3 ms·

There is a fun little esoteric/new age youtube video* about reality glitches that explain how reality is (in loose terms) more "mathematical" in nature than "ma

by dsego 5y ago

There is a fun little esoteric/new age youtube video* about reality glitches that explain how reality is (in loose terms) more "mathematical" in nature than "material" (as we mostly perceive it). These are the reasons mentioned: 1) speed of light is an absolute cosmic speed limit 2) wave/particle duality 3) conservation of energy - everything is eternal, nothing can be truly created or destroyed 4) quantum entanglement shows that reality is non-local 5) singularities at center of black holes where seemingly all physical laws break down [*] https://youtu.be/zcb_9j8KKdg https://youtu.be/zcb_9j8KKdg

wruza 5y ago
Ugh nope. This video is not only too naive at the intro (could be just a watchbait), it further doesn’t explain what it claims, neither is it consistent nor starting from any preexisting model. It starts from limited factoids and uses them as fundamentals to go to some crazy not-even-a-hypothesis. E.g. in GR the conservation of energy is an “it really depends” thing, not a universal law. And c is not a galactic speed you or your flashlight may “hit”. To save a stranger some time on c-part to make their own idea of this video, it’s right in the intro and then at 11:30+.
coremoff 5y ago
I've only watched the the first five minutes of that video; I think he has some fundamental misconceptions that make it difficult to take much from what he's saying. e.g. for #2 wave/partical duality (which isn't necessarilly even a thing, depending on what foundation of QM you subscribe to) he says that everything is energy and that energy is light; this is not correct (the 2nd part) for #3 energy is not necessarily conserved over long time frames in our universe #4 depends on which foundation of QM you subscribe to, but doesn't necessarily require non-locality (AIUI, if your foundation results in this problem, then you must chose between locality or reality to explain things - reality in this context not really meaning what it might mean in common parlance) #5 singularities appear in black holes because the maths breaks down because we don't have a unified theory of QM+gravity; they aren't magical. Also the big bang wasn't a singularity in the way he seems to be implying, again AIUI I'm no expert, but I would suggest you review some more technical videos before reading too much into the link you posted (I suggest PBS Space Time / FermiLab / Sabine Hossenfelder)

by dsego 5y ago

wruza 5y ago

Ugh nope. This video is not only too naive at the intro (could be just a watchbait), it further doesn’t explain what it claims, neither is it consistent nor starting from any preexisting model. It starts from limited factoids and uses them as fundamentals to go to some crazy not-even-a-hypothesis. E.g. in GR the conservation of energy is an “it really depends” thing, not a universal law. And c is not a galactic speed you or your flashlight may “hit”. To save a stranger some time on c-part to make their own idea of this video, it’s right in the intro and then at 11:30+.

coremoff 5y ago

I've only watched the the first five minutes of that video; I think he has some fundamental misconceptions that make it difficult to take much from what he's saying. e.g. for #2 wave/partical duality (which isn't necessarilly even a thing, depending on what foundation of QM you subscribe to) he says that everything is energy and that energy is light; this is not correct (the 2nd part) for #3 energy is not necessarily conserved over long time frames in our universe #4 depends on which foundation of QM you subscribe to, but doesn't necessarily require non-locality (AIUI, if your foundation results in this problem, then you must chose between locality or reality to explain things - reality in this context not really meaning what it might mean in common parlance) #5 singularities appear in black holes because the maths breaks down because we don't have a unified theory of QM+gravity; they aren't magical. Also the big bang wasn't a singularity in the way he seems to be implying, again AIUI I'm no expert, but I would suggest you review some more technical videos before reading too much into the link you posted (I suggest PBS Space Time / FermiLab / Sabine Hossenfelder)