I am stunned how deep the problem goes and the parallels of it to others. I liked the way you introduced the problem by an familiar question of shortest path.
Totally, I first was thinking of molecular dynamics/Monte Carlo simulations. Then obviously self learning algorithms..... And I think, tho it wasn't at all mentioned here, that I finally understand why Quantum Computing could have so much potential for protein folding. And, well, organic chemistry/supramolecular chemistry/material science in general. There is a pretty obvious variable that needs minimizing. Minimize conformational (Gibbs?) free energy (and maybe occasionally ramp up temperature to 20! to avoid those nasty fake minima). Edit: This is the beauty of physics, tho. The more you learn, the more you see underlying concepts/mechanisms repeat like everywhere. It is ridiculous how much the concept of the euler unit circle comes up. Like, everything can be described by motion around a unit circle (or the 1D projection thereof, i.e. waves). Didn't expect this knowledge to be this damn useful in a hobby like music production (like in practice), but man, Fourier transforms and wave-dynamics really make a lot of (more technical) music production concepts super intuitive. But I digress
It's not that deep. Certainty is always and only sufficient for a given use case, as proven by the fact that when you're certain enough to accept the fact or take the action there is no further reason to gather more information.
@@havenbastion That's true. And when you dive deeper anyway, you realise that you never really understood it in the first place. (which never ends, you can always go deeper)
3:00 Well played. Once was trying to solve a visual challenge where you are supposed to draw a line crossing every line once. I Decided to try simplifying it before throwing a week of CPU time at it. Once I was able to simplify the problem to a pentagon: I was able to prove it was impossible. Due to the odd number of sides any line starting inside will end up outside after crossing each side once. Since the figure I transformed in simplification had 3 pentagons, but the line has 2 ends: no solution is possible.
You might have stumbled on the Planarity Problem! Your graph contains a K_5 complete Graph or a K_{3,3} complete bipartite graph if-and-only-if your graph is not planar. And thus, you can't ever totally eliminate line-crossing (at least not in the Euclidean Plane).
I knew of a visual problem that sounds similar where you had to do I think the same. Cross every line in the shape but only once and see if it was possible or impossible
@@codiserville593 I think the "gag" is that it is impossible, but that there are so many possibilities that it can keep you occupied for years. I think I proved it impossible after 2 years.
@@jamesphillips2285 yeah sounds like it. See when it was my friend who showed me the problem he told me. " In high school our teacher showed it to us. He never explained if it was possible or not"
@@codiserville593 The version I was talking about was 3 horizontal lines with the top divided into 2 boxes and the bottom into 3 boxes. My initial simplification was proving that I could cut the corners off of the 3 box row. I then realized I could distort the remaining shape into 3 conjoined pentagons.
I'd love to see you do a video on P=NP. You have a fantastic way of going surprisingly in depth with your explanations while keeping it in view of more digestible examples. Your popcorn video being a shining example.
Great videos on your channel. Explaining a topic clearly and completely, without dumbing it down, is a real skill. Doing it in a way that turns out to be interesting, educational, and understanding is rare indeed. Keep up the great work!
I seriously thank you. You are a gift from the gods. I'm on a optimization contest on wind turbines which involve optimizing both vibration damping and power generation and reading related papers i found out the Pareto front and I had no idea of what they were. Thank you so much
First time seeing a video from this channel and it was very nice. I liked the way you united so many different fields and still kept it cohesive. Very well explained, too.
The quality on this video was excellent and it surprised me to see how small your channel is. I leave this comment in the hope that it boosts your rank in the algorithm and more people find your channel!
Yeah it’s crazy to find such an enjoyable, entertaining and educational science video with so few views. Usually the low view videos are missing one of the trifecta above. This channel is great!
We have an app for this at my work that sometimes fails to find a seemingly obvious improvement to the route. I have great difficulty explaining to my co workers that it isn’t practical to find the best possible route by brute force and that the algorithm has to compromise
UNBELIEVABLE, I wouldn't have though that the TSP would be explained so simply. I already had an introduction to the graphs theory and the issue of finding the shortest path from one point to another in my IT classes, but damn, it is so well presented; A HUDGE THANKS
I once spent a semester writing a Genetic Algorithms based solution to solve TSP, only to see my laptop melt when trying to solve more than 50 cities at a time and crawling to a halt. Factorials are tricky little imps.
The fact that you have 50k subs blows me mind. This channel is going to grow substantially in the future. You do an excellent job of explaining complex topics in simple terms. Thanks for the high quality content and keep up the great work.
Amazing video. This is really interesting stuff and you make it so digestible. You've got a brilliant way of explaining things. Please keep the videos up!
Great video, conveyed a complex topic in an approachable manner. One quibble, the animation on text like "Reaction Wheels" does weird things to my eyes and brain, the constant changing feels uncomfortable and I look away from the screen. I might be alone in this issue, in which case carry on.
I wonder if the solar push could be/is calulated in the computation of the shortest path. For example, if the push is directing you in a path that roughly takes you to some spots you need to be at with no power spent
Another variable for optimization is which instrument is cued up for observation. It takes time and energy and wear-and-tear and possibly calibration to change the selected instrument.
very nice video ! great distilation of the concept and an even summarization - loved the line >> Computers are our way of tricking the universe to give us the answers ...
When you have a 2D route, you can actually prove the shortest path most of the time pretty easily. It’s the general problem which is difficult, but that assumes n dimensional graph and any possible challenge set of points.
So. The JWSP is like the traveling sales man but with the RL terrain we drive in, like the mountains in germany. We have a fiente distance and effeciency, but also delivery in a timely manner.
So logistics... Well you said it all without saying the word, for an audience attracted to telescopes and funny looking birds. For that, you deserve views and comments.
8:00 JWST doesn't have net angular momentum because of the sun, there's an "aft momentum flap" that actuates to properly calibrate out the solar radiation pressure.
I'm not super bright and I know that smarter people have thought about it, but, once you hit the end of your fuel usage and the mission becomes effectively dead, could you still use the reaction wheels, by dumping all the momentum, having it convert to heat, letting it radiate away and then spinning the wheels back up? Or is that one of those "you could, but by the time it radiates enough heat energy that you could spin back up to counter the rotation, we would be a few thousand years out from needing the data." (My thought being, since some rotational energy is converted to heat energy when braking, when you spin back up, the difference between the braking energy, and the counter force of spinning back up would be greater than 0, so you could break, bleed off energy, then spin back up, and you'd still have additional spin you could generate while having canceled the rotation you gained from the initial braking)
Because of conservation of angular momentum, this wouldn't work. Reaction wheels work because when you apply torque/turning force to the wheels, an equal and opposite force is applied to the rest of the telescope. This works both slowing down and speeding up: slowing down the wheels will cause the rest of the telescope to speed up. Even though energy is being lost to heat, momentum is conserved.
@FatFace101 that's sort of a thought I had had, but I know the video talker about the sun's photons adding angular momentum to the craft as well, and I was thinking that was basically what allowed to craft to bleed / change its rotational forces long term anyway. The spin up of the gyros just changes it. I was thinking the radiant heat energy also robbed some of the momentum because like he had said in the video, photons have momentum, when they radiat off they must be robbing some of that from the vessel. I am sure I don't understand well enough though, so I will accept your response !
7:08 this line I find a little confusing. I'm like: But momentum implies that it does have mass. Since they're different sides of the same coin. Well, I guess you refer to it not having rest mass? At least that is how I learned the whole photon physics stuff. But who knows. Something about sombrero probability wells or something. 🤷♂ The standard model is weird
I must say, having your videos be white backgrounds make it very eye straining when viewing in darkness. Perhaps black background with white text might be best?
I have a request -- could you please explain how a "buoyancy engine" works? I strongly believe it is what is used in the stratospheric balloons we've seen recently. I have a few related white papers I can share as well!
2 seconds before the end: and here comes the "brilliant" add -_- ... Wait the video did end without a creator made add ? Thx for not putting one of these anoying ads in
Lol, as a courier that is soon about to not be... I get two jobs, simultaneously, in opposite directions? Ive stopped caring about shortest routes. I now take the longest. Traffic lights? Congestion? Bring it on. You burn out after a while.
If Force = Mass x Acceleration and photons have no mass, how can photons with 0 mass apply a force to create a movement? Can someone explain how photons achieve this? Serious question.
There is a good video from Fermilab entitled "How can photons have momentum?" But, basically you are only thinking in terms of classical physics, newtonian equations that only work for emergent special case, and were discovered before we knew about photons. Mass is not really a separate property from energy or momentum, and it is not necessary for a particle to have mass. Collisions between objects are about transfer of momentum and as long as an entity has kinetic energy it has momentum. Anyway, go find the video. I didn't link it because I'm pretty sure YT seems to like to delete comments with linked content.
Can someone explain to me why JWST would have this problem? It's taking a giant 'photo' of space, can you not just "zoom in" on different parts of the photo? Or does it need to be directly focusing on the very particular point in space for the object to be "in focus" or for the instruments to be fully utilized?
