I have binge-watched all 3 episodes. The last 2 years have opened up such a passionate thirst for knowledge in spheres I would never have previously dreamt of. Real nourishment for the grey matter, thank you
That's what Reincarnation is all about - the thirst for Life Heaven is the idea of Retiring to a Retirement Home - choosing to be a lower life form - fed, protected, sheltered and cared for - no need to dream or aspire for anything A Tree does that, a Dog has that life Fools chasing after Fools gold get to be Dogs!
I firmly believe, too, that the rules themselves are in fact discovered, but the tools we use to do so are - of course - invented (by us). Btw, one the very best series on mathematics!
A wonderful and thought sprinkling series, and visually exciting as well! Super job BBC, fabulous presentation by Ms. Fry...as good as this type programming can be. P.S. : although I am, by no stretch of the definition a mathematician, it seems clear that math is an inherent characteristic of the universe, which we humans are in the process of discovering. It is certainly not an invention of our minds. Thank you again, Hannah! Great work by all involved. P.PS. : give those who discovered the gorgeous locations used a substantial raise!
When I watch science programs, which are produced in the UK, I feel embarrassed about the science programs, here in the US. The ones that we have are appropriate for children, not adults. This is tragic evidence of our lack of value on knowledge and education. This is also why we have people who believe that the earth is flat. :-(
oh well... at least, you do pronounce those R-s and you don't have an "Aih Foce" or a "shaap sohd". you just call the wrong sport football :- ) No, I could not avoid this eternal topic. I see myself out. But I ask a question first: is it really true that, for the vast majority of Americans, a person speaking British English sounds more knowledgeable, better educated? I heard this in several movies and lectures and also from some American students of mine. (no matter what the answer is, I won't abandon my mainly 'Murican pronunciation and my mainly British spelling. worry, you shall not)
I do hear what you say, I watch many US documentaries, They have to explain over and over and very slowly the point being made. But you have MIT /Microsoft etc so obviously not a dumb country, suppose it's a numbers thing. Lot of Trailer trash aint got me no hedukation.
You're watching this documentary on a US website, using technology developed by the US Department of Defense, from a country protected by nuclear weapons developed in the United States. Please STFU with your cliched nonsense.
@Dave Dave, YOU are a rude shallow prick. Firstly, there's no such thing as a "soul". Secondly, she has class and intelligence - two things you'll never have.
@@craigwall9536 no, I'm a person who watched a video and thought the presenter had a lovely voice 😂 plus... how would an internal monologue impress anyone!??? No one can hear it 🤣
I agree, she has a voice that overwhelms any possible distraction. 'Same goes for her appearance. Not to mention, a) I love math and she talks about it, b) she licks a series of ice creams. A video rarely makes me blush.
No matter what Universe one finds one self in , there is one constant that defies Quantum Mechanics . British documentaries . They are an untangled fusion of , interesting matter , great production and superb presentation .
19:15 Yes there IS a difference between maths and faith. In general, if a scientist/mathematician finds facts that contradict their 'believes' , they change their believes, if a religious person does so, (s)he ignores the observation.
Nope, they both do the same thing. They reevaluate what they thought they knew then proceed to fit the square peg in the round hole. People are dumb that way.
@@victorylane2377 Nope. We have recorded history of science and maths updating on new discoveries. We do not have similar history with faith. It is demonstrably not true that they're somehow the same.
26:56 ".. The Greeks thinking that the universe was eternal and unchanging .." : "There is nothing permanent except change", "Nothing endures but change", "All is flux, nothing stays still", "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man", "Much learning does not teach understanding", etc (Heraclitus). Exactly true.
@@jeffnolan2021 When she is wandering about on Jupiter Artlands grounds, she appears to be wearing "leggings" or whatever the things are being called this week, look at her thighs... People have different tastes, norms, whatever, she certainly appears a bit chunky to me. Same is true of hair colour, some people like redheads, others don't. Many redheads have health problems, particularly with skin conditions. I had a redhead working for me about 25 years ago, always something.
The paradoxes are not truly paradoxes at all... The problem is that they pay more attention to what they think makes sense rather than what the Math is revealing about reality... The scenarios also imply certain things: 1. Linguistically, the expression is inaccurate for defining what a barber actually is. Essentially, it uses the fact of whether a man is un/shaved to suggest whether a man is a barber or not. 2. A man who is shaving himself is not being a barber at that time in the general sense, even if he is a barber by profession. 3. Also the scenario with the clippers is poorly interpreted... The clipper parts could be placed in the sink with the set of things that do not belong to clippers: if the parts belonged to a clipper that was removed from service due to malfunction. It is not our job to determine what the math should look like: our job is to practice consistency, which is the key to accuracy/equality.
Agreed. It;s more like what is called a puzzle... another new conception of 'reality'... magic numbers to reduce the complexities of the mysterious universe hey...
Such great passionate of math. I love math very deep and the lecturer here Dr. Fry is approaching the arid concepts of math for all the people watching her, making more and more to understand math. " Math is giving us meaning..." ,so beautiful said.
Here's what I find ironic about this series. The question she's asking seems tangentially related at best to the content, but it is quite a nice tour of a lot of esoteric math, physics, etc. To me, inventing math is like inventing a flashlight to explore a cave or inventing telescopes to explore the heavens... or inventing a language to describe day to day activities and objects. The objects/cave/heavens existed, the apparatus used to access and understand them is the part we invented.
Brilliant, but perhaps it would have been even more interesting to learn how Buckminster Fuller’s Synergetics Geometry if explored here in this series, would fit in into the scheme of the mathematical universe/world
I put this documentary on loop, and then fall fast asleep to it each and every night....wanna know why???? Because there is no better feeling in this ugly world than waking up next to long red hair and deep soft eyes.!!!
I'm at 12:49, where Hannah says math seems to be too good at predicting the behavior of the world in ways we never could have imagined. What if there were on one side Unimath, math from our Universe, a more fundamental coding language of our universe, and on the other side our math, a lense through which we discover parts of Unimath, a language that can translate some of the ideas of Unimath. Our math could be inspired by Unimath, but limited to what our type of living organisms can grasp of it. It is a language we can learn, a tool we can use, and it allows us to discover some of the behaviors of the world. But it is a narrow view of the Universe, and it may be bound to it by our own nature. It could even make some sense of some things while completely missing the bigger picture of those same things. I love the way the shadow of a cylinder can be a circle, as well as a rectangle, depending of where you shine light on it. And there might be other lenses capable of showing other things about our Universe, but we cannot use them of find them because we are not familiar with them.
Interesting. Brings to mind a few things. "The Answer is 42", "To understand the answer you must first understand the Question". One could also argue that the cup in the parallel dimension is in an alternative state, but the fact that is in an alternative dimension could mean it is not the same cup at all. Even that one was full of coffee and the tea etc. etc. Many of the theories were formulated over centuries and evolved to a point where someone could interpret and describe it. The more complex it is the longer that will take, call back in a few more thousand years.
Humans are the biggest limitation to understanding. I like your way of thinking though. Passion, belief and time are limiting factors. Too many preconcieved notions, precepts in a society of 8 billion. We still can't feed and house everybody or live in harmony with Earth or each other, yet near infinite computing power defined as conscousness. The Math doesn't add up lol.
It's hard to concentrate on the ideas because she's so alluring. A natural beauty and a fairly attainable 7, I'd say, and that attainability makes her more desirable and seem more f***able. Anyway, she's too distracting. I'd prefer a dry, sex-less man introducing me to Schrodinger, etc. I also wanna know where those amazing sculptured gardens and lake are. Anybody know? I know she's paragliding in the South Downs and these film makers don't often stray too far from London if they can help it.
Thank you, Hannah, for giving a whole new perspective toward understanding mathematics. You are right in stating, that mathematics is little bit of invention and whole lot of discovery. Humans are intellectual beings, imperfectually approaching perfection in space and will reach there in time. I believe, the approach should be to understand energy, it's creation and utilisation. May be friction is the clue.
The whole question of whether maths is invented or discovered seems to be more of a question of definition or semantics to me. In part 1 of this video it is stated that (verbal) languages are invented. But any mathematical equation can be expressed in words. Indeed, that is how you teach mathematics by talking students through what you are doing with the equations and operations. The fact that natural phenomena (things and occurrences) follow certain patterns and that those patterns can most easily/efficiently be described with maths, doesn’t mean to me that you’ve discovered the maths - you’ve discovered the pattern. This to me is analogous to certain human (emotional, social or cultural) phenomena that can only be or are most easily expressed in certain languages. There are, for example, many terms in Japanese that refer to cultural phenomena that you wouldn’t find in many (in some cases, any) other cultures. That doesn’t mean that when you learn about this as a non-Japanese person you are discovering the word, you are discovering the phenomenon. The word is just a tool to describe that phenomenon.
Yes I had that idea during the documentary. The maths checks out because what it describes is really there. But then again, it can be there and not there at the same time..
Many arguments boil down to definitions that one accepts or does not accept. For instance, what makes a surface smooth? There seems to be no such thing, really. Or what makes a species? Or . . .
It should be obvious at this point that mathematics is the tool our brain employs to describe the outside world. Pretty much like any other language our brain invented (words, music, art... you don’t really believe there is “music” out there, right? It just happens inside our brains...) The “coincidences”, such as finding a (quasi) spiral pattern in the nautilus and a similar (quasi) spiral pattern in the sunflower, are there just because the brain that is analyzing them is always the same, and of course it is using the same tools. We will hardly have a counter proof in the future, of a different brain describing to us how they perceive and describe the same outside world. Now, that would be really interesting! Maths makes predictions because our brain evolved as such. We make predictions all the time, in our daily life. Maths is an organized and rigorous (actually, the best we can do, but certainly not omnipotent) way of making predictions about what “could be” out there, based on what we currently perceive. Then we do experiments and check whether the prediction was right or wrong. In some cases (e.g. general relativity) it is perfectly right, in many others (e.g. string theory) it is far from right. The alternative to maths being entirely man-produced is that “god”, or something as platonic as that, is the underlying maker of our reality, and some yet to be “discovered” maths contains the answer to all questions. I find this latter explanation much, much less satisfactory than the former.
I have to take exception to the reference to e=mc^2 and the concept of increasing mass with velocity. The equation e=mc^2 is a special case where the mass isn't moving relative to the observer (you). The increasing energy comes from the momentum of the object that's moving, its mass doesn't increase. Very good entertaining series non the less.
While on meditation I felt that time was just another element of perception, like sounds, sight or smell; and was wondering what or where is the sense that perceived it?
I'd like to know where is that beautiful "mathematical" park Dr. Fry is walking or large part o these 3 episodes - Its design is intriguing and I'm curious if I could just go there...
I could listen to Hannah Fry recite a 'phone book! Listening to her is like I imagine bathing in warm chocolate would feel, somebody should hire her to read audio books. :)
If I could only watch her face, I wouldn't need to listen. :D But let me remind us all that she's also got a very beautiful mind. She wouldn't be so naturally attractive if she were weren't so nice on the inside.
As an example, Venus fly traps can count... so I don't think Mathematics is a purely human concept so maybe it really does exist independently from us (although my instinct says otherwise).
Very informative video👍Thank you Hannah🙏 "Mathematics to me is like God; although I don't understand it, I understand that I'm meant to experience it." Tamara-Lee Nathan, Cape Town, South Africa 🇿🇦
A bag of clipper attachments is not a clipper attachment so belongs with things that are not clipper attachments, even though the bag contains clipper attachments.
18:31 Complete FAIL on the two animations here: Both the balloon and the airplane are fixed (unmoving) with respect to the background, while the plane is supposed to be moving "very fast". And even though the two flashes appear to go off simultaneously, the red circle starts expanding later than the white one (obviously not how light works), which is the only reason it reaches the plane later. (!!) As a result, the animations definitely DO NOT illustrate the effect being described. This could have been fixed so easily by just having the plane be moving toward London (with both the flashes and the expanding circles being in sync)!
I get a kick out of this when the quantum physicist professor at 40:55 attempt to explained a scientific concept to the Hanna Fry, who is a mathematician, she said it pretty “weird” concept!!
50:17 "Meanwhile Quantum effects are virtually never seen at the scale of humans and planets" The reason why it is VIRTUALLY never, rather than absolutely never is the existence of women like my wife, who can be wrong, but somehow still be right at the same time... I hate Quantum superposition, because it always ends up with me in the kitchen doing the dishes.
As teenager I never understood opsession having king and queen in correct positions. To me they are same positions but later I learned that for most people they are completely different. Idea that mirror and rotated images are same was really hard problem when learning letters as b, d, p and q are all same. Just an idea that how choosing a correct variant of mirror images can be a hard problem for some people.
Gag, no, Relativism simply defined the terms you need to subtract based on point of reference. It does not negate the ability to define who is right and wrong on the two lamps experiment. It simply tells you you must subtract the relativistic movement of the one observer from their observations. Subjective (relativistic) observations do not negate objective facts.
All we have are the counting numbers: 0,1,2,3, etc and a few basic operations. The rest of mathematics is just a form of shorthand for things we cannot do. Counting numbers may correspond to groups of objects in the physical world e.g. apples. If we have 5 apples, we can add 2 apples to get 7 apples, 5 + 2 = 7. We can give away three apples, 7 - 3 = 4. But we obviously cannot now give away 6 apples as we now only have only 4 apples. What we do is replace 4 - 6 with the equivalent 0 - 2 and then replace with the shorthand notation -2. We cannot have -2 apples or -2 of anything. We use a shorthand notation to remember what we wanted to do in the hope that we may get more apples in the future. Then we can give away the 6 apples as desired. Similarly, if we have 12 apples, we can divide the apples into 3 equal groups of 4 i.e. 12/3 = 4. However, we cannot divide 12 apples into 5 equal groups, 12/5. This is physically impossible unless we change our apples by cutting them up. Then we are no longer dealing with objects that are apples but objects that are pieces of apples. We use another equivalence that 12/5 is the same as 24/10 and we use another shorthand notation 24/10 = 2.4. We then hope that in the future we will get more apples such that we can divide our apples into 5 equal groups. Similarly, we can take the square root of 9 to get 3. Square root is just a special case of division. But we cannot take the square root of 8. We just use another shorthand √8. We hope that we will be able to multiply √8 with another √8 and then we can get back to the number 8. Same deal with √-1. We just hope that we will get another √-1 to multiply it by. In mathematics we just have addition of two numbers, subtraction of a smaller number from a larger number, multiplication of two numbers (repeated addition), and division of number by one of its factors (repeated subtraction). These are things we can do in the real world with physical objects. All other operations are impossible. When we can’t do an operation, we just use shorthand notations to “remember” the operation in the hope that at some latter time we can eliminate the impossible operations and return to the counting numbers that represent real world objects. We can use tricks such as replacing meters with millimetres or nanometres or the Planck length to eliminate impossible divisions. But this is just the same as cutting our apples in halves and having 12 apple halves as opposed to 6 apples. We have then redefined our physical objects. Even the symbols used for the counting numbers are just a shorthand notation for repeated addition in that 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, etc. When someone tells you the Universe is mathematical, remember that all the mathematics you have ever seen just starts by assigning counting numbers to groups of objects and applying the operations mentioned in the last paragraph. The rest is just a form of shorthand for things that can’t be done, but we hope will eventually be possible.
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the Yin and Yang of the universe; the analog and digital; chaos and order; they will never meet. They continually dance with each other, but in the dance they are resolved.
I don't believe in the multiverse, but I believe I can explain why it looks that way. For example maths tells us there are an infinity of possibilities between 1 and 2. Theoretically you couldn't count to 2 because you would never get there.. and yet.. :)
The issue of the barber is not about contradiction in maths, but rather in the subtleties of human interactions. The barber is a cultural construct about employment and service. My definition would be as follows; a barber is a barber as defined by the society that designates that profession as distinct from other profession.
I think it’s great that after a 3-part documentary in which a mathematics professor tries to convey her passion for maths to you over a 3 hours run time, you focus on her appearance
14:00 There was once a girl who was bright She could travel much faster than light She set off one day, in a relative way And returned the previous night.
The existence of maths independent from humans has long been obvious to me... I wouldn't even qualify it as a discovery in and of itself but simply an innate ability we have extended upon to a greater degree as we both evolved and progressed our imaginations, language and communication skills. Most creatures use maths, but of course we have explored it's potential to a much greater degree. A lion knows when "One" of "nine" of its fellow pride members dies and the next day knows that now only "eight" are on their "second" hunting attempt... It knows its position in a strategic crescent shaped hunting pattern and knows that "three" other lionesses are to its right and "four" more pride members are to its left and that together they are attempting to take down "One" prey... A crude example amongst many in the animal kingdom but a clear one... How they conceive of those numbers is unknown to us of course, you may as well try and imagine what the world looks like to a bat!... And they are not about to start clawing tally marks on a stick for memories sake but conceive of those numbers they simply must.
The "multiverse" is not a solution to our paradoxes. All the solutions are here in our Universe. The Problem is within the human mind. Unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics doesn't require complicated mathematics. Instead we need a simple explanation of "Space and Time INTERACTION" in just 2 Dimensions. Having the description of Space-time in 4 Dimensions is not sufficient because Space got 3 different appearances (3-D space, 2-D space and 1-D space). Consequently, there are 3 different levels of interaction between Space and Time. General Relativity focuses on 1 level only. This is the real Problem in Physics. We need to complete our understanding of RELATIVITY first by studying Gravity based on 2-Dimensional Space-Time.
Despite her PhD in maths, in the 3rd program in this series Dr. Hannah Fry demonstrates her fundamental misunderstanding of E=mc², of Special Relativity, of General Relativity, and of Quantum Physics. Spreading her misunderstanding to others can be misleading to those who wish to learn the correct theory. Until watching this program. 14m30s E=mc² applies to objects at rest. The mass of an object does not increase with increase in velocity, this is merely the "relativistic mass". 18m30s Two observers at the same position in spacetime will observe flashes of light (eg. from London and Southampton) at the same time, not at different times. It is the events which caused the flash of light which they will disagree about both in terms of the position of that event and the time that it happened. The stationary observer will consider that he is equidistant from Southampton and London, and that the flashes of light were emitted at the same time. Whereas, the observer travelling at near light speed, also seeing both flashes at the same time from the same position in spacetime, will consider London to be closer and Southampton further away, and therefore consider that the flash of light was emitted from Southampton earlier and from London later than that time which the stationary observer judged the event to have happened. Dr. Fry and Dr. Macarthur claim that the moving observer would see the flash of light from London sooner than the stationary observer despite being the same distance away from it. If this were true, then the light would have to travel at a faster speed towards the moving observer than it does towards the stationary observer... light does not travel at different speeds, it's just the observer's perception of the event which is altered by spacetime dilation due to relative motion between the observer and the event. 21m45s The first diagram used to illustrate the warping of spacetime due to a massive object is wrong. The field lines are not bent so as to diverge around the object, squashing the spacetime, they converge towards the center of it, stretching the spacetime. If the object was made from antimatter then the diagram would have been more accurate. 36m0s Attempting to include quantum physics into her program Dr. Fry says "...can all be reduced down into chemicals, which comprise elements, which themselves are made up of atoms..." I have no idea what Dr. Fry learned at school, but I recall learning that the elements ARE the atoms, and that all of the atoms ate listed in the periodic table of elements. 50m06s "...gravity simply doesn't apply to particles at the subatomic scale"... completely incorrect and absurd to suggest this, since if it didn't apply to the subatomic particles from which everything is made, then it would not apply to the larger scale objects either. The truth is that gravity DOES apply to all of the subatomic particles, including those which have no mass, eg. photons, since these too are affected by gravitational fields, eg. gravitational lensing. Overall, Dr. Fry seems utterly confused about which aspects of maths are discovered and which are invented, yet somehow managed to correctly conclude that it is a bit of both. However, she incorrectly states that the imaginary number "I" is invented, when such numbers are every bit as real as real numbers and fundamental to the nature of our universe.. the only thing to be invented was the name "I". She could have done a far better job of distinguishing between the mathematics which is inherent to the nature of reality, and those mathematical methods which have been invented to assist in calculation. Her attempts to include some basic physics and and chemistry into the discussion illustrate her ignorance of such subjects and could result in misleading the viewers, if they are not already knowledgeable in these areas. Fortunately my 14 year old son also understood the fundamental errors which I pointed out above.
The internet has ruined things - kind of. Once upon a time I would have watched this series and been absolutely fascinated, but now that fascination is dulled because I've seen these same old concepts trotted out over and over. And also because it's clear the establishment media still thinks it needs to significantly dumb things down and completely skip over some of the more mind-blowing aspects of reality because we're too stupid to grasp them. Thank god for the likes of Eric Weinstein and Sean Carroll.
Yep, plus the unneeded filler props and locations and presenters playing dumb when interviewing. A 5 minutes piece dragged out to 60 mins, containing no real insight.
Well on balance we also get things like 3b1b... which makes up for the same vacuous programs that (ironically) fill up airtime on BBC, Discovery, History Channel, etc.
Richard Phillips Feynman also played a fundamental in formulation of Quantum electrodynamics, thus unifying general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Oscar Manrique and Hanna Fry: what do you have to say on this?
Congratulations! You have arrived at a really brilliant series! The trick is this woman's ability to communicate some really complex ideas. I'm madly in love with her! brain!
What's missing is the great mystery, the force, they call it spooky, conundrum, weird, and a few other terms when they use when they bump into turbulence, Turbulence or Thor or Tor have been around forever and it was recognized by the ancient peoples of the world...But i turns out that the civilized people are not that civilized but confused !~
Did we invent the one that "one" represents in our language or was "one" that preexisted just discovered? You may have put a name to "one" with your language, but oneness already existed. That is what is being talked about.
Stephen Brown, I always thought language was invented to make lying more effective. Being able to talk about maths is something an unintended side effect. (my opinion)
@Eriko. Oy A quantity of something that is greater than zero, ie. is "there", but does not appear multiple times. Is there a beer can or my desk, yes, are there several beer cans on my desk, no, I have "one" beer can on my desk.
Could it be possible that quantum and general describe two diffrent dimensions? They both exist but can't be described in terms of one another. For instance, hight can't be described in terms of width.
Sometimes an assertion can be wrong in one sphere, and correct in another. For instance, on a globe, the shortest distance between two points is an arch. But on a flat surface (plane) the shortest distance is a straight line. Sometimes, we assume that which is not appropriate which can lead to bad math. Sometimes, it may take a long time to realize you didn't have enough information to make your absolute assertions. And yet what was always going to be true about the math was already there, wasn't it? For instance, space was always a curve (another assertion!) and yet we assumed it was not.
Agreed that math(s) is a mix of invention and discovery. There certainly seems an unchanging and underlying basis to the universe. Some of our math does seem to be rules we invent after gleaning a portion of that deep reality. Set theory always seemed rather artificial to me. Hence the Barber Paradox and others. Group theory feels more substantial. Calculus is definitely deep reality.
I have binge-watched all 3 episodes. The last 2 years have opened up such a passionate thirst for knowledge in spheres I would never have previously dreamt of. Real nourishment for the grey matter, thank you
Who is LIFE?
Eternal Meaning
Well said. I binge watched them all too. Now, I am going to recommend them to my, sharp as a tack & always learning, 83 yr old Mother.
That's what Reincarnation is all about - the thirst for Life
Heaven is the idea of Retiring to a Retirement Home - choosing to be a lower life form - fed, protected, sheltered and cared for - no need to dream or aspire for anything
A Tree does that, a Dog has that life
Fools chasing after Fools gold get to be Dogs!
Amazing! I like to hear from you more on maths in near future.....and thank you so much for lovely presentation to Hannah Fry. Love to see you again.
I firmly believe, too, that the rules themselves are in fact discovered, but the tools we use to do so are - of course - invented (by us).
Btw, one the very best series on mathematics!
Best explanation of Space Time that I have ever seen. With Max Tegmark, my favorite mind.
Good series! I enjoyed it! Thanks!
Very enjoyable 3 hours indeed, I did not expect that.
A wonderful and thought sprinkling series, and visually exciting as well! Super job BBC, fabulous presentation by Ms. Fry...as good as this type programming can be.
P.S. : although I am, by no stretch of the definition a mathematician, it seems clear that math is an inherent characteristic of the universe, which we humans are in the process of discovering. It is certainly not an invention of our minds.
Thank you again, Hannah! Great work by all involved.
P.PS. : give those who discovered the gorgeous locations used a substantial raise!
Provoking, of course, not sprinkling as the helpful computer I used thoughtfully substituted for me😣
Your series has given me multiple 'ah-ha's' and was actually fun for this aging lady. Thank you!
Thanks for posting these videos!
Love these programmes where they spend the first 3 minutes telling you what they’re going to be telling you
And when you come to think of it...
How soothingly she can tell her baby a bedtime story... about some math you and I never would understand.
Thank you for posting Oscar.
When I watch science programs, which are produced in the UK, I feel embarrassed about the science programs, here in the US. The ones that we have are appropriate for children, not adults. This is tragic evidence of our lack of value on knowledge and education. This is also why we have people who believe that the earth is flat. :-(
As a Brit:- don't feel too bad, you can't help it. (....and don't try to look over the edge, you'll fall off. (but, hey; you'll be in space!!)
oh well... at least, you do pronounce those R-s and you don't have an "Aih Foce" or a "shaap sohd". you just call the wrong sport football :- ) No, I could not avoid this eternal topic. I see myself out. But I ask a question first:
is it really true that, for the vast majority of Americans, a person speaking British English sounds more knowledgeable, better educated? I heard this in several movies and lectures and also from some American students of mine. (no matter what the answer is, I won't abandon my mainly 'Murican pronunciation and my mainly British spelling. worry, you shall not)
I do hear what you say, I watch many US documentaries, They have to explain over and over and very slowly the point being made. But you have MIT /Microsoft etc so obviously not a dumb country, suppose it's a numbers thing. Lot of Trailer trash aint got me no hedukation.
This doc is better than most, but you have to admit it's still pretty dumbed down and childish.
You're watching this documentary on a US website, using technology developed by the US Department of Defense, from a country protected by nuclear weapons developed in the United States. Please STFU with your cliched nonsense.
She couldve done a fourth series about the Mandelbrot set and the complex patterns that mimic nature. That wouldve been the grand finale.
While watching this series of video clips, I love musing on miracle numbers -------. Okay ! Thanks !
she has such a calming and soothing voice
Part Bettany Hughes... part Lucy Worsley.
I agree. I fell asleep.
@Dave Dave, YOU are a rude shallow prick. Firstly, there's no such thing as a "soul". Secondly, she has class and intelligence - two things you'll never have.
@Dave Nice try, but you're off the mark. Take another guess Dave. Why do I want to pop your knees and elbows our of their sockets?
@Dave
Ginger Are Legion!
I find the way she says maths with such excited emphasis especially adorable
From now on my inner monologue will be in Hannah's voice
So you're a _poseur?_
@@craigwall9536 no, I'm a person who watched a video and thought the presenter had a lovely voice 😂 plus... how would an internal monologue impress anyone!??? No one can hear it 🤣
LOVE!
I agree, she has a voice that overwhelms any possible distraction. 'Same goes for her appearance. Not to mention, a) I love math and she talks about it, b) she licks a series of ice creams. A video rarely makes me blush.
@@mundusuys8739 lol 😂
The underlying language of the universe! I love these three series :)
Awesome series. thank you.
No matter what Universe one finds one self in , there is one constant that defies Quantum Mechanics . British documentaries . They are an untangled fusion of , interesting matter , great production and superb presentation .
Thank you for discovering. and sharing ,love it. The universum is filled by inspirations and mistery.
19:15 Yes there IS a difference between maths and faith. In general, if a scientist/mathematician finds facts that contradict their 'believes' , they change their believes, if a religious person does so, (s)he ignores the observation.
Nope, they both do the same thing. They reevaluate what they thought they knew then proceed to fit the square peg in the round hole. People are dumb that way.
@@victorylane2377 Nope. We have recorded history of science and maths updating on new discoveries. We do not have similar history with faith. It is demonstrably not true that they're somehow the same.
@@kwanarchive It was a joke. Lighten up, no ones attacking your god given right to hate religion. ;)
@@victorylane2377 Nothing sadder than an idiot trying to salvage a poor argument by claiming it was a joke.
@@kwanarchive nothing sadder than a man with a little dick acting like a big one. It was a joke, up your reading comprehension. Twit
Hannah could read the number pie forever, I would watch. Brilliant!
Tim Dunk: Which numbers are written on the Number Pie and what is the flavour?
26:56 ".. The Greeks thinking that the universe was eternal and unchanging .." :
"There is nothing permanent except change",
"Nothing endures but change",
"All is flux, nothing stays still",
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man",
"Much learning does not teach understanding", etc
(Heraclitus).
Exactly true.
Thank you Pano, for confirming what this Phd Professor in Mathematics was merely guessing :P
Thanks so much .excellent programme
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one utterly enchanted by her.
oh good grief....you actually thought you might be? There are legions upon legions of us.....
@@Bix12 LOL
Nice enough, intelligent girl, but a red head and a bit chunky.
@@adrianworley7060 chunky? I suppose if your standard is heroin chique. And redhead is definitely a part of the appeal
@@jeffnolan2021 When she is wandering about on Jupiter Artlands grounds, she appears to be wearing "leggings" or whatever the things are being called this week, look at her thighs... People have different tastes, norms, whatever, she certainly appears a bit chunky to me. Same is true of hair colour, some people like redheads, others don't. Many redheads have health problems, particularly with skin conditions. I had a redhead working for me about 25 years ago, always something.
What a great series, the lady is so articulate and smart. Makes me wanna be smarter haha
The paradoxes are not truly paradoxes at all... The problem is that they pay more attention to what they think makes sense rather than what the Math is revealing about reality... The scenarios also imply certain things:
1. Linguistically, the expression is inaccurate for defining what a barber actually is. Essentially, it uses the fact of whether a man is un/shaved to suggest whether a man is a barber or not.
2. A man who is shaving himself is not being a barber at that time in the general sense, even if he is a barber by profession.
3. Also the scenario with the clippers is poorly interpreted... The clipper parts could be placed in the sink with the set of things that do not belong to clippers: if the parts belonged to a clipper that was removed from service due to malfunction.
It is not our job to determine what the math should look like: our job is to practice consistency, which is the key to accuracy/equality.
Agreed. It;s more like what is called a puzzle... another new conception of 'reality'... magic numbers to reduce the complexities of the mysterious universe hey...
An answer from a true quantum physicist: Yes, we don't.
Thanks for a nice video :)
Such great passionate of math. I love math very deep and the lecturer here Dr. Fry is approaching the arid concepts of math for all the people watching her, making more and more to understand math. " Math is giving us meaning..." ,so beautiful said.
Sorry to bother but can't the barber be shaved by another one ?
Here's what I find ironic about this series. The question she's asking seems tangentially related at best to the content, but it is quite a nice tour of a lot of esoteric math, physics, etc. To me, inventing math is like inventing a flashlight to explore a cave or inventing telescopes to explore the heavens... or inventing a language to describe day to day activities and objects. The objects/cave/heavens existed, the apparatus used to access and understand them is the part we invented.
On another BBC documentary Prof al-Kahlili said Paul Dirac wrote an equation that united realativity and quantum mechanics.
Brilliant, but perhaps it would have been even more interesting to learn how Buckminster Fuller’s Synergetics Geometry if explored here in this series, would fit in into the scheme of the mathematical universe/world
Joo Hock showing off are we?
I have been dreaming superposittions on me my self, after whatching all this very interesting documentaries.
I put this documentary on loop, and then fall fast asleep to it each and every night....wanna know why???? Because there is no better feeling in this ugly world than waking up next to long red hair and deep soft eyes.!!!
I'm at 12:49, where Hannah says math seems to be too good at predicting the behavior of the world in ways we never could have imagined. What if there were on one side Unimath, math from our Universe, a more fundamental coding language of our universe, and on the other side our math, a lense through which we discover parts of Unimath, a language that can translate some of the ideas of Unimath. Our math could be inspired by Unimath, but limited to what our type of living organisms can grasp of it. It is a language we can learn, a tool we can use, and it allows us to discover some of the behaviors of the world. But it is a narrow view of the Universe, and it may be bound to it by our own nature. It could even make some sense of some things while completely missing the bigger picture of those same things. I love the way the shadow of a cylinder can be a circle, as well as a rectangle, depending of where you shine light on it. And there might be other lenses capable of showing other things about our Universe, but we cannot use them of find them because we are not familiar with them.
Interesting. Brings to mind a few things. "The Answer is 42", "To understand the answer you must first understand the Question". One could also argue that the cup in the parallel dimension is in an alternative state, but the fact that is in an alternative dimension could mean it is not the same cup at all. Even that one was full of coffee and the tea etc. etc. Many of the theories were formulated over centuries and evolved to a point where someone could interpret and describe it. The more complex it is the longer that will take, call back in a few more thousand years.
Humans are the biggest limitation to understanding. I like your way of thinking though. Passion, belief and time are limiting factors. Too many preconcieved notions, precepts in a society of 8 billion. We still can't feed and house everybody or live in harmony with Earth or each other, yet near infinite computing power defined as conscousness. The Math doesn't add up lol.
Now I see maths on a different perspective
math has always been around invisible or visible. in all directions. Beautiful .
The barbershop problem, a third set - things that are not a clipper attachments, but contain clipper attachments.
very nice, doing Russell's paradox with a barber WITH barbers haha
I LOVE Math,but I love Hannah even more!😍❤🇸🇪
Looks like a natural red head to me! :-)
@@tbarber1027 So then, the carpet matches the drapes, as it were?
It's hard to concentrate on the ideas because she's so alluring. A natural beauty and a fairly attainable 7, I'd say, and that attainability makes her more desirable and seem more f***able. Anyway, she's too distracting. I'd prefer a dry, sex-less man introducing me to Schrodinger, etc.
I also wanna know where those amazing sculptured gardens and lake are. Anybody know? I know she's paragliding in the South Downs and these film makers don't often stray too far from London if they can help it.
Stupid question. It says at the end it's in Scotland: Jupiter Artland, Edinburgh.
@@jley1823 too thin but the bitch wears tight pants
Mathematics is a hell of a roller-coaster.
There is a great book on what Math is: ''Do the Math: Why Math Is Nothing Like How You Imagine by Jack Tanner''
Thank you, Hannah, for giving a whole new perspective toward understanding mathematics.
You are right in stating, that mathematics is little bit of invention and whole lot of discovery.
Humans are intellectual beings, imperfectually approaching perfection in space and will reach there in time.
I believe, the approach should be to understand energy, it's creation and utilisation.
May be friction is the clue.
The whole question of whether maths is invented or discovered seems to be more of a question of definition or semantics to me. In part 1 of this video it is stated that (verbal) languages are invented. But any mathematical equation can be expressed in words. Indeed, that is how you teach mathematics by talking students through what you are doing with the equations and operations.
The fact that natural phenomena (things and occurrences) follow certain patterns and that those patterns can most easily/efficiently be described with maths, doesn’t mean to me that you’ve discovered the maths - you’ve discovered the pattern.
This to me is analogous to certain human (emotional, social or cultural) phenomena that can only be or are most easily expressed in certain languages. There are, for example, many terms in Japanese that refer to cultural phenomena that you wouldn’t find in many (in some cases, any) other cultures. That doesn’t mean that when you learn about this as a non-Japanese person you are discovering the word, you are discovering the phenomenon. The word is just a tool to describe that phenomenon.
Yes I had that idea during the documentary. The maths checks out because what it describes is really there. But then again, it can be there and not there at the same time..
Your paragraph 2 and 3 seem to be contradicting each other. Inventing a word is not the same as discovering a concept.
Many arguments boil down to definitions that one accepts or does not accept. For instance, what makes a surface smooth? There seems to be no such thing, really. Or what makes a species? Or . . .
It should be obvious at this point that mathematics is the tool our brain employs to describe the outside world. Pretty much like any other language our brain invented (words, music, art... you don’t really believe there is “music” out there, right? It just happens inside our brains...) The “coincidences”, such as finding a (quasi) spiral pattern in the nautilus and a similar (quasi) spiral pattern in the sunflower, are there just because the brain that is analyzing them is always the same, and of course it is using the same tools. We will hardly have a counter proof in the future, of a different brain describing to us how they perceive and describe the same outside world. Now, that would be really interesting! Maths makes predictions because our brain evolved as such. We make predictions all the time, in our daily life. Maths is an organized and rigorous (actually, the best we can do, but certainly not omnipotent) way of making predictions about what “could be” out there, based on what we currently perceive. Then we do experiments and check whether the prediction was right or wrong. In some cases (e.g. general relativity) it is perfectly right, in many others (e.g. string theory) it is far from right. The alternative to maths being entirely man-produced is that “god”, or something as platonic as that, is the underlying maker of our reality, and some yet to be “discovered” maths contains the answer to all questions. I find this latter explanation much, much less satisfactory than the former.
This hour is too short a time interval. Good thing there is replay!
there is a difference between when something happens and when we experience it... why is this so hard to comprehend
okay, so whose frame of reference gets to decide when something "really" happens?
I have to take exception to the reference to e=mc^2 and the concept of increasing mass with velocity. The equation e=mc^2 is a special case where the mass isn't moving relative to the observer (you). The increasing energy comes from the momentum of the object that's moving, its mass doesn't increase. Very good entertaining series non the less.
Math
A fundamental part of the universe
Explained by titans :
From Pythagoras
To Einstein
Thanks for the series Fry.
While on meditation I felt that time was just another element of perception, like sounds, sight or smell; and was wondering what or where is the sense that perceived it?
I'd like to know where is that beautiful "mathematical" park Dr. Fry is walking or large part o these 3 episodes - Its design is intriguing and I'm curious if I could just go there...
I believe it's Jupiter Artland. It's a sculpture park in Edinburgh, Scotland
I love Hannah's voice.
Watching a show about Math, and now I want some cupcakes. Great.
I could listen to Hannah Fry recite a 'phone book! Listening to her is like I imagine bathing in warm chocolate would feel, somebody should hire her to read audio books. :)
If I could only watch her face, I wouldn't need to listen. :D But let me remind us all that she's also got a very beautiful mind. She wouldn't be so naturally attractive if she were weren't so nice on the inside.
As an example, Venus fly traps can count... so I don't think Mathematics is a purely human concept so maybe it really does exist independently from us (although my instinct says otherwise).
Very informative video👍Thank you Hannah🙏
"Mathematics to me is like God; although I don't understand it, I understand that I'm meant to experience it." Tamara-Lee Nathan, Cape Town, South Africa 🇿🇦
great, I hope we get more such documentaries helping the average citizen to know more about sciences. Thanks for posting!
Mathematics is the only solution I've found so far that will explain the philosophical riddle: "'that which was, is and always will be"
and isn't that what they define as what G-d is?
A bag of clipper attachments is not a clipper attachment so belongs with things that are not clipper attachments, even though the bag contains clipper attachments.
Hannah is absolutely BEAUTIFUL!
The most confounding paradox is the twin places boats unload
18:31 Complete FAIL on the two animations here: Both the balloon and the airplane are fixed (unmoving) with respect to the background, while the plane is supposed to be moving "very fast". And even though the two flashes appear to go off simultaneously, the red circle starts expanding later than the white one (obviously not how light works), which is the only reason it reaches the plane later. (!!) As a result, the animations definitely DO NOT illustrate the effect being described. This could have been fixed so easily by just having the plane be moving toward London (with both the flashes and the expanding circles being in sync)!
I get a kick out of this when the quantum physicist professor at 40:55 attempt to explained a scientific concept to the Hanna Fry, who is a mathematician, she said it pretty “weird” concept!!
Does anyone know where the landscaped, tiered gardens shown in this video are located? They look very cool!
Jupiter artland outside Edinburgh
50:17 "Meanwhile Quantum effects are virtually never seen at the scale of humans and planets"
The reason why it is VIRTUALLY never, rather than absolutely never is the existence of women like my wife, who can be wrong, but somehow still be right at the same time... I hate Quantum superposition, because it always ends up with me in the kitchen doing the dishes.
How did you know Einstein
@@mrvvrm5951 through a mutual friend.
@@mrvvrm5951 How did you not know Hobo
I was hoping she would put the black king on the right square
As teenager I never understood opsession having king and queen in correct positions. To me they are same positions but later I learned that for most people they are completely different. Idea that mirror and rotated images are same was really hard problem when learning letters as b, d, p and q are all same. Just an idea that how choosing a correct variant of mirror images can be a hard problem for some people.
Gag, no, Relativism simply defined the terms you need to subtract based on point of reference.
It does not negate the ability to define who is right and wrong on the two lamps experiment. It simply tells you you must subtract the relativistic movement of the one observer from their observations.
Subjective (relativistic) observations do not negate objective facts.
All we have are the counting numbers: 0,1,2,3, etc and a few basic operations. The rest of mathematics is just a form of shorthand for things we cannot do.
Counting numbers may correspond to groups of objects in the physical world e.g. apples. If we have 5 apples, we can add 2 apples to get 7 apples, 5 + 2 = 7. We can give away three apples, 7 - 3 = 4. But we obviously cannot now give away 6 apples as we now only have only 4 apples. What we do is replace 4 - 6 with the equivalent 0 - 2 and then replace with the shorthand notation -2. We cannot have -2 apples or -2 of anything. We use a shorthand notation to remember what we wanted to do in the hope that we may get more apples in the future. Then we can give away the 6 apples as desired.
Similarly, if we have 12 apples, we can divide the apples into 3 equal groups of 4 i.e. 12/3 = 4. However, we cannot divide 12 apples into 5 equal groups, 12/5. This is physically impossible unless we change our apples by cutting them up. Then we are no longer dealing with objects that are apples but objects that are pieces of apples. We use another equivalence that 12/5 is the same as 24/10 and we use another shorthand notation 24/10 = 2.4. We then hope that in the future we will get more apples such that we can divide our apples into 5 equal groups.
Similarly, we can take the square root of 9 to get 3. Square root is just a special case of division. But we cannot take the square root of 8. We just use another shorthand √8. We hope that we will be able to multiply √8 with another √8 and then we can get back to the number 8. Same deal with √-1. We just hope that we will get another √-1 to multiply it by.
In mathematics we just have addition of two numbers, subtraction of a smaller number from a larger number, multiplication of two numbers (repeated addition), and division of number by one of its factors (repeated subtraction). These are things we can do in the real world with physical objects. All other operations are impossible. When we can’t do an operation, we just use shorthand notations to “remember” the operation in the hope that at some latter time we can eliminate the impossible operations and return to the counting numbers that represent real world objects. We can use tricks such as replacing meters with millimetres or nanometres or the Planck length to eliminate impossible divisions. But this is just the same as cutting our apples in halves and having 12 apple halves as opposed to 6 apples. We have then redefined our physical objects. Even the symbols used for the counting numbers are just a shorthand notation for repeated addition in that 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, etc.
When someone tells you the Universe is mathematical, remember that all the mathematics you have ever seen just starts by assigning counting numbers to groups of objects and applying the operations mentioned in the last paragraph. The rest is just a form of shorthand for things that can’t be done, but we hope will eventually be possible.
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the Yin and Yang of the universe; the analog and digital; chaos and order; they will never meet. They continually dance with each other, but in the dance they are resolved.
I don't believe in the multiverse, but I believe I can explain why it looks that way. For example maths tells us there are an infinity of possibilities between 1 and 2. Theoretically you couldn't count to 2 because you would never get there.. and yet.. :)
The issue of the barber is not about contradiction in maths, but rather in the subtleties of human interactions. The barber is a cultural construct about employment and service. My definition would be as follows; a barber is a barber as defined by the society that designates that profession as distinct from other profession.
I think Hannah may be the most beautiful person on the planet!
14:00 and this is her own daughter!
You should enroll at your nearest Faculty of Mathematics. If your UNI hasn't got one, fly to Toronto and head about sixty miles west.
I think it’s great that after a 3-part documentary in which a mathematics professor tries to convey her passion for maths to you over a 3 hours run time, you focus on her appearance
@@milton7763 Arguably it has the effect of getting and keeping your attention, if only subliminally. :)
14:00
There was once a girl who was bright
She could travel much faster than light
She set off one day, in a relative way
And returned the previous night.
👌
The existence of maths independent from humans has long been obvious to me... I wouldn't even qualify it as a discovery in and of itself but simply an innate ability we have extended upon to a greater degree as we both evolved and progressed our imaginations, language and communication skills.
Most creatures use maths, but of course we have explored it's potential to a much greater degree.
A lion knows when "One" of "nine" of its fellow pride members dies and the next day knows that now only "eight" are on their "second" hunting attempt... It knows its position in a strategic crescent shaped hunting pattern and knows that "three" other lionesses are to its right and "four" more pride members are to its left and that together they are attempting to take down "One" prey... A crude example amongst many in the animal kingdom but a clear one...
How they conceive of those numbers is unknown to us of course, you may as well try and imagine what the world looks like to a bat!... And they are not about to start clawing tally marks on a stick for memories sake but conceive of those numbers they simply must.
The "multiverse" is not a solution to our paradoxes. All the solutions are here in our Universe. The Problem is within the human mind. Unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics doesn't require complicated mathematics. Instead we need a simple explanation of "Space and Time INTERACTION" in just 2 Dimensions.
Having the description of Space-time in 4 Dimensions is not sufficient because Space got 3 different appearances (3-D space, 2-D space and 1-D space). Consequently, there are 3 different levels of interaction between Space and Time. General Relativity focuses on 1 level only. This is the real Problem in Physics. We need to complete our understanding of RELATIVITY first by studying Gravity based on 2-Dimensional Space-Time.
Where is the park with the spiral mounds and interesting sculptures?
www.jupiterartland.org/
Thank you
Despite her PhD in maths, in the 3rd program in this series Dr. Hannah Fry demonstrates her fundamental misunderstanding of E=mc², of Special Relativity, of General Relativity, and of Quantum Physics. Spreading her misunderstanding to others can be misleading to those who wish to learn the correct theory. Until watching this program.
14m30s
E=mc² applies to objects at rest. The mass of an object does not increase with increase in velocity, this is merely the "relativistic mass".
18m30s
Two observers at the same position in spacetime will observe flashes of light (eg. from London and Southampton) at the same time, not at different times. It is the events which caused the flash of light which they will disagree about both in terms of the position of that event and the time that it happened. The stationary observer will consider that he is equidistant from Southampton and London, and that the flashes of light were emitted at the same time. Whereas, the observer travelling at near light speed, also seeing both flashes at the same time from the same position in spacetime, will consider London to be closer and Southampton further away, and therefore consider that the flash of light was emitted from Southampton earlier and from London later than that time which the stationary observer judged the event to have happened. Dr. Fry and Dr. Macarthur claim that the moving observer would see the flash of light from London sooner than the stationary observer despite being the same distance away from it. If this were true, then the light would have to travel at a faster speed towards the moving observer than it does towards the stationary observer... light does not travel at different speeds, it's just the observer's perception of the event which is altered by spacetime dilation due to relative motion between the observer and the event.
21m45s
The first diagram used to illustrate the warping of spacetime due to a massive object is wrong. The field lines are not bent so as to diverge around the object, squashing the spacetime, they converge towards the center of it, stretching the spacetime. If the object was made from antimatter then the diagram would have been more accurate.
36m0s
Attempting to include quantum physics into her program Dr. Fry says "...can all be reduced down into chemicals, which comprise elements, which themselves are made up of atoms..." I have no idea what Dr. Fry learned at school, but I recall learning that the elements ARE the atoms, and that all of the atoms ate listed in the periodic table of elements.
50m06s
"...gravity simply doesn't apply to particles at the subatomic scale"... completely incorrect and absurd to suggest this, since if it didn't apply to the subatomic particles from which everything is made, then it would not apply to the larger scale objects either. The truth is that gravity DOES apply to all of the subatomic particles, including those which have no mass, eg. photons, since these too are affected by gravitational fields, eg. gravitational lensing.
Overall, Dr. Fry seems utterly confused about which aspects of maths are discovered and which are invented, yet somehow managed to correctly conclude that it is a bit of both. However, she incorrectly states that the imaginary number "I" is invented, when such numbers are every bit as real as real numbers and fundamental to the nature of our universe.. the only thing to be invented was the name "I". She could have done a far better job of distinguishing between the mathematics which is inherent to the nature of reality, and those mathematical methods which have been invented to assist in calculation. Her attempts to include some basic physics and and chemistry into the discussion illustrate her ignorance of such subjects and could result in misleading the viewers, if they are not already knowledgeable in these areas. Fortunately my 14 year old son also understood the fundamental errors which I pointed out above.
The internet has ruined things - kind of. Once upon a time I would have watched this series and been absolutely fascinated, but now that fascination is dulled because I've seen these same old concepts trotted out over and over. And also because it's clear the establishment media still thinks it needs to significantly dumb things down and completely skip over some of the more mind-blowing aspects of reality because we're too stupid to grasp them. Thank god for the likes of Eric Weinstein and Sean Carroll.
that's alright. we're getting a better passive education than when we were kids
Yep, plus the unneeded filler props and locations and presenters playing dumb when interviewing. A 5 minutes piece dragged out to 60 mins, containing no real insight.
Well on balance we also get things like 3b1b... which makes up for the same vacuous programs that (ironically) fill up airtime on BBC, Discovery, History Channel, etc.
Very recommendable
Richard Phillips Feynman also played a fundamental in formulation of Quantum electrodynamics, thus unifying general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Oscar Manrique and Hanna Fry: what do you have to say on this?
@Slightly Bonkerswhat's name?
The cup is both half full and half empty at the same time. There, superposition in the macroscopic world.
the paraglider with the shades looked like a fighter pilot until she started to talk, then she looked like a hippie... but she is pretty cool tho..
I had a light bulb moment that is on and off at the same time 😂.
Sets don't have to be numbers.
My favorite set was created by a little girl.
{mommy, daddy, grandpa, window and 11:30}.
Never knew Madhuri Dixit is a Mathematician, wow 😍😍😍😍
Tôi rất thích chương trình này của Hannah Fry
Tôi ước j nó được phụ đề tiếng Việt để con cháu tôi được xem.
Can anyone tell me what is the main theme song of the documentary? Thanks
32:30 Trial and error is not such a good thing if the error leaves you as a red smear on the hillside.
Congratulations! You have arrived at a really brilliant series!
The trick is this woman's ability to communicate some really complex ideas.
I'm madly in love with her! brain!
So the universe exists and it doesn't exists at the same time.
What's missing is the great mystery, the force, they call it spooky, conundrum, weird, and a few other terms when they use when they bump into turbulence, Turbulence or Thor or Tor have been around forever and it was recognized by the ancient peoples of the world...But i turns out that the civilized people are not that civilized but confused !~
Mathematics is discovered, but we invented the language to talk about it.
agreed!
no, we chose the axioms and we invented the language. Everything follows from the rules we set.
Did we invent the one that "one" represents in our language or was "one" that preexisted just discovered? You may have put a name to "one" with your language, but oneness already existed. That is what is being talked about.
Stephen Brown, I always thought language was invented to make lying more effective. Being able to talk about maths is something an unintended side effect. (my opinion)
@Eriko. Oy A quantity of something that is greater than zero, ie. is "there", but does not appear multiple times. Is there a beer can or my desk, yes, are there several beer cans on my desk, no, I have "one" beer can on my desk.
Say we discover a new fruit that no one has ever seen before, we don't have a word to describe it. Would you say the fruit does not exist at all?
Could it be possible that quantum and general describe two diffrent dimensions? They both exist but can't be described in terms of one another. For instance, hight can't be described in terms of width.
Maths is and can be several groups of assertions sometimes asserted as maxims by force of the postulator over the novice!
Sometimes an assertion can be wrong in one sphere, and correct in another. For instance, on a globe, the shortest distance between two points is an arch. But on a flat surface (plane) the shortest distance is a straight line. Sometimes, we assume that which is not appropriate which can lead to bad math. Sometimes, it may take a long time to realize you didn't have enough information to make your absolute assertions. And yet what was always going to be true about the math was already there, wasn't it? For instance, space was always a curve (another assertion!) and yet we assumed it was not.
Also want to know where those gardens are
Agreed that math(s) is a mix of invention and discovery. There certainly seems an unchanging and underlying basis to the universe. Some of our math does seem to be rules we invent after gleaning a portion of that deep reality. Set theory always seemed rather artificial to me. Hence the Barber Paradox and others. Group theory feels more substantial. Calculus is definitely deep reality.