Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/y3cw_9ELpQw/w-d-xo.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman Guest bio: Andrew Strominger is a theoretical physicist at Harvard.
Vivian Robinson found mistake in Schwarzschild radius, details in "Neither Event Horizon nor Black Holes Exist". And "Gambling and Nobel Prize For Physics" shows no spooky action at a distance. "Time Matters eBook" starts with simple solution to Hubble redshift, so, even in this Einstein was right with his static Universe (without cosmological constant).
Yea , even a genius like Einstein , who thought about blackholes for 25 years , wrote a paper only to get it completely wrong. If it was someone with low self esteem, they would have felt really really bad, and might doubt their own worth and abilities. This is a good reminder to not be too hard on yourself, everyone makes mistakes, even someone like Einstein.
And he may prove to be right at some point in the future when scientists revise their view based on, well, science. There is no such thing as “settled science” except for those who wish to propagandize it. When you hear that phrase, raise your BS flag. Another Einstein will come along, as they do, and we’ll be blown away and adopt yet another paradigm to be overcome by future empirical work. See Thomas Kuhn’s _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ for one representation for how this works. 😊
Einstein died before either of these utterly inconceivably crazy ideas were proven to be true. I can't imagine anyone feeling dumb for thinking that they were completely impossible, no matter what the math said, even if they lived to discover they were proven wrong. Even after they have been proven to exist they are exceptionally hard to accept as an actual reality.
Lex is working hard here to hold the audiences hand to help understand Andrew’s analogy on coordinate transfer anticipating the viewers internal questions. To quote Einstein “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”.
That is not actually an Einstein quote. More importantly, as a person with a degree in physics, I think that quote is gruesomely overused. Fair, if you understand something well enough you should be able to transduce some simplified, abstracted form to someone outside of your field. But how far that person is removed from your niche really makes a huge difference for how long it will take and how much detail you can include. If we're talking about an abstract mathematical concept such as coordinate transformations, anything more dumbed down than the version that he just gave you simply defeats its purpose of being an aid to the discussion.
@@verefiedxL you don't need to!Intellect can take you away from what your " body" is telling you.Listen to & feel your OWN body....you are a beautiful manifestation as was Einstein X
@@Leble727You raise a good point concerning this dilemma. Perhaps we can revise as follows. As simply _as practically possible_ ought to be the objective. As you rightly allude to, this doesn't preclude the need for using some level of technical terminology ("jargon"), especially in comprehensively detailed describing of "complex" concepts in particular, highly specialized (non- generic or universal) domains with concrete precision. If the totality of literally everything, everywhere were to consist of a perfectly singular, uniform identity, then the very premise upon which this dilemma is placed, wouldn't even be applicable ("simplicity" and "complexity" wouldn't even contain a coherent referent). But of course, that isn't so... Reality consists of both elementary and supervening emergent properties. Everything is interconnected, yet elements and entities are in fact (apparently) discrete in the sense that they inter-actively relate, implicating complex diversity as a byproduct. So the effectual fact is, not all _things_ are identical to all other _things_ despite all being, paradoxically, part of a whole system. Anyway, again it is surely accurate that laymen aren't per se going to be able to understand even the utmost unifying simplification of a truth, if they lack the sufficient symbolic structure explicitly denotated in a given domain (specialized subject of study). Imagine person A has reached the maximum possible explantory simplification, within the limiting parameters of the language system used to explain X subject. Person B might nonethless be incapable of identifying and appreciating that fact. Illustrating with a more extreme example, imagine if someone never attended grammar school *at all* - even an omniscient deity would be incapable of communicating symbolically represented, abstract knowledge to them (without omnipotence or something, wherein they could telepathically transfer said knowledge). You could try explaining "basic division is basically just an abstract, mathematical representation of splitting something apart" (mathematics/physics) or "people avoid direct contact with open flames because it causes pain" (sentience/bio-neuro-psychology) they wouldn't "understand" either message relay without both the 1) founding (empirical, sensory) source data access and 2) logical language structure...related - many social concepts seem "simple" but this might only be because the fundamental empirical relationship between negative valence (colloquially, "suffering") and environmental stimuli is so self-evidently, deeply registered that, said logical relata provides a powerful intuitive sense rendering more technically precise denotational outlining as unnecessary...whereas fundamental relationships below or above the level of the property of qualia, become increasingly "complex" to us in either direction spanning from that point of reference... In any case, the point is to holistically reduce (simplify) something to its most fundamental properties, laws and so on, and to soundly capture that communicatively with utmost brevity (efficiency), conceptual clarity and explantory power. Such expression of an empirically and logically sound lingual representation of the referent in question, amounting to accurate consilience, is the ultimate dream of the greatest scientists, physicists, mathematical modelers, philosophers of mechanics and so on... Tl;dr re: explanatory "simplification" - it's all an ongoing quest for: 1) _Most efficiently communicating_ the accurate consilience of all abstract knowledge related to a given item, idea, and/or subject, while 2) preserving the integrity of the specific subject matter and 3) as much as practically possible, maximizing for broader audience understanding
The most difficult parts seem to be related to steadfastly satisfying "accurate consilience of all abstract knowledge related to a given item, idea, and/or subject" and "[completely] preserving the integrity of the specific subject matter" You can sacrifice either (or both) of the above and still (psychosocially) seem to 'win' to some variable extent, but the degree of such sacrifice will dose-dependently increase the probability of increasingly wider misinterpretation/misunderstanding (whether consisting of intentionally disingenuous 'bad faith' actors, and/or of the most candidly straining-to-understand audience)
We had discovered and learned enough and gained enough technological wisdom during einsteins time that breakthroughs left and right were bound to happen. Breakthroughs don't happen that often anymore cause we've pretty much discovered and have explanations for how most things work now.
You also have to take into account the stage was set for Einstein to make break throughs. So many paradox's and inconsistencies arose during that time. They very well be an Einstein among us, but when it comes to genius there is a lot of luck involved.
I think Einstein level geniuses are not too uncommon on a historical timescale, most of them are just so deeply involved in their fields that laypeople never hear about it. In my opinion the real outlier of the 20th century was Von Neumann. I don't think we've ever had another human at his level and we might not for some time yet (without using CRISPR or neuralink)
The coolest thing on Einstein is his work was so beyond the science in 1904 that scientist considered him a philosopher more than a scientist. Imagine begin so smart that other geniuses in your field think you're crazy.
Good additional insight building off of this... after a discovery, you have trouble understanding the confusion you had before the discovery. But what if the discovery isn't as accurate as you think? You stop empathizing with your old confused self, you are so certain after the discovery, that adjusting might prove incredibly difficult. And thus, the challenge that some academics have with considering something that pecks at their discovery.
I wonder if Einsteins discovery of General Relativity, his Eureka with it and the impression it made on him possibly block him from understanding some later concepts? Like being blinded by the light
Thats not alliteration. here's an example of alliteration: "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers." The repetition of the "p" sound at the beginning of each word creates an alliterative effect. Sorry to be so pedantic. It was poetic though i would say.
Einstein's father was an engineer and his son Albert was a good engineer himself destined to follow in the family business. Einstein hence had a practical and intuitive understanding of nature. He was a lot like today's computer geeks who were always experimenting and trying to hack the machines. In Einstein's case it was the machine of nature.
Einstein was prodigious child. He read and digested Kant by the age of 13. You are ADVISED NOT to read Kant on your own even at college. 😅 The guy was just born special.
@@DC-zi6se Maybe you have to read it in German? But yes he was special. He admitted he wasn't gifted in mathematics but obviously could think like few people in other ways. Also was a student of Spinoza, Leibniz etc. who were inspirations for his physics.
I think the experience of seeing complex answers to difficult questions as painfully obvious after the fact is universal, and a result of the chaotic process of discovery associated with the accumulation of knowledge.
Einstein had many equally brilliant peers such as Pauli, Fermi, Dirac etc who likewise weren't always correct either. Time moves on, and today we have people who are a product of the time they were born into and are the 'brilliant' pioneers of our generation.
I think Maxwell already had the idea that electro magnet waves moved at a fixed velocity which comes from his equation on electromagnetism. The whole point was that Maxwell was right; newton was wrong.
The speed of light as a speed limit wasn't an intuition. The intuition was when Einstein proposed that time and space aren't fixed. Time and space depend on the motion of the observer.
The thing about intelligence is that you can't understand just how difficult it is to understand the things you don't understand. It's like trying to describe how to be a great pitcher to someone who has never heard of arms and hands.
I can only offer a very simplistic, amateur, and not wholly accurate analogy, but if you can think of light as an untethered, frictionless ball on a frictionless flatbed of a truck, when the truck accelerates the ball will roll backwards from the perspective of the driver but will rotate in a stationary position relative to an observer standing on the sidewalk watching the truck pass by. You can almost think of light as being stationary and space moving past it without imparting any momentum on the light. Because we are tethered to space, it looks like light is moving. If we were tethered to light, it would look like the fabric of spacetime was moving. Again, this isn’t a perfect analogy, but I hope it adds some clarity
Take Einstein’s intelligence, capacity and speed to process and make connections, double it, and AGI systems will be at least 10-100 times better. And will have the capacity to link to thousands of other systems to work in harmony. That is where the human species is heading. And from there, expect the end of purely human species, as the species will likely merge with AGI, tech, bioengineering, etc. And populate other planets.
Jeez, the story behind Relativity, is more complex than people realize. Einstein was just 1 of many, who were studying Relativity. Lorentz discovered Relativity, Einstein reinterpreted it in a new way. But the gravitational theory would have been discovered with or without Einstein. Hilbert was very actually the 1st but let Einstein publish his out of respect.
me too, I often get confused cause there’s too many things to think about & then I can’t remember wat I was gonna figure out in order.. that’s watch get when ya put wisdom B4 virtue👋😒. IO, we SUPPOSED to get confused, or blurry, cause our priorities R off Q. IO again, the chaos is exactly precisely as it should B… hUd of thunk
I wished he gave an answer to the question Lex asked. Is it intuitive to come to the conclusion that light has a speed limit? If answer is yes, how? Explain you sucker?
The audacity of this professor to suggest that he would fail a student for coming up with a different conclusion than his. The process and rationale are what should be graded, not simply coming up with an answer that matches the teacher. Or else how would any new discoveries be made
Almost every electronic device in my house including a VHS tape player has been flashing 12 00 for the last 25 years... And this guy is making fun of Einstein being "confused" about the speed of light..
Just to point out Einstein didn't come up with the speed of light being the speed limit. This was known from experiments in electromagnetism the century prior. Einstein's great contribution was understanding the implications to time and space.
Can't be that bright. I was classified as the dumbest of the class in all classes, laughed at by teachers, and thus dropped out of school. So in turn had no physics education at all. Independently discovering the Special Relativity(SR) phenomena and its cause, is about as easy as learning how to ride a bike, and the same applies to independently deriving the SR mathematical equations. So my method was quite independent indeed. However, here is the interesting part. If you have a good education and high marks, the chance of you being able to do the same, is very very low.
The mystery of Einstein is how it proves, like Newton, a genuine belief in an intelligent God is prerequisite to genuine scientific discovery. It is the ultimate irony for scientists who believe that there is no God, they cannot make genius discoveries on their own, and never do .
@@bobmusil1458 Lord will save you. You need Jesus christ. Just joking he believed in spinoza (more or less) . Disgusting how people still get it wrong.
One reason why Einstein is so beloved and held high as a genius is because of his own self-awareness. He was never not able to admit when he was wrong. He also was a tremendous philosopher who was open to deep questions about the universe.
@@Bill-ou7zphe wasn’t proven wrong on QM before he died, so he never had a chance to admit that. His positions on QM is always held against him, but this obscure his immense contribution to it. He is the true father of QM even over Planck who up until 1915 or later, still didn’t believe in Einstein’s 1905 photoelectric paper and considered it a black stain on Einstein’s record. Einstein pushed the duality of particles before anyone else. He only believed that QM is not complete, and he hasn’t actually been proven wrong just yet.
It seems obvious in retrospect, but imagine someone coming out right now with an essentially complete model for quantum science. It’s fairly compareable. We have much more tech, much more computing power, and not to mention the internet, i.e all knowledge is easily obtainable and it’s easy to collaborate compared to Einstein’s time.
Black holes and gravity waves don't seem obvious in retrospect. They seem utterly and terrifyingly insane!!! 😂 How this guy can pretend they seem obvious blows my mind. He's just trying to sound smart, in my humble opinion, which I'm sure he is. But he would probably sound smarter if he stopped trying.
In one sense Einstein is probably correct as black holes as described by mathematics are probably not real, an infinitely small object with infinite density probably cannot actually exist. Whenever we encounter infinity it just means our current math and knowledge has hit a wall. Of course I'm not saying black holes aren't real, just that how we describe the singularity is probably not a reflection of reality.
@@hrithikravi8117 When did I say black holes don't exist? I remember explicitly saying that they do, just that our concept of the singularity is wrong.
That's a great question. Did Einstein question that an event horizon would exist or did he question what his own field equations described inside of that event horizon. We know that the equations fail at some point inside; they result in infinities. At what point towards a very heavy object did Einstein think his equations were not valid anymore?
@@hrithikravi8117 Did you even bother to read his entire comment? The point is that our current math for black holes still can't be right, not that they aren't real.
@@bernardd The concept of an event horizon was probably not properly fleshed out at the point Einstein was making assertions about black holes. And I would imagine also that he didn't draw any line of where the eqns are no longer valid, he would've just had a problem with the notion of an infinite density. Anything finite is fair game.
The idea that scientists have no memory of their prior confusion is one of Bruno Latour’s great themes and points toward the meaning of scientific theory generally.
I don’t know who is he and how smart he is but in this clip he is showing his inability to simplify things and explaining with a set of context and frame of reference.
It's in the nature of being human to make mistakes. The more complicated the matter, the harder it is to be correct. Doesn't matter who you are, doesn't matter what your name is. You're only human. The one who's always correct is the one who never does anything meaningful. You only hear about people's correct achievements without knowing that all of them require countless mistakes that nobody cared about.
The best example of self-confidence is Albert Einstein. He was not getting any job after graduation, his family lost trust in him but he knew who he was the genius.That much trust upon self is very rare these days.
God, how our focus has changed…from the intellectual pursuits of the mysteries of our surroundings…to the favorite flavor ice cream of an elected person.
Einstein didn't come up with the speed limit, it was observed by two scientists (who's names escape me) circa 50 years before his time. What Einstein did was to take their observation seriously and ponder the consequences of the speed limit whereas all his contemporaries assumed the observation to have been faulty.
I think you are confusing "speed limit" with the speed of light. Michelson and Morley measured the speed of lights at different points of the earth's surface, at various stages in its orbit around the stun. They expected the speed of light to be a constant w.r.t some universal ether, and therefore the local speed of light in each of these experiments to differ in different locations and directions. However, they found that the speed of light was a universal constant - an observation so bizarre in Newtonian mechanics that no one attempted to explain it until Einstein. This is different from saying that the speed of light is the ultimate speed in the universe. I think that conclusion comes from Einstein's paper on inertia being a function of velocity -- due to e=mc^2, kinetic energy increases the relativistic mass of a body, reaching infinite as the velocity approaches c. This then leads to the conclusion that no object starting from rest can ever be accelerated to a speed greater than c. To my knowledge, Einstein was the first to suggest this formally, although Google says Henri Poincare had also speculated about this in 1904 (ref: einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html).
about as brilliant as the bottom of the Mariana Trench......no wonder he was so fascinated with empty space coz thats all that was between his ears 😄😆😂🤣😂🤣😂😭😭😭🤣
Mankind still thinks to discover what things that exist & what things can do that exist makes a man some genius like he created the things to exist while ignoring the Knowledge that must exist 1st really does exist for made the thing for makes the man some Genius in History for makes him look smart to say no real evidence a GOD exist for people wait to follow Him for knowledge.
Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/y3cw_9ELpQw/w-d-xo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Andrew Strominger is a theoretical physicist at Harvard.
Vivian Robinson found mistake in Schwarzschild radius, details in "Neither Event Horizon nor Black Holes Exist". And "Gambling and Nobel Prize For Physics" shows no spooky action at a distance. "Time Matters eBook" starts with simple solution to Hubble redshift, so, even in this Einstein was right with his static Universe (without cosmological constant).
Yea , even a genius like Einstein , who thought about blackholes for 25 years , wrote a paper only to get it completely wrong. If it was someone with low self esteem, they would have felt really really bad, and might doubt their own worth and abilities. This is a good reminder to not be too hard on yourself, everyone makes mistakes, even someone like Einstein.
Dats real
Thanks for the perspective
Hence the popular insult: "Nice work Einstein!" when you mess up.
And he may prove to be right at some point in the future when scientists revise their view based on, well, science. There is no such thing as “settled science” except for those who wish to propagandize it. When you hear that phrase, raise your BS flag. Another Einstein will come along, as they do, and we’ll be blown away and adopt yet another paradigm to be overcome by future empirical work. See Thomas Kuhn’s _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ for one representation for how this works. 😊
Einstein died before either of these utterly inconceivably crazy ideas were proven to be true. I can't imagine anyone feeling dumb for thinking that they were completely impossible, no matter what the math said, even if they lived to discover they were proven wrong. Even after they have been proven to exist they are exceptionally hard to accept as an actual reality.
He was jobless for 9 years and didn't go crazy. That's impressive
Lex is working hard here to hold the audiences hand to help understand Andrew’s analogy on coordinate transfer anticipating the viewers internal questions. To quote Einstein “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”.
That is not actually an Einstein quote. More importantly, as a person with a degree in physics, I think that quote is gruesomely overused. Fair, if you understand something well enough you should be able to transduce some simplified, abstracted form to someone outside of your field. But how far that person is removed from your niche really makes a huge difference for how long it will take and how much detail you can include. If we're talking about an abstract mathematical concept such as coordinate transformations, anything more dumbed down than the version that he just gave you simply defeats its purpose of being an aid to the discussion.
@@Leble727and with that being said, i still don’t understand it 🤣
@@verefiedxL you don't need to!Intellect can take you away from what your " body" is telling you.Listen to & feel your OWN body....you are a beautiful manifestation as was Einstein X
@@Leble727You raise a good point concerning this dilemma. Perhaps we can revise as follows. As simply _as practically possible_ ought to be the objective. As you rightly allude to, this doesn't preclude the need for using some level of technical terminology ("jargon"), especially in comprehensively detailed describing of "complex" concepts in particular, highly specialized (non- generic or universal) domains with concrete precision.
If the totality of literally everything, everywhere were to consist of a perfectly singular, uniform identity, then the very premise upon which this dilemma is placed, wouldn't even be applicable ("simplicity" and "complexity" wouldn't even contain a coherent referent). But of course, that isn't so...
Reality consists of both elementary and supervening emergent properties. Everything is interconnected, yet elements and entities are in fact (apparently) discrete in the sense that they inter-actively relate, implicating complex diversity as a byproduct. So the effectual fact is, not all _things_ are identical to all other _things_ despite all being, paradoxically, part of a whole system.
Anyway, again it is surely accurate that laymen aren't per se going to be able to understand even the utmost unifying simplification of a truth, if they lack the sufficient symbolic structure explicitly denotated in a given domain (specialized subject of study).
Imagine person A has reached the maximum possible explantory simplification, within the limiting parameters of the language system used to explain X subject. Person B might nonethless be incapable of identifying and appreciating that fact. Illustrating with a more extreme example, imagine if someone never attended grammar school *at all* - even an omniscient deity would be incapable of communicating symbolically represented, abstract knowledge to them (without omnipotence or something, wherein they could telepathically transfer said knowledge). You could try explaining "basic division is basically just an abstract, mathematical representation of splitting something apart" (mathematics/physics) or "people avoid direct contact with open flames because it causes pain" (sentience/bio-neuro-psychology) they wouldn't "understand" either message relay without both the 1) founding (empirical, sensory) source data access and 2) logical language structure...related - many social concepts seem "simple" but this might only be because the fundamental empirical relationship between negative valence (colloquially, "suffering") and environmental stimuli is so self-evidently, deeply registered that, said logical relata provides a powerful intuitive sense rendering more technically precise denotational outlining as unnecessary...whereas fundamental relationships below or above the level of the property of qualia, become increasingly "complex" to us in either direction spanning from that point of reference...
In any case, the point is to holistically reduce (simplify) something to its most fundamental properties, laws and so on, and to soundly capture that communicatively with utmost brevity (efficiency), conceptual clarity and explantory power. Such expression of an empirically and logically sound lingual representation of the referent in question, amounting to accurate consilience, is the ultimate dream of the greatest scientists, physicists, mathematical modelers, philosophers of mechanics and so on...
Tl;dr re: explanatory "simplification" - it's all an ongoing quest for:
1) _Most efficiently communicating_ the accurate consilience of all abstract knowledge related to a given item, idea, and/or subject, while 2) preserving the integrity of the specific subject matter and 3) as much as practically possible, maximizing for broader audience understanding
The most difficult parts seem to be related to steadfastly satisfying
"accurate consilience of all abstract knowledge related to a given item, idea, and/or subject"
and "[completely] preserving the integrity of the specific subject matter"
You can sacrifice either (or both) of the above and still (psychosocially) seem to 'win' to some variable extent, but the degree of such sacrifice will dose-dependently increase the probability of increasingly wider misinterpretation/misunderstanding (whether consisting of intentionally disingenuous 'bad faith' actors, and/or of the most candidly straining-to-understand audience)
Einstein, what scares me about him is how we've had noone as brilliant as him since him. The man's tools was a pencil and paper.
And unbelievable imagination
…I’m scared the smart people are now replaced by computers
We had discovered and learned enough and gained enough technological wisdom during einsteins time that breakthroughs left and right were bound to happen. Breakthroughs don't happen that often anymore cause we've pretty much discovered and have explanations for how most things work now.
You also have to take into account the stage was set for Einstein to make break throughs. So many paradox's and inconsistencies arose during that time. They very well be an Einstein among us, but when it comes to genius there is a lot of luck involved.
I think Einstein level geniuses are not too uncommon on a historical timescale, most of them are just so deeply involved in their fields that laypeople never hear about it. In my opinion the real outlier of the 20th century was Von Neumann. I don't think we've ever had another human at his level and we might not for some time yet (without using CRISPR or neuralink)
The title is misleading. All Andrew talked about was how confused Einstein was and some of his mistakes which take away nothing from his greatness.
that's because the answers are shitty. the title relates to the question
I love that Lex always asks the followups that I also want more detail on and makes sure the explanation is at a relatable conceptual level
The coolest thing on Einstein is his work was so beyond the science in 1904 that scientist considered him a philosopher more than a scientist. Imagine begin so smart that other geniuses in your field think you're crazy.
Simply not true - that he was considered as a philosopher more than a scientist
Kinda like people think about Trump. The man is light tears beyond others.
Tesla was considered crazy lol
@@aXw4ryPlJREinstein was EXTREMELY well read in philosophy and had read all of kant’s books by age 16. He knew philosophy very well.
@@Lol-vt2lnThat doesn't make one a philosopher though.
It's fascinating the scientific advancement that happened in the early 20th century
A very stimulating discussion. More like this.
_synchronistic mathematics_
No no, what are you talking about?! More Aella, please 🙄
Good additional insight building off of this... after a discovery, you have trouble understanding the confusion you had before the discovery. But what if the discovery isn't as accurate as you think? You stop empathizing with your old confused self, you are so certain after the discovery, that adjusting might prove incredibly difficult. And thus, the challenge that some academics have with considering something that pecks at their discovery.
I wonder if Einsteins discovery of General Relativity, his Eureka with it and the impression it made on him possibly block him from understanding some later concepts? Like being blinded by the light
No. He contributed big time to quantum theory and mechanics
Lex looks like he’s filming his reactions separately. He’s so funny 😂
😂😂
"...In the Mind of the Time of Einstein..." is some great alliteration there Lex!
Thats not alliteration. here's an example of alliteration: "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers." The repetition of the "p" sound at the beginning of each word creates an alliterative effect.
Sorry to be so pedantic.
It was poetic though i would say.
I think Einstein liked to cast doubt to motivate other scientists to prove him wrong. It was a challenge.
Einstein's father was an engineer and his son Albert was a good engineer himself destined to follow in the family business. Einstein hence had a practical and intuitive understanding of nature. He was a lot like today's computer geeks who were always experimenting and trying to hack the machines. In Einstein's case it was the machine of nature.
He was NOT interested in engineering, only physics. He gave up his electrical engineering course for Physics.
Einstein's child is also an engineer .
Einstein was prodigious child. He read and digested Kant by the age of 13. You are ADVISED NOT to read Kant on your own even at college. 😅
The guy was just born special.
@@DC-zi6se Maybe you have to read it in German? But yes he was special. He admitted he wasn't gifted in mathematics but obviously could think like few people in other ways. Also was a student of Spinoza, Leibniz etc. who were inspirations for his physics.
I can't get over how good Lex looks for 40
I think the experience of seeing complex answers to difficult questions as painfully obvious after the fact is universal, and a result of the chaotic process of discovery associated with the accumulation of knowledge.
“Chaos in an idea isn’t the problem, the idea chaos is the solution to the problem is”
"when you have a spacetime with edges, it gets very tricky how you label the edges"
Great clip from this interview. Everyone Loves Einstein!
Except his wife i think
lol tf? speak for yourself, Im not a fan of thieving skypes.
We are in Plato's cave, guessing what is causing the shadows that we see.
3:00 this was insane
Good discussion Lex, thanks.
The uncertainty of science is the point 👌🏿✨️
Einstein had many equally brilliant peers such as Pauli, Fermi, Dirac etc who likewise weren't always correct either. Time moves on, and today we have people who are a product of the time they were born into and are the 'brilliant' pioneers of our generation.
I think Maxwell already had the idea that electro magnet waves moved at a fixed velocity which comes from his equation on electromagnetism. The whole point was that Maxwell was right; newton was wrong.
c(speed of light) minus haha nice one lex 3:25
The speed of light as a speed limit wasn't an intuition. The intuition was when Einstein proposed that time and space aren't fixed. Time and space depend on the motion of the observer.
The thing about intelligence is that you can't understand just how difficult it is to understand the things you don't understand.
It's like trying to describe how to be a great pitcher to someone who has never heard of arms and hands.
General Relativity is easily the most impressive Physical Theory ever created due to its simplicity.
Very interesting points.
How does light not exceed 300,000 kms in expanding space. Is c2 independant of spacetime?
I can only offer a very simplistic, amateur, and not wholly accurate analogy, but if you can think of light as an untethered, frictionless ball on a frictionless flatbed of a truck, when the truck accelerates the ball will roll backwards from the perspective of the driver but will rotate in a stationary position relative to an observer standing on the sidewalk watching the truck pass by. You can almost think of light as being stationary and space moving past it without imparting any momentum on the light. Because we are tethered to space, it looks like light is moving. If we were tethered to light, it would look like the fabric of spacetime was moving. Again, this isn’t a perfect analogy, but I hope it adds some clarity
Didn't Einstein often doubt himself? He predicted black holes then convince himself they didn't exist.
I liked how he came up with these million dollar questions and then used thought experiments to solve them.
Hindsight is always 20/20
From what I understand this Einstein guy was no dullard
What a daft question! What scale do we use?
The blind spots in a solid theory will not be found by a hard logical thinker, it will be offered to a soft lucid gambler.
ROBERT GREENE for next interview
Which speed limit? The 55 one? Because yeah, that one seems wrong.
Take Einstein’s intelligence, capacity and speed to process and make connections, double it, and AGI systems will be at least 10-100 times better.
And will have the capacity to link to thousands of other systems to work in harmony.
That is where the human species is heading.
And from there, expect the end of purely human species, as the species will likely merge with AGI, tech, bioengineering, etc.
And populate other planets.
does sound pretty cool
Can we just give a shout out for Edward Witten
Someone like Einstein is born every 1000 years i feel like.
Jeez, the story behind Relativity, is more complex than people realize. Einstein was just 1 of many, who were studying Relativity. Lorentz discovered Relativity, Einstein reinterpreted it in a new way. But the gravitational theory would have been discovered with or without Einstein. Hilbert was very actually the 1st but let Einstein publish his out of respect.
Simples example of coordinate transformation is regular X, Y, Z to polar coordinates
me too, I often get confused cause there’s too many things to think about & then I can’t remember wat I was gonna figure out in order.. that’s watch get when ya put wisdom B4 virtue👋😒. IO, we SUPPOSED to get confused, or blurry, cause our priorities R off Q. IO again, the chaos is exactly precisely as it should B… hUd of thunk
Hasn't it been proven that the speed of light isn't the fastest speed?
I wished he gave an answer to the question Lex asked. Is it intuitive to come to the conclusion that light has a speed limit? If answer is yes, how? Explain you sucker?
He came up with thoughts all stingers come up. Nothing new or great.
The audacity of this professor to suggest that he would fail a student for coming up with a different conclusion than his. The process and rationale are what should be graded, not simply coming up with an answer that matches the teacher. Or else how would any new discoveries be made
Almost every electronic device in my house including a VHS tape player has been flashing 12 00 for the last 25 years...
And this guy is making fun of Einstein being "confused" about the speed of light..
Very bad title for this video
Jesus of nazareth loves you
I'm getting a restraining order
It is remarkable how many modern physicists believe or suggest they have deeper perspectives of physics than Einstein.
I respect Albert Einstein.❤🎉😊
Just to point out Einstein didn't come up with the speed of light being the speed limit. This was known from experiments in electromagnetism the century prior. Einstein's great contribution was understanding the implications to time and space.
If you don't pass students that think unconventional than you won't have more Albert Einstein's...
I thought this guy was Jason Bateman
Einstein was influenced by another genius Maxwell!
WD40 is cool
Lex's podcast would be the greatest on the planet... without Lex
Isaac Newton invented calculus!
SR wrong due to reference frame mixing and bad math. GR even worse.
Strominger is engaging, perceptive and mentally flexibel. Fridman is not.
Maybe not as smart as John von Neumann
Not very. Not very at all.
I think Eistein was scary scary scary smart
Ehh, Einstein was cool. Isaac Newton is on another level
Can't be that bright. I was classified as the dumbest of the class in all classes, laughed at by teachers, and thus dropped out of school. So in turn had no physics education at all. Independently discovering the Special Relativity(SR) phenomena and its cause, is about as easy as learning how to ride a bike, and the same applies to independently deriving the SR mathematical equations. So my method was quite independent indeed. However, here is the interesting part. If you have a good education and high marks, the chance of you being able to do the same, is very very low.
Propaganda… Einstein was a plagiarist
Conspirathy theorist...
@@Existidor.Serial137 thank you
What are your thoughts on the accusations that Einstein was a plagiarist?
The ramblings of low |Q Nazis
Its just wrong nothing more then that
The mystery of Einstein is how it proves, like Newton, a genuine belief in an intelligent God is prerequisite to genuine scientific discovery.
It is the ultimate irony for scientists who believe that there is no God, they cannot make genius discoveries on their own, and never do .
Einstein did not believe in a personal God.
@@bobmusil1458 Lord will save you. You need Jesus christ.
Just joking he believed in spinoza (more or less) . Disgusting how people still get it wrong.
ridiculous deduction....
I think I’ve got a tumour from trying to understand this
What exactly did Albert Einstein give to human society?
Gps??
Nuclear bomb.
Everytime you use google maps you should thank his bad mathematics knowledge...
The speed limit of finance is bitcoin.
like studying the bible (the word) here a little, there a little. It keeps man humble. Or it should
One reason why Einstein is so beloved and held high as a genius is because of his own self-awareness. He was never not able to admit when he was wrong. He also was a tremendous philosopher who was open to deep questions about the universe.
Except those deep questions were about QM, lol
@@Bill-ou7zphe wasn’t proven wrong on QM before he died, so he never had a chance to admit that.
His positions on QM is always held against him, but this obscure his immense contribution to it. He is the true father of QM even over Planck who up until 1915 or later, still didn’t believe in Einstein’s 1905 photoelectric paper and considered it a black stain on Einstein’s record. Einstein pushed the duality of particles before anyone else. He only believed that QM is not complete, and he hasn’t actually been proven wrong just yet.
It seems obvious in retrospect, but imagine someone coming out right now with an essentially complete model for quantum science. It’s fairly compareable. We have much more tech, much more computing power, and not to mention the internet, i.e all knowledge is easily obtainable and it’s easy to collaborate compared to Einstein’s time.
Black holes and gravity waves don't seem obvious in retrospect. They seem utterly and terrifyingly insane!!! 😂 How this guy can pretend they seem obvious blows my mind. He's just trying to sound smart, in my humble opinion, which I'm sure he is. But he would probably sound smarter if he stopped trying.
@newforestobservatory9322 Very interesting take. Thanks for that.
In one sense Einstein is probably correct as black holes as described by mathematics are probably not real, an infinitely small object with infinite density probably cannot actually exist. Whenever we encounter infinity it just means our current math and knowledge has hit a wall. Of course I'm not saying black holes aren't real, just that how we describe the singularity is probably not a reflection of reality.
You do know we took a picture of one, right?
@@hrithikravi8117 When did I say black holes don't exist? I remember explicitly saying that they do, just that our concept of the singularity is wrong.
That's a great question. Did Einstein question that an event horizon would exist or did he question what his own field equations described inside of that event horizon. We know that the equations fail at some point inside; they result in infinities. At what point towards a very heavy object did Einstein think his equations were not valid anymore?
@@hrithikravi8117 Did you even bother to read his entire comment? The point is that our current math for black holes still can't be right, not that they aren't real.
@@bernardd The concept of an event horizon was probably not properly fleshed out at the point Einstein was making assertions about black holes. And I would imagine also that he didn't draw any line of where the eqns are no longer valid, he would've just had a problem with the notion of an infinite density. Anything finite is fair game.
The idea that scientists have no memory of their prior confusion is one of Bruno Latour’s great themes and points toward the meaning of scientific theory generally.
His leap of imagination must have been staggering
If Tommy Lee Jones and Rob Lowe had a son.
Robby Lowe Jones
😂😂😂
And not in bad way!!!
More like jason bateman and rob lowe
I don’t know who is he and how smart he is but in this clip he is showing his inability to simplify things and explaining with a set of context and frame of reference.
Anyone here from the smart nonsense email?
It's in the nature of being human to make mistakes. The more complicated the matter, the harder it is to be correct.
Doesn't matter who you are, doesn't matter what your name is. You're only human.
The one who's always correct is the one who never does anything meaningful. You only hear about people's correct achievements without knowing that all of them require countless mistakes that nobody cared about.
The best example of self-confidence is Albert Einstein. He was not getting any job after graduation, his family lost trust in him but he knew who he was the genius.That much trust upon self is very rare these days.
we've had many brilliant minds since Enstien but our expectation in understanding has changed.
I think it's a human condition
God, how our focus has changed…from the intellectual pursuits of the mysteries of our surroundings…to the favorite flavor ice cream of an elected person.
Einstein didn't come up with the speed limit, it was observed by two scientists (who's names escape me) circa 50 years before his time. What Einstein did was to take their observation seriously and ponder the consequences of the speed limit whereas all his contemporaries assumed the observation to have been faulty.
Michelson and Morley?
@@FictionHubZAyes
Your mom and her mom
Exactly all Einstein did was say wait we’ve had the formula practically done… we just had to look at it closely
I think you are confusing "speed limit" with the speed of light. Michelson and Morley measured the speed of lights at different points of the earth's surface, at various stages in its orbit around the stun. They expected the speed of light to be a constant w.r.t some universal ether, and therefore the local speed of light in each of these experiments to differ in different locations and directions. However, they found that the speed of light was a universal constant - an observation so bizarre in Newtonian mechanics that no one attempted to explain it until Einstein.
This is different from saying that the speed of light is the ultimate speed in the universe. I think that conclusion comes from Einstein's paper on inertia being a function of velocity -- due to e=mc^2, kinetic energy increases the relativistic mass of a body, reaching infinite as the velocity approaches c. This then leads to the conclusion that no object starting from rest can ever be accelerated to a speed greater than c. To my knowledge, Einstein was the first to suggest this formally, although Google says Henri Poincare had also speculated about this in 1904 (ref: einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html).
I never realized Jason Bateman was this intelligent.
He has inspired a man to breaking my bones
Leggs my boy 🙏
about as brilliant as the bottom of the Mariana Trench......no wonder he was so fascinated with empty space coz thats all that was between his ears 😄😆😂🤣😂🤣😂😭😭😭🤣
Mankind still thinks to discover what things that exist & what things can do that exist makes a man some genius like he created the things to exist while ignoring the Knowledge that must exist 1st really does exist for made the thing for makes the man some Genius in History for makes him look smart to say no real evidence a GOD exist for people wait to follow Him for knowledge.
Maybe that’s why I’m never going to be a great physicist…I fully understand and accept my confusion about all this stuff.
Does not need a video. How genius? Very very.
Einstein Albert 🥳🎉 Wery good say about people.
I haven’t intentionally clicked on a lex video in half a year but I wake up to one auto playing every single day 😂
Rag on Einstein at a huge risk of appearing a fool