Yeah general relativity doesn't really say that Gravity is the curvature of spacetime... We DESCRIBE gravity with a curved mikowski spacetime - but that is not the cause of gravity - that is the description that we give to gravity in terms of space and time. And that is how physics works. It doesn't explain things, it describes things. Carrying particles are not the explanation of how things interact, its the description that we have using quantum mechanics. Physics is NOT philosophy, it doesn't care what is real and what is not - it only cares that the theory can create accurate predictions. Spacetime, particles, fields, forces... These are ALL mathematical objects that DESCRIBE the physics models of the Universe that we have created, but ultimately they can't explain it. And that is because you CANT be right in physics - you can ONLY be less wrong than everyone else... Which means, that later on someone else will build on your ideas and make a model that makes better predictions than yours and the cycle continues... Sadly we don't know how any of the 4 fundamental forces work and its a huge philosophical question, if we will ever know... Btw I love your videos! I became an instant subscriber :D
Me and a buddy actually had a conversation similar to this about monoism/multiplicity and nondualism/dualism. It is hard to make normative claims about these things due to the uncertainty we have in contemporary scientific models and due to the limits of human intuition. This is a really interesting concept and I am glad more people are having the converstaion!
I do like the way you present physics a lot. The way you emphasise the importance of "usefulness" and you treat the term "real". It is the same way I use to look at physics and other fields by the way, ever since I learned about "philosophical pragmatism", especially via reading the great American philosopher Richard Rorty. Have you ever read these mostly American philosophers? It sure sounds like you did. But maybe you have only the same healthy look at language and maths. Anyway, I love your videos so far.
You know, I have been pondering something for a while. Everything we see and think is simply just our brains’ interpretation of the energy around us. Which makes me think; in an advanced future, would it be possible to make a *true* 4 dimensional viewer, who is to say it would be impossible to re-wire our brains so that they interpret the energy around us in a way such that we can perceive in 4 dimensions? All that stuff aside, I think it would make for a pretty trippy VR game at the absolute least (: .
Of course it is possible to think in more or less dimensions, the problem here is the fact that our universe has 3 spatial dimensions, so the 4 dimensional viewer would still just see 3 dimensions that are flat on the fourth axis
The natural, observable dimensions 1D-4D are "not locally real" or, more simply, "less real". These dimensions can all be divided further (divisible). The non-natural, unobservable dimension 0D is "locally real" or, more simply, "more real". This dimension cannot be divided further (indivisible).
This is a philosophy video masquerading as a physics video, and i would not have it any other way. An excellent way of showing how tangible science subjects are all still connected to the seemingly intangible study of philosophy
Interestingly, this kind of pedantic reasoning can easily apply not only to everything we interact with (including other people, say hello to solipsism), but also to our very self: not only because of the measurable delay between detectable decision making in brain activity occurring _before_ we actually become aware of our own decision... But also because the mere act of thinking could genuinely be either the schizophrenic delusions of a fleeting Boltzmann Brain, or an artificially staged affair, e.g. the clever working of an advanced "last thought predictor" or "large thought model", some kind of very advanced chatbot designed to generate thoughts in reaction to stimuli prompts, hence all those billions of apparent selves could be generated by the same not-actually-thinking, non-conscious contraption. A sort of seemingly conscious NPC generator if you will. This might be a general AI, but whatever the case it's not a bunch of individuals, it's one AI running simulations of conscious beings.
My king you look so glorious in this video if anyone else want to glaze makit you can join the makit livestream and donate him your blood ,money or both
11:30 I would disagree about energy not being a real thing and we just came up with it to fix our theories and math. especially as you approach absolute zero, your elementary excitations is dependent on each particle's energy which's in return dependent on the momentum. with concepts like Chemical potential "μ", and Cooper Pairs, those energy levels and types are important to grasp. Like in an equivalent band and conducting band you need some energy to excite those quasiparticles.
Yes, you need some energy to excite those particles, but you can't excite them using any energy, for example a cube with kinetic energy equal to 3J cannot just excite those particles by coming into contact with them, even though it has more than enough energy. That's because energy is just a helpful concept in determining whenever something theoretically could be done
God bless that primordial germ cell that traveled from your grandma's yolk sac to your mom's ovary, and after all that time, finally met your dad’s, bringing you into this world
@@MAKiTHappen did u do those all in blender? im impressed. if you can render those and the principles are well understood, i expect some demonstrations though.
@@6AxisSage I have did all of them in blender, in all of those "3d artists renders" I am the 3d artist who made them, furthermore I try to apply real life maths to the animation (for example, small detail, when representing photons with waves, those are real mathematical waves really overlapping with eachother)
@@MAKiTHappen nice, i use blender a tonne and simulations, i know it takes skill. good jod. please make real simulations though, if its too computationally expensive of hard to understand, maybe its wrong because you cant reproduce it?
Wait if this video isn’t real, does that mean I can get my 17 minutes back? I need them for procrastinating
real
If nothing is real, does that mean I’ve been winning imaginary arguments in the shower all this time?
yes, precisely
@@K41E8GRR MY COMMENT 😡
@@K41E8but also no actually😂
And losing
Humans after deciding to make concepts to explain the natural world only to then try to explain concepts using the natural world
Well about that..
i love these kinds of videos, make you realize the things you've taken for granted (or just assumed)
Yeah general relativity doesn't really say that Gravity is the curvature of spacetime... We DESCRIBE gravity with a curved mikowski spacetime - but that is not the cause of gravity - that is the description that we give to gravity in terms of space and time.
And that is how physics works. It doesn't explain things, it describes things. Carrying particles are not the explanation of how things interact, its the description that we have using quantum mechanics. Physics is NOT philosophy, it doesn't care what is real and what is not - it only cares that the theory can create accurate predictions.
Spacetime, particles, fields, forces... These are ALL mathematical objects that DESCRIBE the physics models of the Universe that we have created, but ultimately they can't explain it. And that is because you CANT be right in physics - you can ONLY be less wrong than everyone else... Which means, that later on someone else will build on your ideas and make a model that makes better predictions than yours and the cycle continues...
Sadly we don't know how any of the 4 fundamental forces work and its a huge philosophical question, if we will ever know...
Btw I love your videos! I became an instant subscriber :D
Dear MAKiT. You're charged under violation of social code Article 39 Section B. 12: for giving me an existential crisis.
bro did not plug his patreon, daily lives nor discord at the end of the video
Oh yeah... I was supposed to do that wasn't I?
@@MAKiTHappen yesss you wereeee
He did plug his patreon at 14:40 though
@@ryanlee4282 Or did he?
I think that I exist
- Descartes
Pucci is disappointed
OH MY, The production and level of video quality your producing is INSANE!
Good job mate 👍
why is MAKiT reinventing philosophy in the middle of the forest
Philosophy is a concept, and thus he didn't reinvent it.
How has this channel not blown up yet??
Ah yes, new upload from my favorite mad scientist on youtube
I love the styles of your video, much more unique than the rest
When you Said carry particles i thought you Said cary particles, like cary huang
he did
Me and a buddy actually had a conversation similar to this about monoism/multiplicity and nondualism/dualism. It is hard to make normative claims about these things due to the uncertainty we have in contemporary scientific models and due to the limits of human intuition. This is a really interesting concept and I am glad more people are having the converstaion!
Thanks for quenching my thirst for knowledge!
I hope the algorithym pick-up this up
I do like the way you present physics a lot. The way you emphasise the importance of "usefulness" and you treat the term "real". It is the same way I use to look at physics and other fields by the way, ever since I learned about "philosophical pragmatism", especially via reading the great American philosopher Richard Rorty. Have you ever read these mostly American philosophers? It sure sounds like you did. But maybe you have only the same healthy look at language and maths. Anyway, I love your videos so far.
Please ,Thanks and milles mercis.
Your videos is helpful.
You know, I have been pondering something for a while. Everything we see and think is simply just our brains’ interpretation of the energy around us. Which makes me think; in an advanced future, would it be possible to make a *true* 4 dimensional viewer, who is to say it would be impossible to re-wire our brains so that they interpret the energy around us in a way such that we can perceive in 4 dimensions? All that stuff aside, I think it would make for a pretty trippy VR game at the absolute least (: .
Of course it is possible to think in more or less dimensions, the problem here is the fact that our universe has 3 spatial dimensions, so the 4 dimensional viewer would still just see 3 dimensions that are flat on the fourth axis
Wow i really appreciate the effort you put into your videos, amazing truly❤
9:18 vsauce is the goat wish he would still make hour long videos
The natural, observable dimensions 1D-4D are "not locally real" or, more simply, "less real". These dimensions can all be divided further (divisible).
The non-natural, unobservable dimension 0D is "locally real" or, more simply, "more real". This dimension cannot be divided further (indivisible).
Energy: The ability to do work
Work: The amount of energy transfer
Science at its finest
Another day, another makit video
thanks for the hypnos
As a former jjba fan, i hereby declare that.. it's just works.
This is a philosophy video masquerading as a physics video, and i would not have it any other way. An excellent way of showing how tangible science subjects are all still connected to the seemingly intangible study of philosophy
Interestingly, this kind of pedantic reasoning can easily apply not only to everything we interact with (including other people, say hello to solipsism), but also to our very self: not only because of the measurable delay between detectable decision making in brain activity occurring _before_ we actually become aware of our own decision...
But also because the mere act of thinking could genuinely be either the schizophrenic delusions of a fleeting Boltzmann Brain, or an artificially staged affair, e.g. the clever working of an advanced "last thought predictor" or "large thought model", some kind of very advanced chatbot designed to generate thoughts in reaction to stimuli prompts, hence all those billions of apparent selves could be generated by the same not-actually-thinking, non-conscious contraption. A sort of seemingly conscious NPC generator if you will. This might be a general AI, but whatever the case it's not a bunch of individuals, it's one AI running simulations of conscious beings.
if nothing is real does that mean that all the time i wasted was not wasted at all
????
another great makit video
Join the makit livestream we are not a cult
we are not a cult
I have always thought about this
So Incroyable.
Amazing.Super.
Physics ,i like too.
but then what makes me say something is more real than something else if everything is just concept?
Watching this on psychedelics questioning everything maybe nothing is real and I don't exist
We truly know that we know nothing
maybe
My king you look so glorious in this video if anyone else want to glaze makit you can join the makit livestream and donate him your blood ,money or both
i know a thing or two about donating money to makit..
blood is next
"10kjs of thermal energy is useless" mfs after I freeze them in a vat of water (suddenly thermal energy is quite useful)
Amazing video!
i know my love for makit is real
Brilliant, as usual.
1:58
Him: Gravity has gravitons
whole quantum mechanics community: No it doesn't
nvm he addresses it later in the video
11:30 I would disagree about energy not being a real thing and we just came up with it to fix our theories and math.
especially as you approach absolute zero, your elementary excitations is dependent on each particle's energy which's in return dependent on the momentum.
with concepts like Chemical potential "μ", and Cooper Pairs, those energy levels and types are important to grasp.
Like in an equivalent band and conducting band you need some energy to excite those quasiparticles.
Yes, you need some energy to excite those particles, but you can't excite them using any energy, for example a cube with kinetic energy equal to 3J cannot just excite those particles by coming into contact with them, even though it has more than enough energy.
That's because energy is just a helpful concept in determining whenever something theoretically could be done
Great video as usual
WHAT IS THE BACKGROUND MUSIC
11:39 holy shit transformers reference lmao
WORK ≠ ENERGY x5
Loved the vid!
Imagine is C sharp minor wasnt real
Imagine if this comment wasn’t real
lovely video
God bless that primordial germ cell that traveled from your grandma's yolk sac to your mom's ovary, and after all that time, finally met your dad’s, bringing you into this world
real
(He is talking about mitochondria)
A
what do you use to animate?
Just five more minuest
summary :
we dont know shit
You are the best
you literally namned the parts yes maybe no kind of
why are you talking about gravitons when they dont exist
If its so easy to model them, then why are you showing us just 3d artists renders? just show us some simulations
I don't have the software nor the computational power for the simulations, what I do have is blender
@@MAKiTHappen did u do those all in blender? im impressed. if you can render those and the principles are well understood, i expect some demonstrations though.
@@6AxisSage I have did all of them in blender, in all of those "3d artists renders" I am the 3d artist who made them, furthermore I try to apply real life maths to the animation (for example, small detail, when representing photons with waves, those are real mathematical waves really overlapping with eachother)
@@MAKiTHappen nice, i use blender a tonne and simulations, i know it takes skill. good jod. please make real simulations though, if its too computationally expensive of hard to understand, maybe its wrong because you cant reproduce it?
@@6AxisSage I will try to simulate things wherever I can
How old are you?
atleast 4
@@K41E8 jokes aside bro, how old is he ?
comment to please youtube algorithm gods
I was there when part of this video was made
am i real
Bruh every thing is fake ,where tf is relativity
he mentioned it.. once..
a
Nothing is locally real at least and wormholes may be the fabric of the universe.
third
second
first