Webb Telescope sees Galaxies Too Large to Exist 

It is even more strange - they seem to know were craters will form!

I wanted to comment on that. That joke got me good.

Im thinking the meteors grow there and then the craters crash into them

God knows them all by name.

So they don't roll off ?

all i could think about while she said it were the 'orgones' from peep show

Hah. I was thinking about using in common parlance. Possibly as an insult .

there was a video game where mankind used biological spaceships and technology called organids, it was called genesis rising the universal crusade

I used to watch an anime called "Zoids" when I was a kid where some of the protagonists' mechs used "organoid systems".

Captain Scarlet and the Organoids 😁...sounds good to me.

“allow computer to remain in superposition, do not observe for up to 30s”

"A system that generates text without knowing anything about it. I think you don't need help in that". Ouch, it's valid around the world, I would not limit it to one region and I would not limit it to one group of people either, it's very universal, you can find many examples and sometimes it's me when I get things wrong of course ;-)) And yes, both off and on at the same time, perfect condition in the quantum world, mapped on the most helpful help desk answer ever ;-) What a great sense of humor!

@@richard--s do people actually think superposition is real? it's just an estimation of method of predicting stuff we can't measure. it's not literal

Well come on, tell us why!!

​@@schoo9256 It's to give the meteors a challenge. A conical volcano is essentially an upside down crater. 😁

@@another3997 where is the indentation on the other side of the globe 🤔?

@@jorriffhdhtrsegg Unfortunately since under the mantle is a molten liquid the matching indentation is a non linear solution (chaotic), so we need to train up some brain cells to spot a pattern before they die in a petri dish crater.

@@another3997 Is that causation before the action? lol

MUCH less scary than the unknown or the unknowable!

Yeah comprehension. 😎

Hah! We won't have to develop interstellar travel to meet the Borg.

The organoids are funny because in many aspects animals are smarter than humans. Sheep or pig brain organoids may well make better computers

Forget nukes and plagues. If we get wiped out as a species it’s going to be Google’s fault. If they start marketing the Dawson’s Creek Trapper Keeper Ultra Keeper Futura S 2000 you know we’re doomed.

And then it's relegated to use by "do your own researchers" for decades or centuries as 'proof' of the flood of something 😂

🙂🙂🙂🙂Yes.

You are so right. She is hilarious with her dry sense of humor! Love it.

She is my celerity crush!

She can be very arrogant sadly

"I don't think you need that"

Got me, too😅

The difference of a pistol hole (1) to a machine gun (2, 3, 4 .......100) Statistics favor hitting an existing crater. Polling guarantees the wrong answer.

q

"by accident" _Sabine Hossenfelder has entered the chat_

If you liked this, you are gonna wanna stick around. Actually intresting news on the regular.

Me too, but sometime in 2022. ;)

Welcome aboard ! You just found a goldmine of informations, news and exquisite german humour.

​@@pumbaa667 (sorry, there's a language trap like so many... there is no s in "information" even in plural. It's not logical. Well, some people might find it logical maybe, but it's just the way it is. In one language we look at multiple pieces of information and we have a plural form for it. But in another language "information" is "information", it does not matter if it consists of many aspects of things here and there or not, it's always "information" ;-)

And probably well-deserved

There are two prototypes of BritGPT already. They're called "Boris" and "Lizz". A bit underwhelming though.

Boris often output gibberish and Lizz got stuck in loops and was prone to crashing. Both made the Maybot appear strong and stable in comparison.

It had me in stitches. Did not see that one coming 😂😂😂

🌷 Sabine = Lifesaver 🌷

Are you sure this is how the great mother is defined?

@@leovolin7525 Yes

La "internet" existe hoy 💻

I'm pretty sure that sounds like a plot twist in several dystopian futuristic sci-fi stories not limited to anime.

Exactly although Since watching thag anime I've felt that in a way governments are already the real version of the hive mind

@@Llortnerof fair

Our smart but rebellious teenager MC caught a random signal That leads to a hole on a random wall near an old bridge. Suspenseful music with shots of the MC navigating inside some high tech bunker then suddenly, a short scream with a close up of the MC shocked face. Oh, no ! Turns out the highly advanced AI called " Ze brain" that control everything in the city is a bunch of brains in tubes.

"Scientists working on OI found mysteriously murdered and turned to dust"

They also developed desires to take over the world

@@Paul-A01 NARF!!!

Those people are larping as scientists anyways, when all they do is worship a theory and building a house of cards around it, only to ignore what they see and instead of adjusting to the evidence, they just make up mathematical artefacts to prep the model and call it a day... Those are more cultists then scientists, einstein is their prophet and the standard model is their bible.. Is there any hope for post Einsteinian physics or are we doomwd to scientific stagnation?

@@SebastianA.W. Your not wrong except in the fact that Einstein's Relativity keeps racking up evidence and the Standard Model of particle physics has solid evidence until you get to the right of the electron and electron neutrino and also the non-photon bosons. In those areas the data is really fuzzy. That framework exists because of their love affair with symmetry.

Two birds killing one stone

Atheism DISPROVED! Can you explain why meteorites land in craters? You're just in denail. I'm sooo clever.

@@twitter.comelomhycy Well, not really. Dinosaurs thanked god for providing them food and an ark to survive the flood and the humans in dinosaur’s digestive systems lived on later in a computer simulation ran by civilized dinosaurs feeling superstitiously guilty about their history. So, Neither of us are in denial or clever. Get it and get back with the program please

@@rezadaneshi yes, that is the reply that does it! well done

Virtually anything that acts on such a big scale in space 🌌 would cause big galaxies though. That is just how cause and effect with randomness works. 🤷

MOND still isn't a slam dunk as the explanation for dark matter though. In the latest PBS Space Time video about MOND, Matt talks about several aspects of dark matter that MOND is less able to explain than the competing theory that there's a new form of matter waiting out there to be discovered. He also raised the issue of the growing number of MOND models are out there as more data about dark matter comes in, and we all know how critical Sabine is of the theorists continually coming up with new models as the existing ones are shot down. She can't have it both ways! Personally, I have no skin in this game -- a solution to the dark matter problem would be fantastic whatever it turns out to be -- and I don't understand why some people (outside of those actually working or reporting on the issue) are so invested in it being one over the other.

@@EnglishMike The thing is dark matter is not really disproven at all by this either. The universe 🌌 could have just started out randomly and virtually anything that transmits information faster than light 🔦would have the same effect with randomness (e.g. rich 🤑 people are only so rich because poor ❌🤑 people are doing economic stuff, for their businesses to make money off 💰. If they were not causally connected, the rich 🤑 people would have less money💰). It has less evidence for it via this, which is not the same thing as evidence against it.

@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana If true, MOND doesn't disprove dark matter, it will simply replace the (apparently endlessly misleading) placeholder name of "dark matter." Dark matter -- i.e. the observed gravitational discrepancy between the current theoretical models and actual observations -- will still exist. If MOND is correct, however, then dark matter will finally be explained, and the term will be discarded (eventually).

​@@EnglishMike I mean... MOND could exist and just make the problem 🧩 worse. The universe 🌌doesn't have to be helpful 🧰 to scientists 🧑‍🔬. 😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹

The question is, if they're using brain cells, is it artificial intelligence or natural intelligence artificially channeled? 😉

​@@another3997 All intelligence is natural just different materials

@@another3997 Channeled? It was made and planned by men, not birthed. That's artificial to me.

I remember her saying she isn't sure what side of the Einstein field equations the terms for "dark matter"/MOND belong to i.e. do we need to change how gravity i.e. the metric works or to add the terms to the matter side of the equation so she seems pretty agnostic other than that models can't ignore the observational constraints of MOND just because they are inconvenient.

@@Dragrath1 Thank you

I literally just read it 20 secs ago

@@galaxia4709 About the microscope?

@@TLguitar yes, it was 5 seconds ago that I had closed the tab with the article on Science Daily :)

@@galaxia4709 Well, I hope there were insights!

Things are a bit more tricky than that as one criticism that hasn't been adequately addressed by cosmologists is that within the full Einstein field equations the link between spatial look back distance and measured redshift is model dependent, i.e. depends on the curvature along the light's particular geodesic path through spacetime, thus if the choice of model is incorrect the estimates for distance will be incorrect. Given the many problems with the standard model of cosmology which have largely been ignored by the cosmological community at large despite their huge statistical significance (now several sigma standard deviations higher than the supposed evidence for the standard model) it seems safe to take anything from the mainstream cosmological community with a grain of salt at best.

@Conon the Binarian yeah, that would be HD 140283, which was eventually determined to be 12.01 ± 0.05 billion years old.

@@brandonletzco1433 Yeah though there were many uncertainties in the sense of calibration which have made this measurements less problematic. We do have measurements of several very old stars which given what we have observed more locally like small stars forming as satellites of more massive stars or more distant galaxies measured at far higher redshifts than we had generally accepted which is usually taken to mean they formed far earlier in time.(The H alpha break in light is a pretty good independent proxy of the redshift during the time or reionization if you assume reionization all occurred and ended at roughly the same time periods everywhere but that is an assumption)

Big Bang theorists will simply add another couple of free parameters and say all is well. The universe is far older then the Big Bang suggests.

Probably not, though books could be written on what is meant by "older". But we've already seen the space-time result that beyond a certain distance, the further away galaxies are, the bigger they appear to us. They seem to be growing, but alas, are not.

actually the effort is linear, at most logarithmic. Typically the results are probabilities, which become lower, higher variance, with increasing number of qubits, decoherence is increased as indicated. To minimize the uncertainty the computation has to be repeated .

The thing that I've heard from other channels and other individuals in similar computer science field but not specifically Quantum Computing is that for artificial intelligence to really work there's going to be a rate of error and simply if you can get that Beyond human fault you're good to go. Another proposal I saw was specifically with Quantum Computing is that they may reach a point where they have to have a discrete digital processor for certain high-precision forms of computation and in the lower Precision significantly faster things would be handled with Quantum computing

@@Arturo-lapaz lol. logarithm grows slower than linear. you seem to clearly NOT know what you are talking about.

You leave me speechless and clueless. Respect

@@stonemannerie correct its (X x ln X), sorry.🇧🇴

I hope so

So now we have highly radioactive ceramics. I suppose you could just bury it in the ground instead of pouring it into the sea.

Unsolved problem in physics: Is the universe homogeneous and isotropic at large enough scales, as claimed by the cosmological principle and assumed by all models that use the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric, including the current version of the ΛCDM model, or is the universe inhomogeneous or anisotropic? Wikipedia

There are enough physicists working on and who favor MOND that if this really is a slam dunk for their models, the debate will be over. I guess we shall have to wait and see what happens.

Mega lodons Mega losaurs Mega diabetes

The sun will heat up enough in about 1 billion years to make the planet uninhabitable. Plan accordingly.

@@stewiesaidthat That's why Mars habitation is a must. The ball has to be got rolling. New worlds will have to be reached.

@@Safetytrousers I wonder if they can kick the Earth out to the orbit of Mars.

@@stewiesaidthat Being in Mars orbit won't save us from the Sun. We need to reach other solar systems, but we need to start that long road when we can, which is now. In the shorter term we need to mine the solar system rather than dig up our own planet.

Quantized inertia has some major problems which prevent it from being a valid scientific theory at this time namely that it is incompatible with some of the core axioms of mathematics used to derive all of Classical mechanics General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and thus would require one to derive an entirely new mathematical framework in order to actually test anything or even develop basic conclusions. After all the axiom of Quantizing Inertia effectively from a mathematical perspective means that you can not use differential geometry quantities and principals in your theory. All of physics from Newton onwards is exclusively written in the language of differential equations and thus is fundamentally incompatible with any self consistent QI framework. Until a self consistent formulation of QI can be derived which can also explain why the large scale limit is consistent with differential geometric interpretations and models, QI is not able to be anything more than and idea and any framework which tries to use formulas derived and written in a language incompatible with its principal axiom is pseudoscience at best in the same way trying to use Newtonian gravity deep within the gravity well of a black hole or Neutron star is invalid.

@@Dragrath1 Thanks for the detailed explanation. It seems to me that building a new theory based on some core physical principles and deriving the ad-hoc mathematical framework wouldn't be a "first", but I understand the likelihood of a successful outcome is pretty thin :) I now curious of such an example of inconsistency ... ^^

PLANCK / WMAP / COBE

@@smeeself ? Sorry I don’t understand

@@DreadEnder They are microwave detecting telescopes.

@@smeeself not in space there aren’t!

@@DreadEnder They are very much in space. PLANCK is at L2.

Does gobbledygook increase with entropy? Maybe gobbledygood IS entropy?

It still is

Who cares. If it complains, punish it with more pain!

I agree. Ethically, I think we should skip the whole thing. AI is racing towards its own ethical crisis. Let's deal with that first.

The human brain needs almost 100 billion neurons to be conscious. And many humans barely reach that benchmark. I think you can stop worrying until someone gets 100 million neurons on a chip.

@@Greenicegod : Cite your source regarding how many neurons are needed for consciousness.

@@brothermine2292 cite your source that proves consciousness in anything with less than a thousandth the neurons of a normal human

Big is Beautiful ❤️

@@SabineHossenfelder in response to this news my system of Dark Matter interacting with baryonic matter works with this observation... could be a increased density of dark matter that is growing at a faster rate in density causing a lensing effect and the higher density is causing a concave lense effect of the lighter density mater amplifying its size... it's ridiculous to think what we see from our singular point in space and time we can gauge the universe! Even if we map with physical exploration our entire galaxy, it is nothing but a speck of dust in comparison to the whole universe! We had true objective reality then the uncertainty principle would not exist... it does exist because we have no objective reality... is all subjective. I think my conclusion and explanation is the best. In order to have objective reality you need to have an observer that exist from the beginning of time all the way to the end of time and even if such hypothetical Observer exist the end of time has not came yet therefore everything is subjective... all existence is part of Singularity including math... it's all a subjective observer because the end of time has not came yet... anyways im rambling lu other version of WE... TTYL