Corpus evidence — top 10 passages

Most-relevant passages from the entire indexed corpus (67,286 paragraph chunks across YouTube transcripts, PubMed, arXiv, archive.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, OpenAlex, and more) ranked by semantic similarity (bge-small-en-v1.5).

1. 01 · _intake0.933

   > Carroll's book that there were people who opposed this the supercollider because they felt it would create a black hole oh yeah yeah oh yeah yeah oh we could never prove that they were

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/black-hole/001-carroll-s-book-that-there-were-people-who-opposed-this-the-s.md

2. 02 · yt0.792

   Brian: Yeah, I can imagine. Kip: His   apology and Oppenheimer didn't... And so it was a  momentous moment in the history of science that,   of miscommunication between these two great men. Brian: And was   it an arrogance on Oppenheimer's or just a- Kip: No, no. Brian: ...feeling bad? Kip: I don't think so. Brian: Or what do you think the emotion was? Kip: I think he   was just ... I don't know. I didn't know. I  knew Wheeler better than I knew Oppenheimer.   Certainly Oppenheimer is capable of arrogance,  but I don't think so. …

   yt/PTs--eFrzGo-greatest-mysteries-of-gravity-brian-greene-kip-thorne-world-/transcript.txt

3. 03 · yt0.784

   They said, "Well, there must be a much bigger spread so that there's no no radiation." And they calculated this the smear factor, quite literally they called it the smear factor R zero would have to be on the order of an angstrom, five orders of magnitude bigger than what we had said. And that's for the nucleus, which makes the the atom bigger than the almost as big as a cell, you know, bigger than the the protein for sure. It'd be a micron. So, that didn't make any sense, but but that that made them happy because then they they could account for the lack of radiation. And but then they kind o…

   yt/OoDi856wLPM-sir-roger-penrose-stuart-hameroff-collapsing-a-theory-of-qua/transcript.txt

4. 04 · yt0.781

   But that analysis was the thing that finally   I think got people who were highly  skeptical to throw in the towel and say,   okay, you don't have to pause it, pretend to  think that this Hawking radiation forms with   humongously high energies and then waits a  million years trying to climb out with its   energy decaying lower and lower and lower until  it finally comes out, which feels like nonsense.  So there was this period that was in the '70s,  when this was all being sorted out, that when the   tools that we…

   yt/PTs--eFrzGo-greatest-mysteries-of-gravity-brian-greene-kip-thorne-world-/transcript.txt

5. 05 · yt0.777

   Brian: And so as I recall, I think in the late 30s,   Einstein even wrote a paper where he tried to  specifically model a bunch of masses that would be   in some spherical configuration. They were moving,  and he tried to model them collapsing inward. Kip: Well, he moved   them in slowly. He didn't have the wherewithal, he  hadn't even asked the question about a dynamical   collapse. He said, let me shrink it smaller  and smaller. And once it got down to something   a little bit larger than this Schwarzschild  radius, h…

   yt/PTs--eFrzGo-greatest-mysteries-of-gravity-brian-greene-kip-thorne-world-/transcript.txt

6. 06 · yt0.775

   That the theories that were   being developed and the models that were being  developed were by 1980s were pretty much right on. Brian: For instance,   additional data that ultimately was awarded the  Nobel Prize, observations of stellar trajectories   in the center of our galaxy, was that viewed  as just adding to the mountain of evidence? Kip: I think there was   always a worry, I would say, a worry of hope  that there was something wrong. I saw over my   career some huge surprises where we were wrong.  For example, t…

   yt/PTs--eFrzGo-greatest-mysteries-of-gravity-brian-greene-kip-thorne-world-/transcript.txt

7. 07 · yt0.772

   >> However, the galaxy has 100 billion stars in it. There's 100 billion galaxies in the universe. So when people realize if you have enough of a sample size, you could deliver every single night supernova into your catalog. >> Right. >> It's a rare event that happens often. >> Exactly. So that was initially kind of hard to explain to the public how you get that. >> Yeah. So, we have a version of that in the quantum mechanical multiverse, but it is more of an issue because you're guaranteeing the existence of a world, a whole world filled with observers and experim…

   yt/NxMMd5kMu7o-exploring-hidden-dimensions-with-brian-greene/transcript.txt

8. 08 · blog0.764

   Opposing these inductive-empiricist scientists were those whose roots were mostly in the theoretical side of natural science, most especially mathematical physics. To them, there was another, more logically sound, method to construct theories. First, hypotheses could be generated in any fashion, although most believed that imagining hypotheses which were based upon very general, very reasonable concepts—that the Universe’s physical processes had simple mathematical descriptions, for example—was the best place to begin; this is classic rationalist epistemology. Once the hypothesis had been gene…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/cosmology-methodological-debates-in-the-1930s-and-1940s.md

9. 09 · yt0.764

   And they were then, they were not standing out as starkly against what you call the zeitgeist, as they would have been, if they had insisted on normal physics. - Yeah, it kind of reminds me of that famous quote attributed to Steven Weinberg. I think it's actually accurate, where he said something along the lines of, "It's not that we take our mathematical theories..." How did he say it? He's basically saying, "We don't take our mathematical theories seriously enough." It's not that we take them too seriously, it's that we don't take them seriously enough, right? So if you apply that to quantum…

   yt/Af5LICjFIBc-what-is-quantum-mechanics-really-telling-us-world-science-fe/transcript.txt

10. 10 · yt0.763

    Kip: And Oppenheimer says,   and there's a big confrontation between  the two of them, at what's called a Solvay   Congress in '56 or '57, in which Oppenheimer  says, "Well, it's very simple. It just cuts us   off from ... The collapsing star cuts itself  off from the rest of the universe and what   happens down inside there has no influence  on the external universe, so why worry?"  And so they have this radically different  viewpoint. And in fact, sorting out what   happens with the singularity turns out to …

    yt/PTs--eFrzGo-greatest-mysteries-of-gravity-brian-greene-kip-thorne-world-/transcript.txt