’s the whole idea. Learn a function, but make the PDE part of the loss, so the network is trained to be a solution, not just a curve-fitter. In the render, the main 3D surface is the network’s current guess uᵩ(x,t), drawn as a living sheet over the (x,t) plane. Hovering above is the neural scaffold, a visible graph of feature nodes and connections. The bright tension threads are the physics residual rᵩ(x,t). Each thread tethers a collocation bead on the sheet up to the scaffold, and it thickens and brightens exactly where |rᵩ| is large, with color showing the sign. As training runs, those threads go slack across the domain, not because we hid the error, but because the network has actually been pushed toward rᵩ(x,t) ≈ 0. #PINNs #ScientificMachineLearning #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

Mathelirium

44,675 views • 5 months ago

Lecture 1 on Physics-Informed Neural Networks: A Mini-Series Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are neural networks trained to satisfy a differential equation by building the PDE residual directly into the loss. They emerged from a very practical problem...classical PDE pipelines can be brilliant, but they often demand heavy discretization work (meshes, stencils, stability tuning), and the method you build is usually tied to one geometry and one solver setup. A PINN flips the workflow by representing the solution itself as a smooth function uᵩ(x,t) and enforcing the physics everywhere you choose to sample the domain. People often meet PINNs in the least helpful way...via a flashy solution plot, and almost no explanation of what was enforced to get it. In this series we keep the enforcement visible. We pick a differential equation, represent the unknown solution as a flexible function, measure how well that function satisfies the equation across the domain, and train it to reduce that mismatch everywhere we sample. A normal neural net learns from labels...you give it inputs and target outputs. A PINN learns from a differential equation...you give it inputs (x,t) and it gets punished whenever its output fails the PDE. By punish we mean that the loss increases when the mismatch is large we reward it if the loss decreases as the mismatch gets smaller. The network isn’t replacing physics, it’s becoming a flexible function that is forced to satisfy the same calculus you’d impose on any candidate solution. The math breakdown: We start with a PDE we want to solve on a domain Ω. Write it as uₜ(x,t) + N(u(x,t), uₓ(x,t), uₓₓ(x,t), …) = 0 for (x,t) in Ω A PINN replaces the unknown function u with a neural network output uᵩ(x,t) Now define the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = ∂uᵩ/∂t + N(uᵩ, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², …) If uᵩ were an exact solution, we would have rᵩ(x,t) = 0 everywhere. We may also have data points (xᵢ,tᵢ,uᵢ) from measurements or a known initial condition. The training objective is just a weighted sum of squared errors L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ) with L_data(ᵩ) = meanᵢ |uᵩ(xᵢ,tᵢ) − uᵢ|² L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|² where (xⱼ,tⱼ) are the collocation points in Ω L_bc/ic(ᵩ) = penalties enforcing boundary conditions and initial conditions The key technical step is that the derivatives inside rᵩ are computed by automatic differentiation ∂uᵩ/∂t, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², … So we can differentiate the total loss L(ᵩ) with respect to ᵩ and train with gradient descent. This is the whole idea behind PINNs. Learn a function, but make the PDE part of the loss, so the network is trained to be a solution, not just a curve-fitter. In the render, the main 3D surface is the network’s current guess uᵩ(x,t), drawn as a living sheet over the (x,t) plane. Hovering above is the neural scaffold...a visible graph of feature nodes and connections. The bright tension threads are the physics residual rᵩ(x,t): each thread tethers a collocation bead on the sheet up to the scaffold, and it thickens and brightens exactly where |rᵩ| is large (color encodes the sign). As training runs, those threads go slack across the domain not because we hid the error, but because the network has actually been pushed toward rᵩ(x,t) ≈ 0. #PINNs #PhysicsInformedNeuralNetworks #ScientificMachineLearning #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

Lecture 1 on Physics-Informed Neural Networks: A Mini-Series Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are neural networks trained to satisfy a differential equation by building the PDE residual directly into the loss. They emerged from a very practical problem...classical PDE pipelines can be brilliant, but they often demand heavy discretization work (meshes, stencils, stability tuning), and the method you build is usually tied to one geometry and one solver setup. A PINN flips the workflow by representing the solution itself as a smooth function uᵩ(x,t) and enforcing the physics everywhere you choose to sample the domain. People often meet PINNs in the least helpful way...via a flashy solution plot, and almost no explanation of what was enforced to get it. In this series we keep the enforcement visible. We pick a differential equation, represent the unknown solution as a flexible function, measure how well that function satisfies the equation across the domain, and train it to reduce that mismatch everywhere we sample. A normal neural net learns from labels...you give it inputs and target outputs. A PINN learns from a differential equation...you give it inputs (x,t) and it gets punished whenever its output fails the PDE. By punish we mean that the loss increases when the mismatch is large we reward it if the loss decreases as the mismatch gets smaller. The network isn’t replacing physics, it’s becoming a flexible function that is forced to satisfy the same calculus you’d impose on any candidate solution. The math breakdown: We start with a PDE we want to solve on a domain Ω. Write it as uₜ(x,t) + N(u(x,t), uₓ(x,t), uₓₓ(x,t), …) = 0 for (x,t) in Ω A PINN replaces the unknown function u with a neural network output uᵩ(x,t) Now define the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = ∂uᵩ/∂t + N(uᵩ, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², …) If uᵩ were an exact solution, we would have rᵩ(x,t) = 0 everywhere. We may also have data points (xᵢ,tᵢ,uᵢ) from measurements or a known initial condition. The training objective is just a weighted sum of squared errors L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ) with L_data(ᵩ) = meanᵢ |uᵩ(xᵢ,tᵢ) − uᵢ|² L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|² where (xⱼ,tⱼ) are the collocation points in Ω L_bc/ic(ᵩ) = penalties enforcing boundary conditions and initial conditions The key technical step is that the derivatives inside rᵩ are computed by automatic differentiation ∂uᵩ/∂t, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², … So we can differentiate the total loss L(ᵩ) with respect to ᵩ and train with gradient descent. This is the whole idea behind PINNs. Learn a function, but make the PDE part of the loss, so the network is trained to be a solution, not just a curve-fitter. In the render, the main 3D surface is the network’s current guess uᵩ(x,t), drawn as a living sheet over the (x,t) plane. Hovering above is the neural scaffold...a visible graph of feature nodes and connections. The bright tension threads are the physics residual rᵩ(x,t): each thread tethers a collocation bead on the sheet up to the scaffold, and it thickens and brightens exactly where |rᵩ| is large (color encodes the sign). As training runs, those threads go slack across the domain not because we hid the error, but because the network has actually been pushed toward rᵩ(x,t) ≈ 0. #PINNs #PhysicsInformedNeuralNetworks #ScientificMachineLearning #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

Mathelirium

47,308 views • 5 months ago

What if Your Neural Network Was Forced to Obey Physics? Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are neural networks trained to satisfy a differential equation by building the PDE residual directly into the loss. They emerged from a very practical problem...classical PDE pipelines can be brilliant, but they often demand heavy discretization work (meshes, stencils, stability tuning), and the method you build is usually tied to one geometry and one solver setup. A PINN flips the workflow by representing the solution itself as a smooth function uᵩ(x,t) and enforcing the physics everywhere you choose to sample the domain. People often meet PINNs in the least helpful way...via a flashy solution plot, and almost no explanation of what was enforced to get it. In this series we keep the enforcement visible. We pick a differential equation, represent the unknown solution as a flexible function, measure how well that function satisfies the equation across the domain, and train it to reduce that mismatch everywhere we sample. A normal neural net learns from labels...you give it inputs and target outputs. A PINN learns from a differential equation...you give it inputs (x,t) and it gets punished whenever its output fails the PDE. By punish we mean that the loss increases when the mismatch is large we reward it if the loss decreases as the mismatch gets smaller. The network isn’t replacing physics, it’s becoming a flexible function that is forced to satisfy the same calculus you’d impose on any candidate solution. The math breakdown: We start with a PDE we want to solve on a domain Ω. Write it as uₜ(x,t) + N(u(x,t), uₓ(x,t), uₓₓ(x,t), …) = 0 for (x,t) in Ω A PINN replaces the unknown function u with a neural network output uᵩ(x,t) Now define the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = ∂uᵩ/∂t + N(uᵩ, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², …) If uᵩ were an exact solution, we would have rᵩ(x,t) = 0 everywhere. We may also have data points (xᵢ,tᵢ,uᵢ) from measurements or a known initial condition. The training objective is just a weighted sum of squared errors L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ) with L_data(ᵩ) = meanᵢ |uᵩ(xᵢ,tᵢ) − uᵢ|² L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|² where (xⱼ,tⱼ) are the collocation points in Ω L_bc/ic(ᵩ) = penalties enforcing boundary conditions and initial conditions The key technical step is that the derivatives inside rᵩ are computed by automatic differentiation ∂uᵩ/∂t, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², … So we can differentiate the total loss L(ᵩ) with respect to ᵩ and train with gradient descent. This is the whole idea behind PINNs. Learn a function, but make the PDE part of the loss, so the network is trained to be a solution, not just a curve-fitter. In the render, the main 3D surface is the network’s current guess uᵩ(x,t), drawn as a living sheet over the (x,t) plane. Hovering above is the neural scaffold...a visible graph of feature nodes and connections. The bright tension threads are the physics residual rᵩ(x,t): each thread tethers a collocation bead on the sheet up to the scaffold, and it thickens and brightens exactly where |rᵩ| is large (color encodes the sign). As training runs, those threads go slack across the domain not because we hid the error, but because the network has actually been pushed toward rᵩ(x,t) ≈ 0. #PINNs #PhysicsInformedNeuralNetworks #ScientificMachineLearning #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

What if Your Neural Network Was Forced to Obey Physics? Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) are neural networks trained to satisfy a differential equation by building the PDE residual directly into the loss. They emerged from a very practical problem...classical PDE pipelines can be brilliant, but they often demand heavy discretization work (meshes, stencils, stability tuning), and the method you build is usually tied to one geometry and one solver setup. A PINN flips the workflow by representing the solution itself as a smooth function uᵩ(x,t) and enforcing the physics everywhere you choose to sample the domain. People often meet PINNs in the least helpful way...via a flashy solution plot, and almost no explanation of what was enforced to get it. In this series we keep the enforcement visible. We pick a differential equation, represent the unknown solution as a flexible function, measure how well that function satisfies the equation across the domain, and train it to reduce that mismatch everywhere we sample. A normal neural net learns from labels...you give it inputs and target outputs. A PINN learns from a differential equation...you give it inputs (x,t) and it gets punished whenever its output fails the PDE. By punish we mean that the loss increases when the mismatch is large we reward it if the loss decreases as the mismatch gets smaller. The network isn’t replacing physics, it’s becoming a flexible function that is forced to satisfy the same calculus you’d impose on any candidate solution. The math breakdown: We start with a PDE we want to solve on a domain Ω. Write it as uₜ(x,t) + N(u(x,t), uₓ(x,t), uₓₓ(x,t), …) = 0 for (x,t) in Ω A PINN replaces the unknown function u with a neural network output uᵩ(x,t) Now define the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = ∂uᵩ/∂t + N(uᵩ, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², …) If uᵩ were an exact solution, we would have rᵩ(x,t) = 0 everywhere. We may also have data points (xᵢ,tᵢ,uᵢ) from measurements or a known initial condition. The training objective is just a weighted sum of squared errors L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ) with L_data(ᵩ) = meanᵢ |uᵩ(xᵢ,tᵢ) − uᵢ|² L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|² where (xⱼ,tⱼ) are the collocation points in Ω L_bc/ic(ᵩ) = penalties enforcing boundary conditions and initial conditions The key technical step is that the derivatives inside rᵩ are computed by automatic differentiation ∂uᵩ/∂t, ∂uᵩ/∂x, ∂²uᵩ/∂x², … So we can differentiate the total loss L(ᵩ) with respect to ᵩ and train with gradient descent. This is the whole idea behind PINNs. Learn a function, but make the PDE part of the loss, so the network is trained to be a solution, not just a curve-fitter. In the render, the main 3D surface is the network’s current guess uᵩ(x,t), drawn as a living sheet over the (x,t) plane. Hovering above is the neural scaffold...a visible graph of feature nodes and connections. The bright tension threads are the physics residual rᵩ(x,t): each thread tethers a collocation bead on the sheet up to the scaffold, and it thickens and brightens exactly where |rᵩ| is large (color encodes the sign). As training runs, those threads go slack across the domain not because we hid the error, but because the network has actually been pushed toward rᵩ(x,t) ≈ 0. #PINNs #PhysicsInformedNeuralNetworks #ScientificMachineLearning #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

Mathelirium

17,285 views • 1 month ago

Elon Musk just said the AI community is misunderstanding the math of superintelligence by two orders of magnitude. Not slightly off. Not directionally wrong. A hundred times off. Musk: “Most people in the AI community don’t yet understand. The intelligence density potential is vastly greater than what we’re currently experiencing.” Everyone is focused on the hardware race. Bigger data centers. More GPUs. Nuclear power plants built to feed the compute. That’s half the equation. Musk: “I think we’re off by two orders of magnitude in terms of intelligence density per gigabyte. That’s just algorithmic improvement. Same computer.” Read that carefully. Not more hardware. Not more energy. Not more capital. The same machine. A hundred times smarter. Through software alone. That’s before the hardware improvements compound on top of it. Musk: “And the computers are getting better. That’s why I think it is a 10x improvement per year type thing. 1,000 percent.” A thousand percent compounding annual growth rate in raw intelligence. A system that becomes 10x more capable every twelve months doesn’t follow a linear curve. It doesn’t follow an exponential curve that human intuition can track. It follows a curve that human intuition cannot simulate at all. In year one it’s 10x smarter. In year two it’s 100x. In year three it’s 1,000x. At that point, the gap between that system and a human brain is wider than the gap between a human brain and a calculator. This is the math the public isn’t running. The models aren’t just getting better. They are compounding on themselves at a rate that makes every previous technology curve look flat. Musk: “The intelligence density potential is vastly greater than what we’re currently experiencing.” We aren’t approaching superintelligence on the timeline most people imagine. We are already inside the curve.

Elon Musk just said the AI community is misunderstanding the math of superintelligence by two orders of magnitude. Not slightly off. Not directionally wrong. A hundred times off. Musk: “Most people in the AI community don’t yet understand. The intelligence density potential is vastly greater than what we’re currently experiencing.” Everyone is focused on the hardware race. Bigger data centers. More GPUs. Nuclear power plants built to feed the compute. That’s half the equation. Musk: “I think we’re off by two orders of magnitude in terms of intelligence density per gigabyte. That’s just algorithmic improvement. Same computer.” Read that carefully. Not more hardware. Not more energy. Not more capital. The same machine. A hundred times smarter. Through software alone. That’s before the hardware improvements compound on top of it. Musk: “And the computers are getting better. That’s why I think it is a 10x improvement per year type thing. 1,000 percent.” A thousand percent compounding annual growth rate in raw intelligence. A system that becomes 10x more capable every twelve months doesn’t follow a linear curve. It doesn’t follow an exponential curve that human intuition can track. It follows a curve that human intuition cannot simulate at all. In year one it’s 10x smarter. In year two it’s 100x. In year three it’s 1,000x. At that point, the gap between that system and a human brain is wider than the gap between a human brain and a calculator. This is the math the public isn’t running. The models aren’t just getting better. They are compounding on themselves at a rate that makes every previous technology curve look flat. Musk: “The intelligence density potential is vastly greater than what we’re currently experiencing.” We aren’t approaching superintelligence on the timeline most people imagine. We are already inside the curve.

Dustin

1,552,480 views • 4 months ago

The Trap in Every Mathematics Lecture If you’ve taken a lot of math courses, you start to recognize a pattern. There’s a moment where the lecturer is warming up with the obvious stuff...add matrices entrywise, scale by α, do the row-column product...and you’re thinking, alright… where is this going? Then you relax. You stop resisting. And right there, they slip in one line that changes how you see the whole subject. When Benedict Gross says "matrices represent linear operators,"he’s telling you to stop treating a matrix as a rectangle of numbers and start treating it as an action. A linear operator is a function T: Rⁿ → Rⁿ that respects two rules: T(u+v)=T(u)+T(v) and T(αu)=αT(u). Once you pick a basis, T is completely determined by where it sends the basis vectors e₁,…,eₙ. Put T(e₁),…,T(eₙ) into columns and you get a matrix A. That is what "A represents T" means...A is the coordinate portrait of the transformation. Now the punchline that makes matrix multiplication feel inevitable. If B represents S and A represents T, then doing S first and then T is the composition T∘S. In coordinates that becomes A(Bx)=(AB)x. So multiplying matrices is really composing transformations. That’s why multiplication is usually not commutative: T∘S is generally not the same transformation as S∘T, and the matrices inherit that noncommutativity. This explains half of Linear Algebra because it tells you what the course is really about...functions that move vectors around, not grids of numbers. A matrix is just the written form of that function once you choose coordinates. Then the rules stop feeling random Multiplying matrices means doing one move and then another, an inverse means you can undo the move, eigenvectors are directions that don’t get turned, and changing basis is just describing the same move in a different language. That one idea makes a lot of linear algebra click. #LinearAlgebra #Matrices #GroupTheory #GLn #MathLectures #Mathematics

The Trap in Every Mathematics Lecture If you’ve taken a lot of math courses, you start to recognize a pattern. There’s a moment where the lecturer is warming up with the obvious stuff...add matrices entrywise, scale by α, do the row-column product...and you’re thinking, alright… where is this going? Then you relax. You stop resisting. And right there, they slip in one line that changes how you see the whole subject. When Benedict Gross says "matrices represent linear operators,"he’s telling you to stop treating a matrix as a rectangle of numbers and start treating it as an action. A linear operator is a function T: Rⁿ → Rⁿ that respects two rules: T(u+v)=T(u)+T(v) and T(αu)=αT(u). Once you pick a basis, T is completely determined by where it sends the basis vectors e₁,…,eₙ. Put T(e₁),…,T(eₙ) into columns and you get a matrix A. That is what "A represents T" means...A is the coordinate portrait of the transformation. Now the punchline that makes matrix multiplication feel inevitable. If B represents S and A represents T, then doing S first and then T is the composition T∘S. In coordinates that becomes A(Bx)=(AB)x. So multiplying matrices is really composing transformations. That’s why multiplication is usually not commutative: T∘S is generally not the same transformation as S∘T, and the matrices inherit that noncommutativity. This explains half of Linear Algebra because it tells you what the course is really about...functions that move vectors around, not grids of numbers. A matrix is just the written form of that function once you choose coordinates. Then the rules stop feeling random Multiplying matrices means doing one move and then another, an inverse means you can undo the move, eigenvectors are directions that don’t get turned, and changing basis is just describing the same move in a different language. That one idea makes a lot of linear algebra click. #LinearAlgebra #Matrices #GroupTheory #GLn #MathLectures #Mathematics

Mathelirium

66,204 views • 5 months ago

More on the system used for the Eyebrows. As shown before, a curve is projected on the face, and then the eyebrow mesh is wrapped onto the curve. Unlike before, there is now a second layer of projection that guarantees the eyebrow mesh stays above the surface of the face even when there are ridges between the points of the curve, as seen here where the eyebrow can be moved below the brow ridge without clipping. Also there's a basic setup for procedurally controlling the taper of the eyebrow with math (in this case, a float curve node, but could be pure math, color ramp, etc.) #b3d

More on the system used for the Eyebrows. As shown before, a curve is projected on the face, and then the eyebrow mesh is wrapped onto the curve. Unlike before, there is now a second layer of projection that guarantees the eyebrow mesh stays above the surface of the face even when there are ridges between the points of the curve, as seen here where the eyebrow can be moved below the brow ridge without clipping. Also there's a basic setup for procedurally controlling the taper of the eyebrow with math (in this case, a float curve node, but could be pure math, color ramp, etc.) #b3d

aVersionOfReality

19,966 views • 1 year ago

String Theory Lecture 1 A String Does Not Move Like a Point A point particle traces a line through spacetime. A string traces a surface. This is the first geometric shift in String Theory. Particle mechanics asks where one object is at time t, so its history is a curve. String Theory asks where every point of an extended object is at worldsheet time τ, so we need another coordinate telling us where we are along the string. For a point particle x(t) So, for one input of time we get a position in Spacetime. For a string Xᵘ(τ,σ) Here τ plays the role of time on the worldsheet, while σ labels position along the string. Freeze τ and vary σ, and you see the string at one instant. Let τ move, and that curve sweeps out a two-dimensional surface... the worldsheet. The same comparison appears in the action. For a relativistic point particle, the geometric action measures worldline length S = −m ∫ ds If we parameterize the path by t, the action has one integral, one parameter, and one tangent vector dxᵘ/dt For a string, the same idea grows by one dimension. The action measures area, not length. In Nambu-Goto form, S = −T ∫ dτ dσ √[−det hₐᵦ] Here T is the string tension. It plays a role similar to mass, but for an extended object. It weights the area of a surface rather than the length of a line. The particle action has ∫ dt because the history is one-dimensional. The string action has ∫ dτ dσ because the history is two-dimensional. We are no longer summing along a path, we are summing over a surface. The geometry changes for the same reason. For the particle, one derivative is enough dxᵘ/dt For the string, the geometry is built from two derivatives: ∂τXᵘ and ∂σXᵘ The first tells you how the string changes as worldsheet time flows. The second tells you how the embedding changes as you move along the string. Together they define the induced worldsheet metric hₐᵦ = ∂ₐXᵘ ∂ᵦXᵤ In plain terms, hₐᵦ measures tangent lengths and tangent angles on the worldsheet. From it, the area element is dA = dτ dσ √[−det hₐᵦ] This, the Nambu-Goto action is the direct analogue of the point-particle length action. The point particle extremizes length and the string extremizes area. For calculations, people usually switch to the Polyakov action: S = −(T/2) ∫ dτ dσ √[−γ] γᵃᵇ ∂ₐXᵘ ∂ᵦXᵤ This describes the same classical string dynamics, but the algebra is cleaner. After choosing conformal gauge, varying with respect to Xᵘ gives (∂²/∂τ² − ∂²/∂σ²) Xᵘ = 0 This is the first real dynamical payoff... a two-dimensional wave equation on the worldsheet. For a point particle, the equation of motion tells you how one position evolves along one path. For a string, it tells you how an entire curve evolves, with waves traveling along it. The term ∂²Xᵘ/∂τ² measures acceleration in worldsheet time, while ∂²Xᵘ/∂σ² measures curvature along the string. The time evolution is balanced by how the string bends along its own length. This is why strings have oscillation modes. A point particle has one trajectory. A string has many possible vibration patterns, each one a normal mode of the worldsheet wave equation. For a closed string, σ wraps around the loop Xᵘ(τ, σ + 2π) = Xᵘ(τ, σ) For an open string, one standard free-end condition is ∂σXᵘ = 0 at the endpoints. Solving the wave equation gives waves moving in opposite directions along the string Xᵘ(τ,σ) = Fᵘ(τ + σ) + Gᵘ(τ − σ) A function of τ + σ moves one way. A function of τ − σ moves the other. Therefore, a particle has a worldline, its action measures length, and its geometry uses one tangent. The string has a worldsheet, its action measures area, and its geometry uses two tangent directions. #StringTheory #TheoreticalPhysics #MathematicalPhysics #Physics #Spacetime

String Theory Lecture 1 A String Does Not Move Like a Point A point particle traces a line through spacetime. A string traces a surface. This is the first geometric shift in String Theory. Particle mechanics asks where one object is at time t, so its history is a curve. String Theory asks where every point of an extended object is at worldsheet time τ, so we need another coordinate telling us where we are along the string. For a point particle x(t) So, for one input of time we get a position in Spacetime. For a string Xᵘ(τ,σ) Here τ plays the role of time on the worldsheet, while σ labels position along the string. Freeze τ and vary σ, and you see the string at one instant. Let τ move, and that curve sweeps out a two-dimensional surface... the worldsheet. The same comparison appears in the action. For a relativistic point particle, the geometric action measures worldline length S = −m ∫ ds If we parameterize the path by t, the action has one integral, one parameter, and one tangent vector dxᵘ/dt For a string, the same idea grows by one dimension. The action measures area, not length. In Nambu-Goto form, S = −T ∫ dτ dσ √[−det hₐᵦ] Here T is the string tension. It plays a role similar to mass, but for an extended object. It weights the area of a surface rather than the length of a line. The particle action has ∫ dt because the history is one-dimensional. The string action has ∫ dτ dσ because the history is two-dimensional. We are no longer summing along a path, we are summing over a surface. The geometry changes for the same reason. For the particle, one derivative is enough dxᵘ/dt For the string, the geometry is built from two derivatives: ∂τXᵘ and ∂σXᵘ The first tells you how the string changes as worldsheet time flows. The second tells you how the embedding changes as you move along the string. Together they define the induced worldsheet metric hₐᵦ = ∂ₐXᵘ ∂ᵦXᵤ In plain terms, hₐᵦ measures tangent lengths and tangent angles on the worldsheet. From it, the area element is dA = dτ dσ √[−det hₐᵦ] This, the Nambu-Goto action is the direct analogue of the point-particle length action. The point particle extremizes length and the string extremizes area. For calculations, people usually switch to the Polyakov action: S = −(T/2) ∫ dτ dσ √[−γ] γᵃᵇ ∂ₐXᵘ ∂ᵦXᵤ This describes the same classical string dynamics, but the algebra is cleaner. After choosing conformal gauge, varying with respect to Xᵘ gives (∂²/∂τ² − ∂²/∂σ²) Xᵘ = 0 This is the first real dynamical payoff... a two-dimensional wave equation on the worldsheet. For a point particle, the equation of motion tells you how one position evolves along one path. For a string, it tells you how an entire curve evolves, with waves traveling along it. The term ∂²Xᵘ/∂τ² measures acceleration in worldsheet time, while ∂²Xᵘ/∂σ² measures curvature along the string. The time evolution is balanced by how the string bends along its own length. This is why strings have oscillation modes. A point particle has one trajectory. A string has many possible vibration patterns, each one a normal mode of the worldsheet wave equation. For a closed string, σ wraps around the loop Xᵘ(τ, σ + 2π) = Xᵘ(τ, σ) For an open string, one standard free-end condition is ∂σXᵘ = 0 at the endpoints. Solving the wave equation gives waves moving in opposite directions along the string Xᵘ(τ,σ) = Fᵘ(τ + σ) + Gᵘ(τ − σ) A function of τ + σ moves one way. A function of τ − σ moves the other. Therefore, a particle has a worldline, its action measures length, and its geometry uses one tangent. The string has a worldsheet, its action measures area, and its geometry uses two tangent directions. #StringTheory #TheoreticalPhysics #MathematicalPhysics #Physics #Spacetime

Mathelirium

31,560 views • 2 months ago

The Trap in Every Mathematics Lecture If you’ve taken enough math courses, you start noticing the same little move. The lecturer warms up with the obvious stuff, add matrices entrywise, scale by α, do the row-column product, and you’re thinking alright, where is this going. Then you relax. You stop resisting. And right there, they drop one line that quietly rewires the whole subject. When Benedict Gross says matrices represent linear operators, he’s telling you to stop treating a matrix as a rectangle of numbers and start treating it as an action. A linear operator is a function T: ℝⁿ → ℝⁿ that respects two rules: T(u+v) = T(u) + T(v) T(αu) = αT(u) Once you pick a basis, T is completely determined by where it sends the basis vectors e₁,…,eₙ. Put T(e₁),…,T(eₙ) into columns and you get a matrix A. That is what A represents T means. A is the coordinate portrait of the transformation. Now the punchline that makes matrix multiplication feel inevitable. If B represents S and A represents T, then doing S first and then T is the composition T∘S. In coordinates that becomes A(Bx) = (AB)x. So multiplying matrices is really composing transformations. That’s why multiplication is usually not commutative. T∘S is generally not the same transformation as S∘T, and the matrices inherit that noncommutativity. This explains half of linear algebra because it tells you what the course is really about: functions that move vectors around, not grids of numbers. A matrix is just the written form of that function once you choose coordinates. After that, the rules stop feeling random. Multiplying matrices means doing one move and then another. An inverse means you can undo the move. Eigenvectors are directions that don’t get turned. Changing basis is just describing the same move in a different language. One idea, and a lot of linear algebra suddenly clicks. #LinearAlgebra #Matrices #LinearMaps #Eigenvectors #ChangeOfBasis #Mathematics

The Trap in Every Mathematics Lecture If you’ve taken enough math courses, you start noticing the same little move. The lecturer warms up with the obvious stuff, add matrices entrywise, scale by α, do the row-column product, and you’re thinking alright, where is this going. Then you relax. You stop resisting. And right there, they drop one line that quietly rewires the whole subject. When Benedict Gross says matrices represent linear operators, he’s telling you to stop treating a matrix as a rectangle of numbers and start treating it as an action. A linear operator is a function T: ℝⁿ → ℝⁿ that respects two rules: T(u+v) = T(u) + T(v) T(αu) = αT(u) Once you pick a basis, T is completely determined by where it sends the basis vectors e₁,…,eₙ. Put T(e₁),…,T(eₙ) into columns and you get a matrix A. That is what A represents T means. A is the coordinate portrait of the transformation. Now the punchline that makes matrix multiplication feel inevitable. If B represents S and A represents T, then doing S first and then T is the composition T∘S. In coordinates that becomes A(Bx) = (AB)x. So multiplying matrices is really composing transformations. That’s why multiplication is usually not commutative. T∘S is generally not the same transformation as S∘T, and the matrices inherit that noncommutativity. This explains half of linear algebra because it tells you what the course is really about: functions that move vectors around, not grids of numbers. A matrix is just the written form of that function once you choose coordinates. After that, the rules stop feeling random. Multiplying matrices means doing one move and then another. An inverse means you can undo the move. Eigenvectors are directions that don’t get turned. Changing basis is just describing the same move in a different language. One idea, and a lot of linear algebra suddenly clicks. #LinearAlgebra #Matrices #LinearMaps #Eigenvectors #ChangeOfBasis #Mathematics

Mathelirium

133,454 views • 4 months ago

The Curve That Forced Mathematicians To Invent A New Calculus There is a strange curve called Brownian path. It traces a continuous path without ever jumping, but it never settles into a well-defined direction at any point, so it’s continuous everywhere but differentiable nowhere. We’re used to the idea that if something is continuous, then if you zoom in far enough it should start to look like a straight line. A Brownian path refuses. Zoom in and you don’t reveal a hidden tangent. You reveal fresh roughness. This animation is a microscope on that fact. No matter how much we magnify, the path won’t straighten out. It keeps wrinkling at every scale. #BrownianMotion #StochasticProcesses #RandomWalks #ProbabilityTheory #Fractals #MathAnimation

The Curve That Forced Mathematicians To Invent A New Calculus There is a strange curve called Brownian path. It traces a continuous path without ever jumping, but it never settles into a well-defined direction at any point, so it’s continuous everywhere but differentiable nowhere. We’re used to the idea that if something is continuous, then if you zoom in far enough it should start to look like a straight line. A Brownian path refuses. Zoom in and you don’t reveal a hidden tangent. You reveal fresh roughness. This animation is a microscope on that fact. No matter how much we magnify, the path won’t straighten out. It keeps wrinkling at every scale. #BrownianMotion #StochasticProcesses #RandomWalks #ProbabilityTheory #Fractals #MathAnimation

Mathelirium

31,688 views • 4 months ago

There's a profound elegance in watching gradient descent find the signal in the noise. This is a simple MLP with sigmoid activations slowly warping to approximate f(x) = 1/(1 + x²). Watch the loss curve right around epoch 400. That sudden phase transition where the network finally "gets it" and snaps into the Witch of Agnesi shape is incredibly satisfying to watch.

There's a profound elegance in watching gradient descent find the signal in the noise. This is a simple MLP with sigmoid activations slowly warping to approximate f(x) = 1/(1 + x²). Watch the loss curve right around epoch 400. That sudden phase transition where the network finally "gets it" and snaps into the Witch of Agnesi shape is incredibly satisfying to watch.

Mathematica

78,616 views • 2 months ago

Ever Heard of a Metric in Differential Geometry? How About a Geodesic? These two ideas are central to how Mathematics and Physics describe Spacetime. A metric is how a surface measures distance and angle. A geodesic is the path that counts as "straight" after that measuring rule is chosen. Once the metric changes from point to point, straightness is no longer something you judge by eye. On a curved surface, the shortest paths are geodesics. They are chosen by the metric. Take a surface written as r(x,y) = (x, y, f(x,y)) Its metric is gᵢⱼ = ∂ᵢr · ∂ⱼr A geodesic q(t) = (x(t), y(t)) obeys q̈ᵏ + Γᵏᵢⱼ q̇ᶦq̇ʲ = 0 where Γᵏᵢⱼ are the Christoffel symbols of the surface metric. Launch many almost-parallel paths. At the start, they look like a clean beam until curvature takes over. Some paths focus, others separate and some slide around ridges. The surface is essentially the rulebook for motion. The shortest path is local. The geometry remembers everything. #DifferentialGeometry #Geodesics #RiemannianGeometry #MathematicalPhysics #Curvature #TensorCalculus #AppliedMathematics #Geometry #ScienceAnimation

Ever Heard of a Metric in Differential Geometry? How About a Geodesic? These two ideas are central to how Mathematics and Physics describe Spacetime. A metric is how a surface measures distance and angle. A geodesic is the path that counts as "straight" after that measuring rule is chosen. Once the metric changes from point to point, straightness is no longer something you judge by eye. On a curved surface, the shortest paths are geodesics. They are chosen by the metric. Take a surface written as r(x,y) = (x, y, f(x,y)) Its metric is gᵢⱼ = ∂ᵢr · ∂ⱼr A geodesic q(t) = (x(t), y(t)) obeys q̈ᵏ + Γᵏᵢⱼ q̇ᶦq̇ʲ = 0 where Γᵏᵢⱼ are the Christoffel symbols of the surface metric. Launch many almost-parallel paths. At the start, they look like a clean beam until curvature takes over. Some paths focus, others separate and some slide around ridges. The surface is essentially the rulebook for motion. The shortest path is local. The geometry remembers everything. #DifferentialGeometry #Geodesics #RiemannianGeometry #MathematicalPhysics #Curvature #TensorCalculus #AppliedMathematics #Geometry #ScienceAnimation

Mathelirium

22,170 views • 12 days ago

Venezuela Isn’t the Drug Problem. Wall Street Is. This does not have anything to do with drugs. Drugs are a $1 trillion yearly business run by an international cartel that we have called Dope Incorporated. It’s not the Cali cartel. It’s not the Sinaloa cartel. It is the City of London and Wall Street financial cartel. It’s $1 trillion a year. It’s the major banks. If you want to stop drugs, you have to stop drug money laundering, which is at the heart of the whole thing. — EIR News Service

Venezuela Isn’t the Drug Problem. Wall Street Is. This does not have anything to do with drugs. Drugs are a $1 trillion yearly business run by an international cartel that we have called Dope Incorporated. It’s not the Cali cartel. It’s not the Sinaloa cartel. It is the City of London and Wall Street financial cartel. It’s $1 trillion a year. It’s the major banks. If you want to stop drugs, you have to stop drug money laundering, which is at the heart of the whole thing. — EIR News Service

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

37,271 views • 7 months ago

Lecture 2 of our Physics-Informed Neural Networks mini-series. In Lecture 1 we made the idea visible...a neural network isn’t predicting a PDE solution, it is the candidate function uᵩ(x,t), and the PDE residual rᵩ(x,t) is the leash that keeps it honest. Now the natural question follows: How can a neural network be punished for breaking a PDE when nobody ever handed it the true solution, and the equation itself contains derivatives like uᵩₜₜ and uᵩₓₓ? Here’s the satisfying answer: A PINN doesn’t need the true answer to be corrected. It only needs a way to measure how wrong it is according to the PDE! The network outputs uᵩ(x,t). A software called "autodiff" is used to compute the derivatives (uᵩₓ, uᵩₜ, uᵩₓₓ, …) exactly by applying the chain rule through the network. Those derivatives get dropped into the PDE to produce rᵩ(x,t). If rᵩ is big at some point, the loss spikes there, and gradient descent pushes the parameters so that rᵩ shrinks. The math breakdown We want a function u(x,t) that satisfies a PDE on a domain Ω. In this lecture we keep a concrete nonlinear example in mind, the damped sine-Gordon equation uₜₜ(x,t) + γ uₜ(x,t) − c² uₓₓ(x,t) + sin(u(x,t)) = 0. A PINN replaces the unknown function u with a neural network uᵩ(x,t), where ᵩ means all the network parameters (weights and biases). Now we build the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = uᵩₜₜ(x,t) + γ uᵩₜ(x,t) − c² uᵩₓₓ(x,t) + sin(uᵩ(x,t)). If uᵩ were a true solution, rᵩ would be 0 everywhere. So we sample points (xⱼ,tⱼ) inside the domain. These are collocation points. At each one we evaluate rᵩ, and we define a physics loss L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|². This is the punishment mechanism. (Punish just means: if |rᵩ| is big, L_phys is big; training updates ᵩ to make L_phys smaller. Reward means the loss drops, so those parameter changes are kept.) The key question was where the derivatives come from. Since uᵩ is built out of differentiable operations, we can compute uᵩₜ(x,t), uᵩₜₜ(x,t), uᵩₓ(x,t), uᵩₓₓ(x,t), at any input (x,t) we choose. Imagine a simple differentiable model written as a sum of nonlinear features uᵩ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ( wₖx x + wₖt t + bₖ ) + b₀. Then the derivatives are just chain rule uᵩₓ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ′(·) wₖx uᵩₓₓ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ″(·) (wₖx)² uᵩₜ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ′(·) wₖt uᵩₜₜ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ″(·) (wₖt)². So rᵩ(x,t) is an explicit computable number at every (x,t). For the damped sine-Gordon example, it’s the same story, just with one extra nonlinear term: rᵩ(x,t) = [uᵩₜₜ(x,t) + γ uᵩₜ(x,t) − c² uᵩₓₓ(x,t)] + sin(uᵩ(x,t)). A real PINN is a deeper composition of these same building blocks, but it’s still just a chain rule, and autodiff is the machinery that does that bookkeeping reliably for big graphs. Then we train by gradient descent on the total loss. Even if we use only physics for the moment, the update is conceptually just ᵩ ← ᵩ − η ∇ᵩ L_phys(ᵩ), with learning rate η. In practice we also include initial/boundary conditions or data, because PDEs aren’t uniquely determined without them L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ), where L_bc/ic(ᵩ) enforces things like uᵩ(x,0) ≈ u₀(x) and uᵩₜ(x,0) ≈ v₀(x), or boundary conditions at x = ±L. So Lecture 2’s punchline is simple: the PDE becomes a training signal. We keep differentiating uᵩ, measuring rᵩ, and updating ᵩ until the residual goes quiet across Ω. #PINNs #PhysicsInformedNeuralNetworks #ScientificMachineLearning #AutoDiff #Backpropagation #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

Lecture 2 of our Physics-Informed Neural Networks mini-series. In Lecture 1 we made the idea visible...a neural network isn’t predicting a PDE solution, it is the candidate function uᵩ(x,t), and the PDE residual rᵩ(x,t) is the leash that keeps it honest. Now the natural question follows: How can a neural network be punished for breaking a PDE when nobody ever handed it the true solution, and the equation itself contains derivatives like uᵩₜₜ and uᵩₓₓ? Here’s the satisfying answer: A PINN doesn’t need the true answer to be corrected. It only needs a way to measure how wrong it is according to the PDE! The network outputs uᵩ(x,t). A software called "autodiff" is used to compute the derivatives (uᵩₓ, uᵩₜ, uᵩₓₓ, …) exactly by applying the chain rule through the network. Those derivatives get dropped into the PDE to produce rᵩ(x,t). If rᵩ is big at some point, the loss spikes there, and gradient descent pushes the parameters so that rᵩ shrinks. The math breakdown We want a function u(x,t) that satisfies a PDE on a domain Ω. In this lecture we keep a concrete nonlinear example in mind, the damped sine-Gordon equation uₜₜ(x,t) + γ uₜ(x,t) − c² uₓₓ(x,t) + sin(u(x,t)) = 0. A PINN replaces the unknown function u with a neural network uᵩ(x,t), where ᵩ means all the network parameters (weights and biases). Now we build the physics residual by plugging uᵩ into the PDE rᵩ(x,t) = uᵩₜₜ(x,t) + γ uᵩₜ(x,t) − c² uᵩₓₓ(x,t) + sin(uᵩ(x,t)). If uᵩ were a true solution, rᵩ would be 0 everywhere. So we sample points (xⱼ,tⱼ) inside the domain. These are collocation points. At each one we evaluate rᵩ, and we define a physics loss L_phys(ᵩ) = meanⱼ |rᵩ(xⱼ,tⱼ)|². This is the punishment mechanism. (Punish just means: if |rᵩ| is big, L_phys is big; training updates ᵩ to make L_phys smaller. Reward means the loss drops, so those parameter changes are kept.) The key question was where the derivatives come from. Since uᵩ is built out of differentiable operations, we can compute uᵩₜ(x,t), uᵩₜₜ(x,t), uᵩₓ(x,t), uᵩₓₓ(x,t), at any input (x,t) we choose. Imagine a simple differentiable model written as a sum of nonlinear features uᵩ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ( wₖx x + wₖt t + bₖ ) + b₀. Then the derivatives are just chain rule uᵩₓ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ′(·) wₖx uᵩₓₓ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ″(·) (wₖx)² uᵩₜ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ′(·) wₖt uᵩₜₜ(x,t) = Σₖ vₖ σ″(·) (wₖt)². So rᵩ(x,t) is an explicit computable number at every (x,t). For the damped sine-Gordon example, it’s the same story, just with one extra nonlinear term: rᵩ(x,t) = [uᵩₜₜ(x,t) + γ uᵩₜ(x,t) − c² uᵩₓₓ(x,t)] + sin(uᵩ(x,t)). A real PINN is a deeper composition of these same building blocks, but it’s still just a chain rule, and autodiff is the machinery that does that bookkeeping reliably for big graphs. Then we train by gradient descent on the total loss. Even if we use only physics for the moment, the update is conceptually just ᵩ ← ᵩ − η ∇ᵩ L_phys(ᵩ), with learning rate η. In practice we also include initial/boundary conditions or data, because PDEs aren’t uniquely determined without them L(ᵩ) = L_data(ᵩ) + λ L_phys(ᵩ) + L_bc/ic(ᵩ), where L_bc/ic(ᵩ) enforces things like uᵩ(x,0) ≈ u₀(x) and uᵩₜ(x,0) ≈ v₀(x), or boundary conditions at x = ±L. So Lecture 2’s punchline is simple: the PDE becomes a training signal. We keep differentiating uᵩ, measuring rᵩ, and updating ᵩ until the residual goes quiet across Ω. #PINNs #PhysicsInformedNeuralNetworks #ScientificMachineLearning #AutoDiff #Backpropagation #PDE #DifferentialEquations #Optimization #MachineLearning #AppliedMath #ComputationalPhysics

Mathelirium

19,977 views • 5 months ago

The Elusive Concept of Time. Your instincts treat time like a background meter the whole universe shares. Relativity does not take time away, it forces you to earn it operationally. Events are points. Motion is a curve through them. A clock is not a metaphor, it is a worldline with a number attached to it. Two observers can disagree on which distant events are simultaneous, and nothing contradictory happens, because causal structure is still pinned down by light cones and invariants. Even in weak gravity the rule shows up. A clock deeper in a gravitational potential ticks more slowly relative to one far away. Near a compact object the difference becomes hard to ignore. Add rotation and spacetime itself picks up a twist. That twist is frame dragging, not a new force, just geometry telling you that time and angle are coupled in a rotating spacetime. In the animation You are watching a geometry lesson disguised as a black hole scene. The fabric is a visualization of the field shaping clock-rates and the paths light can take. The ripples are driven by local proper time, so their phase visibly slows as you approach the horizon. The accretion disk is lensed through Kerr ray tracing, and its brightness is pushed by redshift and beaming so the approaching side can flare while the receding side dims. Beacon points at different radii pulse at different rates, so you can see time dilation without any labels. The bead ring is a redshift tracer, with intensity scaled by a g³ proxy so deeper emission arrives weaker and shifted. The math breakdown Start with what a clock actually measures. Proper time τ is the accumulated time along an observer’s worldline. In special relativity, the invariant interval is ds² = c² dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² Along a timelike path, dτ = (1/c) √(ds²) = √( dt² − (1/c²)(dx²+dy²+dz²) ) If the observer moves with speed v, so dx²+dy²+dy²+dz² = v² dt², then dτ = dt √(1 − v²/c²) That is time dilation as geometry. The moving clock accumulates less τ between the same pair of events. Now add gravity. General relativity replaces the flat interval with a metric gᵤᵥ that depends on position: ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ For a stationary clock in Schwarzschild geometry (mass M), the time component is g_tt = −(1 − 2GM/(rc²)) If the clock sits at fixed r (no spatial motion), ds² = g_tt c² dt², so dτ = dt √(1 − 2GM/(rc²)) Closer to the mass means a smaller factor, so the clock ticks more slowly relative to a clock far away. That is the rule used to drive the fabric phase in the animation. Now connect time to light. A gravitational field shifts photon frequency. Between an emitter at rₑ and an observer at rₒ, f_obs / f_emit = √( (1 − 2GM/(rₑ c²)) / (1 − 2GM/(rₒ c²)) ) For a far-away observer rₒ → ∞, f_obs / f_emit = √(1 − 2GM/(rₑ c²)) Deeper emission arrives redshifted. Lower frequency. Lower energy per photon. In the render, the disk intensity uses a Kerr-derived redshift factor g (clipped for stability). The bead ring uses a simple radiative proxy I_obs ∝ g³ I_emit to make that effect visible. Finally, why rotation looks like a twist. A rotating black hole is Kerr geometry. The key structural change is a nonzero g_tφ term, which couples time to angle. That coupling is frame dragging in equations. Near the hole, being stationary is not the same notion everywhere, because the local inertial frames are being pulled around the spin axis. So the moral stays clean. Time is not a universal substance flowing everywhere at one rate. It is what clocks accumulate along worldlines. Light cones constrain what can influence what. Invariants are what everyone agrees on. The rest is operational detail that only feels universal because our daily corner of the universe is slow and mild. #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #FrameDragging #BlackHoles #Spacetime

The Elusive Concept of Time. Your instincts treat time like a background meter the whole universe shares. Relativity does not take time away, it forces you to earn it operationally. Events are points. Motion is a curve through them. A clock is not a metaphor, it is a worldline with a number attached to it. Two observers can disagree on which distant events are simultaneous, and nothing contradictory happens, because causal structure is still pinned down by light cones and invariants. Even in weak gravity the rule shows up. A clock deeper in a gravitational potential ticks more slowly relative to one far away. Near a compact object the difference becomes hard to ignore. Add rotation and spacetime itself picks up a twist. That twist is frame dragging, not a new force, just geometry telling you that time and angle are coupled in a rotating spacetime. In the animation You are watching a geometry lesson disguised as a black hole scene. The fabric is a visualization of the field shaping clock-rates and the paths light can take. The ripples are driven by local proper time, so their phase visibly slows as you approach the horizon. The accretion disk is lensed through Kerr ray tracing, and its brightness is pushed by redshift and beaming so the approaching side can flare while the receding side dims. Beacon points at different radii pulse at different rates, so you can see time dilation without any labels. The bead ring is a redshift tracer, with intensity scaled by a g³ proxy so deeper emission arrives weaker and shifted. The math breakdown Start with what a clock actually measures. Proper time τ is the accumulated time along an observer’s worldline. In special relativity, the invariant interval is ds² = c² dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² Along a timelike path, dτ = (1/c) √(ds²) = √( dt² − (1/c²)(dx²+dy²+dz²) ) If the observer moves with speed v, so dx²+dy²+dy²+dz² = v² dt², then dτ = dt √(1 − v²/c²) That is time dilation as geometry. The moving clock accumulates less τ between the same pair of events. Now add gravity. General relativity replaces the flat interval with a metric gᵤᵥ that depends on position: ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ For a stationary clock in Schwarzschild geometry (mass M), the time component is g_tt = −(1 − 2GM/(rc²)) If the clock sits at fixed r (no spatial motion), ds² = g_tt c² dt², so dτ = dt √(1 − 2GM/(rc²)) Closer to the mass means a smaller factor, so the clock ticks more slowly relative to a clock far away. That is the rule used to drive the fabric phase in the animation. Now connect time to light. A gravitational field shifts photon frequency. Between an emitter at rₑ and an observer at rₒ, f_obs / f_emit = √( (1 − 2GM/(rₑ c²)) / (1 − 2GM/(rₒ c²)) ) For a far-away observer rₒ → ∞, f_obs / f_emit = √(1 − 2GM/(rₑ c²)) Deeper emission arrives redshifted. Lower frequency. Lower energy per photon. In the render, the disk intensity uses a Kerr-derived redshift factor g (clipped for stability). The bead ring uses a simple radiative proxy I_obs ∝ g³ I_emit to make that effect visible. Finally, why rotation looks like a twist. A rotating black hole is Kerr geometry. The key structural change is a nonzero g_tφ term, which couples time to angle. That coupling is frame dragging in equations. Near the hole, being stationary is not the same notion everywhere, because the local inertial frames are being pulled around the spin axis. So the moral stays clean. Time is not a universal substance flowing everywhere at one rate. It is what clocks accumulate along worldlines. Light cones constrain what can influence what. Invariants are what everyone agrees on. The rest is operational detail that only feels universal because our daily corner of the universe is slow and mild. #GeneralRelativity #Gravity #FrameDragging #BlackHoles #Spacetime

Mathelirium

149,517 views • 5 months ago

In a world obsessed with optimization, Eric Weinstein offers a radical counter-narrative: the things we’re trying to optimize for are already over. The cities we flock to? Over. The professions we train for? Over. The relentless grind to become “world-class”? A dangerous mirage. A tsunami of change is coming, and the old maps won’t help you navigate it. The only true preparation is to cultivate flexibility, to learn how to think across disciplines, and to build capacity—not for a specific end, but for its own sake. But then what? You’ve optimized your health, your productivity, your feed. Now what? Weinstein argues we’re asking the wrong question. The goal isn’t to win a race that might not exist tomorrow. The goal is to find meaning, and it’s hiding in plain sight. It’s in the chaotic joy of raising children—an “unbeatable” experience he mourns the end of. It’s in the simple, profound pleasure of a perfect mango or a custard apple, a luxury no private jet can provide. It’s in the transcendent beauty of Pablo Casals playing Bach, available to anyone with a Spotify account. Real wealth isn’t in optimization; it’s in the richness of experience. It’s in family, in art, in the taste of exotic fruit. It’s in recognizing that meaning is everywhere—you simply have to choose to see it. You can swing a cat and hit it. The real challenge isn’t finding meaning, but remembering to look.

In a world obsessed with optimization, Eric Weinstein offers a radical counter-narrative: the things we’re trying to optimize for are already over. The cities we flock to? Over. The professions we train for? Over. The relentless grind to become “world-class”? A dangerous mirage. A tsunami of change is coming, and the old maps won’t help you navigate it. The only true preparation is to cultivate flexibility, to learn how to think across disciplines, and to build capacity—not for a specific end, but for its own sake. But then what? You’ve optimized your health, your productivity, your feed. Now what? Weinstein argues we’re asking the wrong question. The goal isn’t to win a race that might not exist tomorrow. The goal is to find meaning, and it’s hiding in plain sight. It’s in the chaotic joy of raising children—an “unbeatable” experience he mourns the end of. It’s in the simple, profound pleasure of a perfect mango or a custard apple, a luxury no private jet can provide. It’s in the transcendent beauty of Pablo Casals playing Bach, available to anyone with a Spotify account. Real wealth isn’t in optimization; it’s in the richness of experience. It’s in family, in art, in the taste of exotic fruit. It’s in recognizing that meaning is everywhere—you simply have to choose to see it. You can swing a cat and hit it. The real challenge isn’t finding meaning, but remembering to look.

Camus

41,173 views • 10 months ago

“You know what we haven’t done in a long time is ask that age-old question: If you’re batting and you hit a ball into the outfield and a pig runs out and gobbles the ball up, how is that scored? And the answer of course is it’s an inside-the-pork home run.” — Skip Caray

“You know what we haven’t done in a long time is ask that age-old question: If you’re batting and you hit a ball into the outfield and a pig runs out and gobbles the ball up, how is that scored? And the answer of course is it’s an inside-the-pork home run.” — Skip Caray

Braves on TBS

16,041 views • 7 months ago

Former Fox News host Geraldo Rivera: “By focusing on the censorship aspect and the First Amendment aspect, it’s losing sight of what should be the lead and that’s that Jimmy Kimmel owes the family of Charlie Kirk and his wife Erika, two small children, an apology. You know, you know, what’s he saying? That if you’re if you’re a member of MAGA and Charlie is a friend of MAG, of MAGA, then he had it coming. It’s just — it’s — it’s in some ways — it’s very — it’s — extremely — extremely insensitive. The country is in a country is in a very tough spot right now. Everyone is walking on eggshells. The First Amendment is not a license to incite hatred and, you know, I think that we can think that we can start the discussion once Jimmy Kimmel apologizes, then they can talk about the business aspects and whether or not he gets whether or not he gets back on the schedule and so forth, but there’s got to there’s got to be a recognition that a terrible thing has happened here, and that millions of Americans are grievously hurt by what happened. You know, there is a — Charlie Kirk was beloved by many. And to just trample over it. He’s not even buried yet for goodness sake. And to make fun of the flags at half staff and so forth. I just half staff and so forth. I just think that we’ve got to look at it with a — with a notion that the country has to be healed, that we have to work to bring people together, that we need to respect each other. You know, we don’t have to agree, but we have to respect. And I think that, you know, the audience has deserted him for a good reason.”

Former Fox News host Geraldo Rivera: “By focusing on the censorship aspect and the First Amendment aspect, it’s losing sight of what should be the lead and that’s that Jimmy Kimmel owes the family of Charlie Kirk and his wife Erika, two small children, an apology. You know, you know, what’s he saying? That if you’re if you’re a member of MAGA and Charlie is a friend of MAG, of MAGA, then he had it coming. It’s just — it’s — it’s in some ways — it’s very — it’s — extremely — extremely insensitive. The country is in a country is in a very tough spot right now. Everyone is walking on eggshells. The First Amendment is not a license to incite hatred and, you know, I think that we can think that we can start the discussion once Jimmy Kimmel apologizes, then they can talk about the business aspects and whether or not he gets whether or not he gets back on the schedule and so forth, but there’s got to there’s got to be a recognition that a terrible thing has happened here, and that millions of Americans are grievously hurt by what happened. You know, there is a — Charlie Kirk was beloved by many. And to just trample over it. He’s not even buried yet for goodness sake. And to make fun of the flags at half staff and so forth. I just half staff and so forth. I just think that we’ve got to look at it with a — with a notion that the country has to be healed, that we have to work to bring people together, that we need to respect each other. You know, we don’t have to agree, but we have to respect. And I think that, you know, the audience has deserted him for a good reason.”

Curtis Houck

825,225 views • 9 months ago