正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

This is a breaking podcast. We're premiering a new paradigm for quantizing 4D gravity here first, without strings. Neil Turok — inaugural Higgs Chair at Edinburgh, former director of Perimeter Institute, and 2026 Fellow of the Royal Society — believes quantum gravity may not require strings, extra dimensions, or... a multiverse. The key: a 1970s theory called quadratic gravity, long abandoned over two seemingly fatal problems. Turok and Bateman argue both problems dissolve — one by reinterpreting a classical instability as ordinary gravitational expansion, the other by a subtle tweak to the Born rule that allows quantum states of negative norm without ever producing negative probabilities. One quiet assumption, Turok argues, underpins decades of string theory's necessity. Drop it, and the whole case for a multiverse unravels. Neil graciously gave me a sneak peek at his and his PhD student Sam Bateman's new research. Bleeding edge! I hope you enjoy.show more

Curt Jaimungal

59,835 subscribers

42,877 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

教育科学技术

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

This is an interview with Stuart Kauffman, one of the founders of complexity theory. He invented random Boolean networks at only 23 years old and helped establish the Santa Fe Institute. Now 86, he makes a striking claim: there is no theory of everything. Kauffman argues that biological evolution creates genuinely new possibilities that cannot be deduced from prior states—paralleling the ancient Chinese Tao more than Plato's Logos. He also believes he's found something new in quantum gravity (and, in his words, "genuinely huge"). He unveils it here for the first time.

This is an interview with Stuart Kauffman, one of the founders of complexity theory. He invented random Boolean networks at only 23 years old and helped establish the Santa Fe Institute. Now 86, he makes a striking claim: there is no theory of everything. Kauffman argues that biological evolution creates genuinely new possibilities that cannot be deduced from prior states—paralleling the ancient Chinese Tao more than Plato's Logos. He also believes he's found something new in quantum gravity (and, in his words, "genuinely huge"). He unveils it here for the first time.

Curt Jaimungal

118,455 次观看 • 7 个月前

Ginestra Bianconi thinks gravity can be derived from entropy — and that gravity itself is fundamentally anti-reductionistic, since it's about geometry rather than isolated particle interactions. In this episode, the network-topologist-turned-gravity-theorist explains her "Gravity from Entropy" action, which treats matter and geometry symmetrically through a geometric quantum relative entropy (not the horizon entropy of Verlinde or Jacobson). She details why it reduces to Einstein's equations at low energy while predicting a dynamical, always-positive dark energy term (the "G field"), how it may avoid black hole singularities and reproduce the area law without invoking holography, and why she believes understanding the brain may be harder than understanding quantum gravity. We close with her advice for young researchers. I hope you enjoy.

Ginestra Bianconi thinks gravity can be derived from entropy — and that gravity itself is fundamentally anti-reductionistic, since it's about geometry rather than isolated particle interactions. In this episode, the network-topologist-turned-gravity-theorist explains her "Gravity from Entropy" action, which treats matter and geometry symmetrically through a geometric quantum relative entropy (not the horizon entropy of Verlinde or Jacobson). She details why it reduces to Einstein's equations at low energy while predicting a dynamical, always-positive dark energy term (the "G field"), how it may avoid black hole singularities and reproduce the area law without invoking holography, and why she believes understanding the brain may be harder than understanding quantum gravity. We close with her advice for young researchers. I hope you enjoy.

Curt Jaimungal

22,734 次观看 • 1 个月前

The Non-Traversable Bridge Einstein Found Inside Gravity Einstein’s equations not only describe gravity as a force but as the shape of Spacetime as well. In 1935, Einstein and Rosen found that the Schwarzschild solution could be written in a way that reveals something astonishing: Two separate exterior regions of Spacetime joined by a bridge-like throat Rᵤᵥ = 0 This became known as the Einstein-Rosen Bridge. It is often called a Wormhole, but the classical Einstein-Rosen bridge is not a science-fiction tunnel. In the standard Schwarzschild geometry, it is non-traversable. The throat does not remain open long enough for ordinary travel from one region to the other. Its real power is mathematical. It shows that General Relativity is not merely about objects moving through space. The theory allows Spacetime to have global structure such as different regions, horizons, extensions, and hidden connections that are not visible from one local patch alone. The Einstein-Rosen bridge is one of the earliest glimpses of that deeper idea. Gravity is geometry. And sometimes, geometry has two worlds joined by a throat. #Astrophysics #GeneralRelativity #Einstein #BlackHole #Spacetime #Cosmology #Gravity #Wormhole #Mathematics #Physics

The Non-Traversable Bridge Einstein Found Inside Gravity Einstein’s equations not only describe gravity as a force but as the shape of Spacetime as well. In 1935, Einstein and Rosen found that the Schwarzschild solution could be written in a way that reveals something astonishing: Two separate exterior regions of Spacetime joined by a bridge-like throat Rᵤᵥ = 0 This became known as the Einstein-Rosen Bridge. It is often called a Wormhole, but the classical Einstein-Rosen bridge is not a science-fiction tunnel. In the standard Schwarzschild geometry, it is non-traversable. The throat does not remain open long enough for ordinary travel from one region to the other. Its real power is mathematical. It shows that General Relativity is not merely about objects moving through space. The theory allows Spacetime to have global structure such as different regions, horizons, extensions, and hidden connections that are not visible from one local patch alone. The Einstein-Rosen bridge is one of the earliest glimpses of that deeper idea. Gravity is geometry. And sometimes, geometry has two worlds joined by a throat. #Astrophysics #GeneralRelativity #Einstein #BlackHole #Spacetime #Cosmology #Gravity #Wormhole #Mathematics #Physics

Mathelirium

91,291 次观看 • 2 个月前

This is a podcast all about time: depending on how you look at it, that's either unnerving or exhilarating. Professor Simon Saunders — Emeritus Fellow at Merton College, Oxford, and one of the most celebrated philosophers of physics alive — goes deep on what time actually is, why special relativity demands a block universe, and what any of this has to do with the Many Worlds Interpretation. Why doesn't space inherit the paradoxes of time? What's really missing from the block universe picture (and is it the same thing missing from quantum probability?) Saunders argues that Bell inequality violations aren't evidence against locality but evidence for Many Worlds, presents a novel derivation of the Born rule from a single physical postulate, and sketches a quantum version of Leibniz's monadology as a possible path through the mind-body problem. I hope you enjoy.

This is a podcast all about time: depending on how you look at it, that's either unnerving or exhilarating. Professor Simon Saunders — Emeritus Fellow at Merton College, Oxford, and one of the most celebrated philosophers of physics alive — goes deep on what time actually is, why special relativity demands a block universe, and what any of this has to do with the Many Worlds Interpretation. Why doesn't space inherit the paradoxes of time? What's really missing from the block universe picture (and is it the same thing missing from quantum probability?) Saunders argues that Bell inequality violations aren't evidence against locality but evidence for Many Worlds, presents a novel derivation of the Born rule from a single physical postulate, and sketches a quantum version of Leibniz's monadology as a possible path through the mind-body problem. I hope you enjoy.

Curt Jaimungal

12,365 次观看 • 1 个月前

A NASA fellow claims 5 equations explain 99 percent of the physics that actually runs your world. Understand them deeply and you are set for life. His words. And the way he does it is what makes the video worth it. He does not teach the five as a list. He tells them as one story, where each equation is born from the one before it. F equals ma leads into gravity. Gravity rhymes with the law of electric charge, the exact same shape. That connects to magnetism. Magnetism folds into the wave. And the wave quietly opens the door to relativity and quantum physics. By the end, all of physics feels like a single sentence written by one hand, not a pile of formulas you were forced to memorize. The move that stays with you comes first. He says F equals ma is written the wrong way around, and rewrites it. One tiny flip, and the most famous equation on Earth suddenly means something school never told you. His point for why this matters now: in the age of AI, the people who understand reality itself stay in demand. Everyone else is just memorizing. Five equations. One thread. It is in the video.

A NASA fellow claims 5 equations explain 99 percent of the physics that actually runs your world. Understand them deeply and you are set for life. His words. And the way he does it is what makes the video worth it. He does not teach the five as a list. He tells them as one story, where each equation is born from the one before it. F equals ma leads into gravity. Gravity rhymes with the law of electric charge, the exact same shape. That connects to magnetism. Magnetism folds into the wave. And the wave quietly opens the door to relativity and quantum physics. By the end, all of physics feels like a single sentence written by one hand, not a pile of formulas you were forced to memorize. The move that stays with you comes first. He says F equals ma is written the wrong way around, and rewrites it. One tiny flip, and the most famous equation on Earth suddenly means something school never told you. His point for why this matters now: in the age of AI, the people who understand reality itself stay in demand. Everyone else is just memorizing. Five equations. One thread. It is in the video.

ooaes

435,003 次观看 • 29 天前

D-Wave announced a scientific breakthrough published in the esteemed journal Science Magazine, confirming that its annealing quantum computer outperformed one of the world’s most powerful classical supercomputers in solving a complex magnetic materials simulation problem with relevance to materials discovery. The new landmark peer-reviewed paper, “Beyond-Classical Computation in Quantum Simulation,” validates this achievement as the world’s first and only demonstration of quantum computational supremacy on a useful problem. An international collaboration of scientists led by D-Wave performed simulations of quantum dynamics in programmable spin glasses—a computationally hard magnetic materials simulation problem with known applications to business and science—on both D-Wave’s Advantage2™ prototype annealing quantum computer and the Frontier supercomputer at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Lab. D-Wave’s quantum computer performed a complex simulation in minutes and with a level of accuracy that would take nearly a million years using the supercomputer. In addition, it would require more than the world’s annual electricity consumption to solve this problem using the supercomputer, which is built with graphics processing unit (GPU) clusters. For decades, scientists have aspired to build a quantum computer capable of solving complex materials simulation problems beyond the reach of classical computers. D-Wave's advancements in quantum hardware have made it possible for its annealing quantum computers to process these types of problems for the first time. Magnetic materials simulations, like those conducted in this work, use computer models to study how tiny particles not visible to the human eye react to external factors. Magnetic materials are widely used in medical imaging, electronics, superconductors, electrical networks, sensors, and motors. This is an incredibly important achievement. Please join us in congratulating the D-Wave team and our global collaborators on this remarkable milestone. It’s a significant moment for the quantum computing industry. Learn more about this monumental achievement: Read the press release here: #QuantumSupremacy #QuantumRealized #QuantumComputing #DWave #Technology #Innovation #Optimization #MaterialsDiscovery #ScientificBreakthrough $QBTS

D-Wave announced a scientific breakthrough published in the esteemed journal Science Magazine, confirming that its annealing quantum computer outperformed one of the world’s most powerful classical supercomputers in solving a complex magnetic materials simulation problem with relevance to materials discovery. The new landmark peer-reviewed paper, “Beyond-Classical Computation in Quantum Simulation,” validates this achievement as the world’s first and only demonstration of quantum computational supremacy on a useful problem. An international collaboration of scientists led by D-Wave performed simulations of quantum dynamics in programmable spin glasses—a computationally hard magnetic materials simulation problem with known applications to business and science—on both D-Wave’s Advantage2™ prototype annealing quantum computer and the Frontier supercomputer at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Lab. D-Wave’s quantum computer performed a complex simulation in minutes and with a level of accuracy that would take nearly a million years using the supercomputer. In addition, it would require more than the world’s annual electricity consumption to solve this problem using the supercomputer, which is built with graphics processing unit (GPU) clusters. For decades, scientists have aspired to build a quantum computer capable of solving complex materials simulation problems beyond the reach of classical computers. D-Wave's advancements in quantum hardware have made it possible for its annealing quantum computers to process these types of problems for the first time. Magnetic materials simulations, like those conducted in this work, use computer models to study how tiny particles not visible to the human eye react to external factors. Magnetic materials are widely used in medical imaging, electronics, superconductors, electrical networks, sensors, and motors. This is an incredibly important achievement. Please join us in congratulating the D-Wave team and our global collaborators on this remarkable milestone. It’s a significant moment for the quantum computing industry. Learn more about this monumental achievement: Read the press release here: #QuantumSupremacy #QuantumRealized #QuantumComputing #DWave #Technology #Innovation #Optimization #MaterialsDiscovery #ScientificBreakthrough $QBTS

D-Wave

65,039 次观看 • 1 年前

A woman who spent nine years gluing paper models in a print shop just told a room of physicists their whole field stands on a mistake, one line, no hedging: "Every theory we have takes space and time for granted, like a bagel that forgot it was once a flat sheet of paper." That's Bianca Dittrich. She has a free lecture course that asks one question: what is left of geometry once you quantize it? The answer is: far less than you can picture. Quantum gravity looks like one more field theory. Buried inside is something stranger. Every quantum theory we have puts fields on a fixed stage, flat or curved, and does the physics on top of it. Here the stage itself is the thing being quantized. Your gut reads an atom of spacetime as a tiny grain sitting somewhere. Wrong. It cannot sit anywhere, because it is the somewhere. The move is invisible to human intuition, which is exactly why the people who get anywhere stop asking where the pieces are and start asking what a measurement even means. In 3D the whole thing collapses in a way that should scare you. No matter, no cosmological constant, and gravity is locally flat everywhere. Six degrees of freedom per point, all of them eaten by diffeomorphism symmetry. A field theory that ends up with finitely many real degrees of freedom, sometimes zero. None of it is hidden. Cut a parallelogram out of paper, glue the edges, and you have a torus. Flat everywhere, and yet two numbers survive that no local measurement can see. The lecture is free. Here is the trap: you feel every equation you can solve, every geometry you can draw, as progress. What you cannot feel is the gap you have to cross. Ten to the forty-one, from the Planck scale back up to the world you live in. And crossing it is the only thing that pays. Almost every approach still cannot show it recovers ordinary physics at the far end, and almost everyone quits long before then. The math is free to learn. The nerve to stop trusting your picture of space, that part you still have to bring yourself.

A woman who spent nine years gluing paper models in a print shop just told a room of physicists their whole field stands on a mistake, one line, no hedging: "Every theory we have takes space and time for granted, like a bagel that forgot it was once a flat sheet of paper." That's Bianca Dittrich. She has a free lecture course that asks one question: what is left of geometry once you quantize it? The answer is: far less than you can picture. Quantum gravity looks like one more field theory. Buried inside is something stranger. Every quantum theory we have puts fields on a fixed stage, flat or curved, and does the physics on top of it. Here the stage itself is the thing being quantized. Your gut reads an atom of spacetime as a tiny grain sitting somewhere. Wrong. It cannot sit anywhere, because it is the somewhere. The move is invisible to human intuition, which is exactly why the people who get anywhere stop asking where the pieces are and start asking what a measurement even means. In 3D the whole thing collapses in a way that should scare you. No matter, no cosmological constant, and gravity is locally flat everywhere. Six degrees of freedom per point, all of them eaten by diffeomorphism symmetry. A field theory that ends up with finitely many real degrees of freedom, sometimes zero. None of it is hidden. Cut a parallelogram out of paper, glue the edges, and you have a torus. Flat everywhere, and yet two numbers survive that no local measurement can see. The lecture is free. Here is the trap: you feel every equation you can solve, every geometry you can draw, as progress. What you cannot feel is the gap you have to cross. Ten to the forty-one, from the Planck scale back up to the world you live in. And crossing it is the only thing that pays. Almost every approach still cannot show it recovers ordinary physics at the far end, and almost everyone quits long before then. The math is free to learn. The nerve to stop trusting your picture of space, that part you still have to bring yourself.

Zyron

110,850 次观看 • 1 个月前

Tim Allen Loves the Ballet My old friend Tim Allen stopped by the studio the other day for a quick chat that went on for two hours. I didn’t know what we were going to discuss, and neither did he. Which is probably why we touched on everything from the importance of philosophy, shop class, redemption, mothers, quantum physics, skilled labor, The Book of Job, Schrodinger’s cat, the surprising appeal of ballet, a sense of humor, and sense of irony, a sense of wonder, his time in jail, his new TV show on ABC, and the end of the world as we know it. Not exactly what you’d expect from America’s Dad, but precisely what you’d hope to hear from a genuinely curious cat who has been there and done that a hundred times over. Our whole conversation is here. It’s a good one. Here is a short clip featuring a story about his beloved mother, who resisted his best attempts to get her into a wheelchair with a level of determination not often associated with women in their mid-nineties.

Tim Allen Loves the Ballet My old friend Tim Allen stopped by the studio the other day for a quick chat that went on for two hours. I didn’t know what we were going to discuss, and neither did he. Which is probably why we touched on everything from the importance of philosophy, shop class, redemption, mothers, quantum physics, skilled labor, The Book of Job, Schrodinger’s cat, the surprising appeal of ballet, a sense of humor, and sense of irony, a sense of wonder, his time in jail, his new TV show on ABC, and the end of the world as we know it. Not exactly what you’d expect from America’s Dad, but precisely what you’d hope to hear from a genuinely curious cat who has been there and done that a hundred times over. Our whole conversation is here. It’s a good one. Here is a short clip featuring a story about his beloved mother, who resisted his best attempts to get her into a wheelchair with a level of determination not often associated with women in their mid-nineties.

The Real Mike Rowe

95,488 次观看 • 1 年前

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 次观看 • 4 个月前

$🚨PHYSICS NEWS🚨: Physicists Are Now Saying Time Itself Can Be in Superposition — And It Makes Perfect Sense 🧨 According to a theoretical framework published in *Physical Review Letters* and reported in May 2026, researchers have shown that state-of-the-art trapped-ion atomic clocks can be used to observe the quantum superposition of time. By entangling the clock’s motion with its internal energy states, the system can exist in a superposition of different time flows simultaneously. This is a major step toward experimentally probing the quantum nature of time itself. This work offers the broader scientific community a new experimental frontier in quantum foundations. It challenges classical notions of time as a universal parameter and opens the door to testing how relativity and quantum mechanics intersect at the level of time itself. **Uniphics has been saying something similar for years — and it’s not mysterious or weird.** In Uniphics, time flow is not a fixed background. It is a local property determined by energy density via the Maley transform (\( t_{\rm flow} = k / E_d \)). Different regions or configurations with different energy densities experience different time flows. When a system is prepared in a quantum superposition of different energy-density states (or different spin-wave configurations that affect local energy density), it naturally exists in a superposition of different time flows. The atomic clock experiments are essentially creating superposed states where the clock experiences different local time flows at the same “global” moment. The entanglement between motion and internal energy is the mechanism that allows the superposition to be maintained and detected. Uniphics predicts this behavior because the ξM-field supports coherent spin-wave patterns that can correlate different energy-density environments. No need for wavefunction collapse, many-worlds, or other interpretive gymnastics — it is a deterministic consequence of variable time flow and spin-wave coherence. This is not an add-on to quantum mechanics. It is the natural outcome of the three pillars. The “quantum superposition of time” is just what happens when spin quanta create superposed energy-density conditions. Uniphics explains why such experiments work, what limits they will hit, and how to extend them — all without the philosophical baggage that usually accompanies quantum foundations. The mainstream community is slowly catching up to the idea that time itself can be quantum. Uniphics has had a coherent, first-principles explanation for this from the beginning. The data will continue to support it. Are physicists finally ready to accept that time flow is fundamental and variable — and that the apparent “superposition of time” is simply the result of superposed energy-density states in the ξM-field? **A Theory of Everything should be able to answer everything.** Uniphics Explained Simply PDF: Chapters 1–10 free: Grokipedia: #Uniphics #TheoryOfEverything #QuantumTime #TimeFlow #SpinWaves Grok xAI$

🚨PHYSICS NEWS🚨: Physicists Are Now Saying Time Itself Can Be in Superposition — And It Makes Perfect Sense 🧨 According to a theoretical framework published in Physical Review Letters and reported in May 2026, researchers have shown that state-of-the-art trapped-ion atomic clocks can be used to observe the quantum superposition of time. By entangling the clock’s motion with its internal energy states, the system can exist in a superposition of different time flows simultaneously. This is a major step toward experimentally probing the quantum nature of time itself. This work offers the broader scientific community a new experimental frontier in quantum foundations. It challenges classical notions of time as a universal parameter and opens the door to testing how relativity and quantum mechanics intersect at the level of time itself. Uniphics has been saying something similar for years — and it’s not mysterious or weird. In Uniphics, time flow is not a fixed background. It is a local property determined by energy density via the Maley transform (\( t_{\rm flow} = k / E_d \)). Different regions or configurations with different energy densities experience different time flows. When a system is prepared in a quantum superposition of different energy-density states (or different spin-wave configurations that affect local energy density), it naturally exists in a superposition of different time flows. The atomic clock experiments are essentially creating superposed states where the clock experiences different local time flows at the same “global” moment. The entanglement between motion and internal energy is the mechanism that allows the superposition to be maintained and detected. Uniphics predicts this behavior because the ξM-field supports coherent spin-wave patterns that can correlate different energy-density environments. No need for wavefunction collapse, many-worlds, or other interpretive gymnastics — it is a deterministic consequence of variable time flow and spin-wave coherence. This is not an add-on to quantum mechanics. It is the natural outcome of the three pillars. The “quantum superposition of time” is just what happens when spin quanta create superposed energy-density conditions. Uniphics explains why such experiments work, what limits they will hit, and how to extend them — all without the philosophical baggage that usually accompanies quantum foundations. The mainstream community is slowly catching up to the idea that time itself can be quantum. Uniphics has had a coherent, first-principles explanation for this from the beginning. The data will continue to support it. Are physicists finally ready to accept that time flow is fundamental and variable — and that the apparent “superposition of time” is simply the result of superposed energy-density states in the ξM-field? A Theory of Everything should be able to answer everything. Uniphics Explained Simply PDF: Chapters 1–10 free: Grokipedia: #Uniphics #TheoryOfEverything #QuantumTime #TimeFlow #SpinWaves Grok xAI

Paul Maley

32,357 次观看 • 1 个月前

Way back in 2018 Sam Heughan raffled off a date with himself as part of a fundraising campaign through Omaze. This "Win A Date With Sam Heughan" raffle ended up raising $2,892,080 for MPC, Omaze's most successful fundraiser to date. As part of the advertising Sam approached a bunch of kids for some dating advice and the resultant video is absolutely hilarious. It is one of my favourite Sam videos to watch. The banter between Sam and the kids is so funny. (And they say you should never work with children or animals! Pfft, so not true...well in this case anyway!) I know it has been shared a million times before, and I will probably share it at least another 50 times myself, but for those of you that haven't seen it, enjoy. And if you have seen it a few times before, like me, I hope you enjoy it again too! PS Fun fact, one of the blonde kids is now playing Jemmy on Outlander. Wonder if he'll have any new dating advice for Sam? #SamHeughan

Way back in 2018 Sam Heughan raffled off a date with himself as part of a fundraising campaign through Omaze. This "Win A Date With Sam Heughan" raffle ended up raising $2,892,080 for MPC, Omaze's most successful fundraiser to date. As part of the advertising Sam approached a bunch of kids for some dating advice and the resultant video is absolutely hilarious. It is one of my favourite Sam videos to watch. The banter between Sam and the kids is so funny. (And they say you should never work with children or animals! Pfft, so not true...well in this case anyway!) I know it has been shared a million times before, and I will probably share it at least another 50 times myself, but for those of you that haven't seen it, enjoy. And if you have seen it a few times before, like me, I hope you enjoy it again too! PS Fun fact, one of the blonde kids is now playing Jemmy on Outlander. Wonder if he'll have any new dating advice for Sam? #SamHeughan

Tash

41,741 次观看 • 3 年前

I want to put a worthy project before you and explain why I’m backing it, and why I may eventually have some personal involvement in it. “Deceived: The Ruin of the Modern Woman: A Christian Exploration and Confrontation of Feminism.” Here’s the Kickstarter: There is a longer trailer on the Kickstarter, but I've also attached the shorter conceptual trailer. First, the project itself: it’s a documentary by a Christian director examining the history and consequences of feminism and offering a biblical alternative. Second, here’s why I’m backing it. I’ve known Les Lanphere, the director, for a while, and I know him to be both a talented filmmaker and a principled Christian man. I trust him to tackle this subject biblically and with intensity, but without unnecessary harshness or shock-jockery. I also believe this is one of the defining issues of our day, and it’s one I’ve worked hard to address for most of my adult life. Feminism has obviously affected men and society as a whole, but now that I’m the father of three daughters and have a daughter-in-law, I’ve become even more concerned about what it has robbed women of: the beauty of their unique, God-given design and purpose in His world. So, for me, this is a trustworthy creator tackling a crucial subject in which I’m personally invested. I’m not yet sure to what extent I’ll eventually be involved in the documentary itself, but I backed the project for $300 today, and I’ll probably increase that once I’ve had a little more time to consider it. In the meantime, I want to challenge 50 of you to back the project for at least $5 each. That may not sound like much, but it helps. And the more people who get behind the project and follow its progress, the more attention it can gain. Even if you can only give a few dollars, you can play a real part by backing it, following it, and helping get the word out.

I want to put a worthy project before you and explain why I’m backing it, and why I may eventually have some personal involvement in it. “Deceived: The Ruin of the Modern Woman: A Christian Exploration and Confrontation of Feminism.” Here’s the Kickstarter: There is a longer trailer on the Kickstarter, but I've also attached the shorter conceptual trailer. First, the project itself: it’s a documentary by a Christian director examining the history and consequences of feminism and offering a biblical alternative. Second, here’s why I’m backing it. I’ve known Les Lanphere, the director, for a while, and I know him to be both a talented filmmaker and a principled Christian man. I trust him to tackle this subject biblically and with intensity, but without unnecessary harshness or shock-jockery. I also believe this is one of the defining issues of our day, and it’s one I’ve worked hard to address for most of my adult life. Feminism has obviously affected men and society as a whole, but now that I’m the father of three daughters and have a daughter-in-law, I’ve become even more concerned about what it has robbed women of: the beauty of their unique, God-given design and purpose in His world. So, for me, this is a trustworthy creator tackling a crucial subject in which I’m personally invested. I’m not yet sure to what extent I’ll eventually be involved in the documentary itself, but I backed the project for $300 today, and I’ll probably increase that once I’ve had a little more time to consider it. In the meantime, I want to challenge 50 of you to back the project for at least $5 each. That may not sound like much, but it helps. And the more people who get behind the project and follow its progress, the more attention it can gain. Even if you can only give a few dollars, you can play a real part by backing it, following it, and helping get the word out.

Michael Foster

155,468 次观看 • 5 天前

Lenz Law "Eddy Current" Experiments 2 of 3 - Ring Magnets and a Spinning Copper Rod (YouTube deleted this experiment as well, labeling it as "medical misinformation.") Around 2010, I wrote a Facebook note titled "Frictionless Flywheel". (Facebook deleted my page of 15 years). In that write-up, I speculated and predicted that... ... if a magnet falls in slow motion down a copper tube... then what would happen if you did the inverse? Drop a magnet ring around a copper rod? It's the same relative motion between the magnet and the copper. So the magnet would tilt at an angle while slightly rotating as it falls in slow motion around the copper. But then I said... "Let's take it one step further... I predict that if you have magnet rings around a copper rod... and then you spin the rod... that the magnet rings would stabilize around the rod from eddy currents." I said, there will be a magnetic bearing effect where the magnet ring will levitate and spin. Because it's following in the wake of the eddy currents produced by the rotating copper. So the magnet should catch up to speed of the copper and match it like the moon to the Earth. Essentially remaining fixed relative to the copper rod... but since the copper is spinning at a high RPM, then the magnet should spin at a high RPM; albeit, with a slight lag. So, abiding by the scientific method, I make an observation of the magnet falling in slow motion. I thought critically about. I get a new idea. Once the new idea passes muster, I allow my self to make a prediction for a scenario that hasn't been tried yet. Worked it out in my mind to see if it was viable. But then I needed to test it. I didn't have the ability to spin a copper rod at a high enough RPM that I theorized would be needed. So I communicated with my friend Josh Toms We had been talking about different experiments for quite a while. Josh is a real experimenter and a good man. He tests things before he speaks on them and when he speaks, it's with an informed opinion. He sent me a copper sphere about 2 inches in diameter and taught me some cool stuff about eddy currents I hadn't seen when sending each other clips of experiments we were working on. I explained the concept of the "frictionless flywheel" and my prediction that the magnets would levitate and stabilize around the copper rod if it was fast enough. So Josh built a platform using an angle grinder as a motor to spin a copper rod. He put very strong NdFeB magnets around the 1 inch diameter copper rod. IT WORKED! Josh brought this platform to the Tesla Technology Conference in Albuquerque, NM in 2010 where we met up. I filmed the demonstration of the platform you see in this video. There was a young boy who was fascinated by some of the magnet demonstrations I and others were giving at the conference. So I was explaining the process of what was happening to the inquisitive kid. Again.. what you notice here is that the eddy currents act as a force field to prevent friction between the magnets and copper. There is a stable gap and "magnetic cushion" that forms after a certain RPM. (Dependent upon the mass/gauss of the magnet in relation to the diamagnetic quality/mass of the copper or material in motion.) And what is super interesting to me is that once again... you can violently shake the entire platform and it WILL NOT disturb the magnets. The will not touch that copper after a certain RPM. You could make violent 90˚ turns and from the perspective of the magnets... it's just moving in slow motion relative to the copper. Just like how the magnet falls in slow motion relative to the copper down the tube. But this is just at a higher velocity relative to a stationary observer viewing the rotating system. But it doesn't matter if it's a centripetally rotating system at a constant velocity or linear acceleration in a particular direction... those eddy currents act as a force field to protect whatever is relative to the magnets and/or copper in those moments. So the claim and prediction that a frictionless flywheel effect and magnetic bearing would take place between a ring magnet and spinning copper rod DEMONSTRATED to be true. Now "PROVING" this scenario means to derive mathematical equations to justify an explanation of how the end results arise. Spinning magnets on a copper rod doesn't prove anything. In science... proof is math. Experiments can never prove anything. Experiments never provide equations or numbers or variables. Experiments provide evidence. You collect the evidence FIRST... AFTER doing real-world, hands-on experimentation. Anything else is just armchair research and talk. You write the proofs on paper to describe how you think things happen. And your proofs must abide by the constraints of the model you use. Sure... you can use a mathematical artifice like Lorentz invariance (relativity) to prove the end results arise because of: dark matter accumulating between the magnet and copper. Or that it must be space-time curvature bending... Or that it must be because of the aether rippling and vortexing... Or because of the dynamic casimir effect or zero point energy. Or anti-gravity. NOPE! None of those things are needed in the explanations I offer for any experiments and real-world data collected. I use the framework of what I call GALILEAN VARIANCE. Good ol' classical physics in 3D Euclidean space. No 4th dimension. No space-time. No aether. No nonsense. Only Newtonian Mechanics and elementary math.... but with a twist! ... and under.. "a new light". I have a completely different interpretation as to what gravity is and the mechanism of how it arises. Issac Newton never claimed to have a theory for the CAUSE of gravity. Newton's brilliant work and optics describes the behavior of matter and energy within a gravitational field. But he never claimed to know what causes gravity. "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not form any hypotheses." - Newton However... I do claim to have an explanation for the cause and mechanism of gravity. And it means a total abandonment of relativity and half of QED. Gravity IS a force! (and an emission) Eddy currents are not gravity. Magnetism is not gravity. And the kicker... gravity is not electric either. It's an illusion. Gravity is not an illusion. But the illusion is that people think gravity is electric. It's not. I have a completely different take. And boy has it gotten me in a lot of trouble and banned from speaking time and time again. But... if the information is valid... then trying to suppress it is like trying to hold an inflated basketball under water. Your arms are gonna get tired eventually and things are gonna come up to the surface with spring-loaded force. Equal to the amount people tried holding it back. The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity

Lenz Law "Eddy Current" Experiments 2 of 3 - Ring Magnets and a Spinning Copper Rod (YouTube deleted this experiment as well, labeling it as "medical misinformation.") Around 2010, I wrote a Facebook note titled "Frictionless Flywheel". (Facebook deleted my page of 15 years). In that write-up, I speculated and predicted that... ... if a magnet falls in slow motion down a copper tube... then what would happen if you did the inverse? Drop a magnet ring around a copper rod? It's the same relative motion between the magnet and the copper. So the magnet would tilt at an angle while slightly rotating as it falls in slow motion around the copper. But then I said... "Let's take it one step further... I predict that if you have magnet rings around a copper rod... and then you spin the rod... that the magnet rings would stabilize around the rod from eddy currents." I said, there will be a magnetic bearing effect where the magnet ring will levitate and spin. Because it's following in the wake of the eddy currents produced by the rotating copper. So the magnet should catch up to speed of the copper and match it like the moon to the Earth. Essentially remaining fixed relative to the copper rod... but since the copper is spinning at a high RPM, then the magnet should spin at a high RPM; albeit, with a slight lag. So, abiding by the scientific method, I make an observation of the magnet falling in slow motion. I thought critically about. I get a new idea. Once the new idea passes muster, I allow my self to make a prediction for a scenario that hasn't been tried yet. Worked it out in my mind to see if it was viable. But then I needed to test it. I didn't have the ability to spin a copper rod at a high enough RPM that I theorized would be needed. So I communicated with my friend Josh Toms We had been talking about different experiments for quite a while. Josh is a real experimenter and a good man. He tests things before he speaks on them and when he speaks, it's with an informed opinion. He sent me a copper sphere about 2 inches in diameter and taught me some cool stuff about eddy currents I hadn't seen when sending each other clips of experiments we were working on. I explained the concept of the "frictionless flywheel" and my prediction that the magnets would levitate and stabilize around the copper rod if it was fast enough. So Josh built a platform using an angle grinder as a motor to spin a copper rod. He put very strong NdFeB magnets around the 1 inch diameter copper rod. IT WORKED! Josh brought this platform to the Tesla Technology Conference in Albuquerque, NM in 2010 where we met up. I filmed the demonstration of the platform you see in this video. There was a young boy who was fascinated by some of the magnet demonstrations I and others were giving at the conference. So I was explaining the process of what was happening to the inquisitive kid. Again.. what you notice here is that the eddy currents act as a force field to prevent friction between the magnets and copper. There is a stable gap and "magnetic cushion" that forms after a certain RPM. (Dependent upon the mass/gauss of the magnet in relation to the diamagnetic quality/mass of the copper or material in motion.) And what is super interesting to me is that once again... you can violently shake the entire platform and it WILL NOT disturb the magnets. The will not touch that copper after a certain RPM. You could make violent 90˚ turns and from the perspective of the magnets... it's just moving in slow motion relative to the copper. Just like how the magnet falls in slow motion relative to the copper down the tube. But this is just at a higher velocity relative to a stationary observer viewing the rotating system. But it doesn't matter if it's a centripetally rotating system at a constant velocity or linear acceleration in a particular direction... those eddy currents act as a force field to protect whatever is relative to the magnets and/or copper in those moments. So the claim and prediction that a frictionless flywheel effect and magnetic bearing would take place between a ring magnet and spinning copper rod DEMONSTRATED to be true. Now "PROVING" this scenario means to derive mathematical equations to justify an explanation of how the end results arise. Spinning magnets on a copper rod doesn't prove anything. In science... proof is math. Experiments can never prove anything. Experiments never provide equations or numbers or variables. Experiments provide evidence. You collect the evidence FIRST... AFTER doing real-world, hands-on experimentation. Anything else is just armchair research and talk. You write the proofs on paper to describe how you think things happen. And your proofs must abide by the constraints of the model you use. Sure... you can use a mathematical artifice like Lorentz invariance (relativity) to prove the end results arise because of: dark matter accumulating between the magnet and copper. Or that it must be space-time curvature bending... Or that it must be because of the aether rippling and vortexing... Or because of the dynamic casimir effect or zero point energy. Or anti-gravity. NOPE! None of those things are needed in the explanations I offer for any experiments and real-world data collected. I use the framework of what I call GALILEAN VARIANCE. Good ol' classical physics in 3D Euclidean space. No 4th dimension. No space-time. No aether. No nonsense. Only Newtonian Mechanics and elementary math.... but with a twist! ... and under.. "a new light". I have a completely different interpretation as to what gravity is and the mechanism of how it arises. Issac Newton never claimed to have a theory for the CAUSE of gravity. Newton's brilliant work and optics describes the behavior of matter and energy within a gravitational field. But he never claimed to know what causes gravity. "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not form any hypotheses." - Newton However... I do claim to have an explanation for the cause and mechanism of gravity. And it means a total abandonment of relativity and half of QED. Gravity IS a force! (and an emission) Eddy currents are not gravity. Magnetism is not gravity. And the kicker... gravity is not electric either. It's an illusion. Gravity is not an illusion. But the illusion is that people think gravity is electric. It's not. I have a completely different take. And boy has it gotten me in a lot of trouble and banned from speaking time and time again. But... if the information is valid... then trying to suppress it is like trying to hold an inflated basketball under water. Your arms are gonna get tired eventually and things are gonna come up to the surface with spring-loaded force. Equal to the amount people tried holding it back. The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity

TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)

45,879 次观看 • 1 年前

Took me 20 years to comprehend Joseph Late in his life, hunted and persecuted, Joseph Smith returned again and again to a single image of what his whole work was finally about. It was not a doctrine of separate souls saved one at a time. It was a welding. He saw the human family as a chain reaching back through every generation, and he saw the work of salvation as the forging of that chain. Link by link. Father to child and child to father, until not one soul was left hanging alone at the end of the line. Heaven was not a gathering of individuals who happened to be saved in the same place. It was one welded family. And the binding of it, the sealing of parents to children across the whole length of human time, was the very thing the restored gospel had come into the world to do. "There is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children… For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect." (D&C 128:18) Postmodern America has built a secular civilization of separated souls. Every person sealed behind his own eyes, wired to everyone and bound to no one, more connected than any generation in history and lonelier than nearly any that came before. And beneath the loneliness sits a quiet assumption we have half swallowed without ever deciding to believe it, that the isolation is simply the truth about us. That we arrive alone and leave alone, and spend the middle as fundamentally separate selves, straining across an abyss that cannot be closed. This is the whole modern portrait of a person. An individual standing by himself, autonomous, complete in his solitude, a self for whom relationship is something added from outside rather than the very thing he is made of. The LDS welding doctrine says that portrait is false at the deepest level there is. You were never built to be a single soul. You were built to be a link, bound on every side, your own perfection tangled up in others and theirs in yours, so that not one of you arrives without the rest. The isolation you feel in the worst hours is not your nature reporting in. It is your exile from it. It is the felt weight of the scattering, the ache of a family not yet welded back into one. Joseph demolishes, in one stroke, the lonely picture of salvation, the idea that you get hauled out of the water one soul at a time while everyone else treads on their own. No one is saved alone. Joseph put it in words I still cannot get all the way through in a single breath. We without them cannot be made perfect, neither can they without us. The chain comes up whole or it does not come up. I cannot be made complete without my fathers, and my fathers cannot be made complete without me. The living and the dead are bound into a single body that has to be welded back together, link by link, before any part of it can be carried home.

Took me 20 years to comprehend Joseph Late in his life, hunted and persecuted, Joseph Smith returned again and again to a single image of what his whole work was finally about. It was not a doctrine of separate souls saved one at a time. It was a welding. He saw the human family as a chain reaching back through every generation, and he saw the work of salvation as the forging of that chain. Link by link. Father to child and child to father, until not one soul was left hanging alone at the end of the line. Heaven was not a gathering of individuals who happened to be saved in the same place. It was one welded family. And the binding of it, the sealing of parents to children across the whole length of human time, was the very thing the restored gospel had come into the world to do. "There is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children… For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect." (D&C 128:18) Postmodern America has built a secular civilization of separated souls. Every person sealed behind his own eyes, wired to everyone and bound to no one, more connected than any generation in history and lonelier than nearly any that came before. And beneath the loneliness sits a quiet assumption we have half swallowed without ever deciding to believe it, that the isolation is simply the truth about us. That we arrive alone and leave alone, and spend the middle as fundamentally separate selves, straining across an abyss that cannot be closed. This is the whole modern portrait of a person. An individual standing by himself, autonomous, complete in his solitude, a self for whom relationship is something added from outside rather than the very thing he is made of. The LDS welding doctrine says that portrait is false at the deepest level there is. You were never built to be a single soul. You were built to be a link, bound on every side, your own perfection tangled up in others and theirs in yours, so that not one of you arrives without the rest. The isolation you feel in the worst hours is not your nature reporting in. It is your exile from it. It is the felt weight of the scattering, the ache of a family not yet welded back into one. Joseph demolishes, in one stroke, the lonely picture of salvation, the idea that you get hauled out of the water one soul at a time while everyone else treads on their own. No one is saved alone. Joseph put it in words I still cannot get all the way through in a single breath. We without them cannot be made perfect, neither can they without us. The chain comes up whole or it does not come up. I cannot be made complete without my fathers, and my fathers cannot be made complete without me. The living and the dead are bound into a single body that has to be welded back together, link by link, before any part of it can be carried home.

Kirk Rollins

20,982 次观看 • 2 个月前

Bob Lazar just dropped a bombshell. He revealed that he replicated the anomalous force which powered the UFO he worked on at Area 51 in his own experiments. “There’s another force—and it’s not gravity.” “There’s gigantic chunks that are missing from physics … ” Watch this incredible exchange he just had with Jesse Michels: Michels: “If you look at dark energy … it’s not one of the four fundamental forces, but it’s just the universe is inflating—” Lazar: “I’m not sure dark energy really exists.” Michels: “And dark matter.” Lazar: “I’m not really buying either one of them.” “It’s a placeholder.” Michels: “As early as the 50s, there’s all this crazy hardcore anti-gravity research.” “And then it kind of disappears.” “The two things that come up for gravity where there’s a lot of smoke, but no fire, is … extremely high electric field differentials creating thrust.” “The second thing is very fast rotating, spinning, superconductors.” Lazar: “But is that actually gravity?” Michels: “So there’s another force.” Lazar: “30 years has gone by, and I’ve been doing my own research.” “And I’m just more convinced that I am right … that there’s another force, and it’s not gravity.” Michels: “What does it look like?” Lazar: “It’s a repelling force.” “I think gravity is just an attractive force.” “I think this other force, you can, to simplify it, push or pull.” “And I think it also affects the flow of time, exactly like gravity does.” “I think it affects light.” Michels: “Have you ever measured this force?” Lazar: “Next question.” “Alright … yeah.” Michels: “You have?” Lazar: “Yeah.” Michels: “Is there anything high level that you can say as far as the goal of your research post-[Area 51]?” Lazar: “To duplicate anything.” Michels: “You think you can?” Lazar: “I’m 100% confident.” Michels: “Have you already gotten some interesting results?” Lazar: “Yeah, that’s why I’m 100% confident.” Jesse Michels American Alchemy

Bob Lazar just dropped a bombshell. He revealed that he replicated the anomalous force which powered the UFO he worked on at Area 51 in his own experiments. “There’s another force—and it’s not gravity.” “There’s gigantic chunks that are missing from physics … ” Watch this incredible exchange he just had with Jesse Michels: Michels: “If you look at dark energy … it’s not one of the four fundamental forces, but it’s just the universe is inflating—” Lazar: “I’m not sure dark energy really exists.” Michels: “And dark matter.” Lazar: “I’m not really buying either one of them.” “It’s a placeholder.” Michels: “As early as the 50s, there’s all this crazy hardcore anti-gravity research.” “And then it kind of disappears.” “The two things that come up for gravity where there’s a lot of smoke, but no fire, is … extremely high electric field differentials creating thrust.” “The second thing is very fast rotating, spinning, superconductors.” Lazar: “But is that actually gravity?” Michels: “So there’s another force.” Lazar: “30 years has gone by, and I’ve been doing my own research.” “And I’m just more convinced that I am right … that there’s another force, and it’s not gravity.” Michels: “What does it look like?” Lazar: “It’s a repelling force.” “I think gravity is just an attractive force.” “I think this other force, you can, to simplify it, push or pull.” “And I think it also affects the flow of time, exactly like gravity does.” “I think it affects light.” Michels: “Have you ever measured this force?” Lazar: “Next question.” “Alright … yeah.” Michels: “You have?” Lazar: “Yeah.” Michels: “Is there anything high level that you can say as far as the goal of your research post-[Area 51]?” Lazar: “To duplicate anything.” Michels: “You think you can?” Lazar: “I’m 100% confident.” Michels: “Have you already gotten some interesting results?” Lazar: “Yeah, that’s why I’m 100% confident.” Jesse Michels American Alchemy

Holden Culotta

259,580 次观看 • 4 个月前

Victor Wembanyama was asked in French about being a reactionary team: 🇫🇷: Hello Victor, I get the impression that there’s no team better than yours when it comes to responding after a loss and winning when your backs are against the wall. Do you agree with that and how do you explain it? What needs to happen for you to stop being a "reactionary team"—a team that only finds solutions after running into problems? Even if you're the best at it, it can be both a strength and a weakness. 👽: Definitely. I completely agree. I think it's due to both our lack of experience and our youth, especially since we're playing against experienced teams. To me, the two best examples are Minnesota and New York. They understand how fortunate they are to be in the Finals, and they know it's not guaranteed they'll ever get another chance like this. As for us, we're kind of like spoiled kids. For some of us, it's our first season—or one of our first seasons—and we're already in the Finals. We don't fully realize it yet. And to me, the team that appreciates the position we're in the most will be the one that wins. (Thanks to @ orewaddl for the translation) #GoSpursGo #PorVida

Victor Wembanyama was asked in French about being a reactionary team: 🇫🇷: Hello Victor, I get the impression that there’s no team better than yours when it comes to responding after a loss and winning when your backs are against the wall. Do you agree with that and how do you explain it? What needs to happen for you to stop being a "reactionary team"—a team that only finds solutions after running into problems? Even if you're the best at it, it can be both a strength and a weakness. 👽: Definitely. I completely agree. I think it's due to both our lack of experience and our youth, especially since we're playing against experienced teams. To me, the two best examples are Minnesota and New York. They understand how fortunate they are to be in the Finals, and they know it's not guaranteed they'll ever get another chance like this. As for us, we're kind of like spoiled kids. For some of us, it's our first season—or one of our first seasons—and we're already in the Finals. We don't fully realize it yet. And to me, the team that appreciates the position we're in the most will be the one that wins. (Thanks to @ orewaddl for the translation) #GoSpursGo #PorVida

Wemby Alien Era

59,213 次观看 • 2 个月前

The Google and Caltech quantum papers demonstrated 2 breakthroughs: that Bitcoin cryptography is much easier to break than previously thought, and that far fewer logical qubits may be necessary for physical qubits. Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden explains: "These two papers are not necessarily about a quantum computer that's bigger or more capable. They're about what it takes to break cryptography." "So what changed? One of the things that changed was that physicists and quantum cryptographers that looked at this problem for a long time studied an algorithm called RSA — an older cryptographic algorithm." "But that's not what really any blockchains use, because RSA keys are very large. It turns out, and this was one of the key upshots of the Google paper, that if you focus on the cryptography used by Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other networks, it's actually way easier to break than they thought it was, compared to RSA." "The other big breakthrough, and this is from the Caltech paper: Quantum computers are very fragile, generally. So to be useful, they need to have what's called error correction applied. And that can result in a lot of overhead. You need to have tons of physical qubits to get to one logical qubit." "This Caltech paper basically showed, 'Hey, we have some new ideas for error correction. And it turns out if we apply those, we don't need hundreds or thousands of physical qubits, maybe we just need a handful to make one logical cubit.'" "The headline of their paper is 'You may only need 10,000 physical qubits to run Shor's algorithm.' And by the way, they demonstrated 6,000 last year."

The Google and Caltech quantum papers demonstrated 2 breakthroughs: that Bitcoin cryptography is much easier to break than previously thought, and that far fewer logical qubits may be necessary for physical qubits. Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden explains: "These two papers are not necessarily about a quantum computer that's bigger or more capable. They're about what it takes to break cryptography." "So what changed? One of the things that changed was that physicists and quantum cryptographers that looked at this problem for a long time studied an algorithm called RSA — an older cryptographic algorithm." "But that's not what really any blockchains use, because RSA keys are very large. It turns out, and this was one of the key upshots of the Google paper, that if you focus on the cryptography used by Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other networks, it's actually way easier to break than they thought it was, compared to RSA." "The other big breakthrough, and this is from the Caltech paper: Quantum computers are very fragile, generally. So to be useful, they need to have what's called error correction applied. And that can result in a lot of overhead. You need to have tons of physical qubits to get to one logical qubit." "This Caltech paper basically showed, 'Hey, we have some new ideas for error correction. And it turns out if we apply those, we don't need hundreds or thousands of physical qubits, maybe we just need a handful to make one logical cubit.'" "The headline of their paper is 'You may only need 10,000 physical qubits to run Shor's algorithm.' And by the way, they demonstrated 6,000 last year."

TBPN

16,456 次观看 • 4 个月前

Eric Weinstein presents a stunning and urgent thesis: the fundamental progress of theoretical physics was deliberately and mysteriously halted in the early 1970s. We have been living in a state of intellectual stagnation for over half a century, with our deepest understanding of reality frozen in time. The evidence is chilling. He points to a meeting where Marc Andreessen was reportedly told by the Biden White House that they had deliberately stagnated fields of theoretical physics. This is not an accident; it is policy. The data is undeniable. Look at the age of the youngest living Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics. For generations, this number remained below 50, signaling a vibrant field producing groundbreaking work by young minds. Then, around the rise of string theory as the dominant "theory of quantum gravity," that trend stopped. The youngest living laureate is now over 70. The field is no longer generating the kind of results that shatter paradigms and win Nobel prizes. How was this "soft sunset" of the world's brightest minds achieved? A small group of institutions took a few theories—string theory preeminent among them—and cocooned them, declaring them the "only game in town." All competitor theories were systematically starved of funding and credibility. Careers were ended for those who dared to look elsewhere. The mechanism of control was a mantra, repeated until it became unquestioned dogma: "Quantum gravity is the holy grail." This single, narrow focus became the entire purpose of fundamental physics. Yet, as Weinstein notes, this "holy grail" barely existed in the scientific lexicon before 1972. The pursuit is a safe, sterile one that threatens no existing power structures and leads to no tangible technological breakthroughs. But this terrible realization contains a seed of profound hope. If we can identify this manufactured stagnation, we can break free from it. The imperative is existential. Earth is our womb, not our home. To secure an indefinite human future and traverse the cosmos, we must move beyond our current, incomplete physics. We must surpass Einstein's speed limit of 'c'. The tools are too powerful to remain confined to one planet. The path forward requires revitalizing Western science, but our greatest competition is not where we think. While some fear the rise of China and India, Weinstein argues the true intellectual threat—and potential—lies with the world's greatest mathematicians in France. We are at a precipice. We have a brief window of vitality before geopolitical pressures erupt. If we choose to revitalize physics, to shatter the cocoon and encourage dangerous, heretical ideas once more, the rewards could be the universe itself. The end of physics is not a surrender; it is a finish line we have yet to cross. Reaching it may bring wonders beyond our imagination and a future among the stars that is glorious indeed. The stagnation was a choice. Progress can be one, too.

Eric Weinstein presents a stunning and urgent thesis: the fundamental progress of theoretical physics was deliberately and mysteriously halted in the early 1970s. We have been living in a state of intellectual stagnation for over half a century, with our deepest understanding of reality frozen in time. The evidence is chilling. He points to a meeting where Marc Andreessen was reportedly told by the Biden White House that they had deliberately stagnated fields of theoretical physics. This is not an accident; it is policy. The data is undeniable. Look at the age of the youngest living Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics. For generations, this number remained below 50, signaling a vibrant field producing groundbreaking work by young minds. Then, around the rise of string theory as the dominant "theory of quantum gravity," that trend stopped. The youngest living laureate is now over 70. The field is no longer generating the kind of results that shatter paradigms and win Nobel prizes. How was this "soft sunset" of the world's brightest minds achieved? A small group of institutions took a few theories—string theory preeminent among them—and cocooned them, declaring them the "only game in town." All competitor theories were systematically starved of funding and credibility. Careers were ended for those who dared to look elsewhere. The mechanism of control was a mantra, repeated until it became unquestioned dogma: "Quantum gravity is the holy grail." This single, narrow focus became the entire purpose of fundamental physics. Yet, as Weinstein notes, this "holy grail" barely existed in the scientific lexicon before 1972. The pursuit is a safe, sterile one that threatens no existing power structures and leads to no tangible technological breakthroughs. But this terrible realization contains a seed of profound hope. If we can identify this manufactured stagnation, we can break free from it. The imperative is existential. Earth is our womb, not our home. To secure an indefinite human future and traverse the cosmos, we must move beyond our current, incomplete physics. We must surpass Einstein's speed limit of 'c'. The tools are too powerful to remain confined to one planet. The path forward requires revitalizing Western science, but our greatest competition is not where we think. While some fear the rise of China and India, Weinstein argues the true intellectual threat—and potential—lies with the world's greatest mathematicians in France. We are at a precipice. We have a brief window of vitality before geopolitical pressures erupt. If we choose to revitalize physics, to shatter the cocoon and encourage dangerous, heretical ideas once more, the rewards could be the universe itself. The end of physics is not a surrender; it is a finish line we have yet to cross. Reaching it may bring wonders beyond our imagination and a future among the stars that is glorious indeed. The stagnation was a choice. Progress can be one, too.

Camus

537,382 次观看 • 10 个月前

Nassim Taleb, options trader and author of "The Black Swan": "Wall Street pays $500K for a five-year track record. I traded options for two decades and watched records like that vanish in a single afternoon." the article above is about telling a real edge from luck. taleb built his whole career and his books on one warning: a track record is the weakest evidence there is. a trader can win every single day for years and still be sitting on a hidden risk. the five good years don't prove skill, they just haven't met the one bad day yet. that is the entire "fooled by randomness" trap, dressed up as a resume. and you only ever see the survivors. for every rich trader with a spotless record, thousands ran the same reckless bet and quietly blew up. the graveyard is silent, so the lucky fool looks like a genius. none of this is new, taleb has said it for 25 years and the talk is free. same point as my article: a winning streak is not evidence. here is the edge, and it isn't a hot record. it's surviving. sizing so your one bad day can't erase you, and staying skeptical of your own success while everyone else worships theirs.

Nassim Taleb, options trader and author of "The Black Swan": "Wall Street pays $500K for a five-year track record. I traded options for two decades and watched records like that vanish in a single afternoon." the article above is about telling a real edge from luck. taleb built his whole career and his books on one warning: a track record is the weakest evidence there is. a trader can win every single day for years and still be sitting on a hidden risk. the five good years don't prove skill, they just haven't met the one bad day yet. that is the entire "fooled by randomness" trap, dressed up as a resume. and you only ever see the survivors. for every rich trader with a spotless record, thousands ran the same reckless bet and quietly blew up. the graveyard is silent, so the lucky fool looks like a genius. none of this is new, taleb has said it for 25 years and the talk is free. same point as my article: a winning streak is not evidence. here is the edge, and it isn't a hot record. it's surviving. sizing so your one bad day can't erase you, and staying skeptical of your own success while everyone else worships theirs.

Rossst.03

77,501 次观看 • 1 个月前