at that solution, people often describe it as it sows the seeds of the own destruction of general relativity because at the center of this solution, which we now call The Black Hole Solution, there are things that become infinite. Invariant things that can't be done away with by a coordinate transformation. Curvature invariance and so forth. So you must encounter those in some form and what do they look like in your language and what do you do about them?
- Concept
- black hole
- Score
- 4 · must · because
- Status
- candidate — not yet promoted to canon
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).
- 01 · yt0.812
That when stuff falls into it, it changes its whole character. So by contrast with the horizon of a black hole, which is highly stable, you perturb it and it vibrates a bit and then settles back down. It's just so stable. You can't blast it apart. By the contrast, what's going on down beneath there is highly unstable. And when stuff falls in, the gravity of the stuff that falls in completely changes what's going on down inside the black hole. So as best we understand it today, and this is part of th…
yt/PTs--eFrzGo-greatest-mysteries-of-gravity-brian-greene-kip-thorne-world-/transcript.txt
- 02 · _intake0.805
> then in effect, that isn't true anymore. So the paths always have to be finite. So it's as if time stops. So what you end up with is what in a black hole is this physical path stopping, in meta-mathematics is the proof stops. So QED is like a singularity. Yes. QED in the sense of at the end of the proof. Right. And so then it gets even funkier because in general relativity, we know
_intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/relativity/010-then-in-effect-that-isn-t-true-anymore.md
- 03 · yt0.790
What happens in this case is you start with this discrete underlying graph structure for spacetime. You build up from that and we can show mathematically at a physicist level of rigor that, yes, the limit of those kinds of underlying processes is the Einstein equations. I say at a physicist level of rigor because, for example, in the case of even molecular dynamics giving fluid mechanics for a hundred years or so, actually people gave up, but people were trying to rigorously mathematically prove that that limit…
yt/yAJTctpzp5w-can-space-and-time-emerge-from-simple-rules-stephen-wolfram-/transcript.txt
- 04 · yt0.787
So I mean I'm fond of taking that line of discussion too but I think of it more as a postdiction rather than a prediction for the very reason that you mentioned. We've known about gravity. Isaac Newton wrote down a mathematical understanding of gravity. But if you imagine a counterfactual universe for instance a universe in which there was no Einstein and we did not have Einstein's general theory of relativity and yet somehow people came upon string theory and they began to study the mathematics of string theory within the math of string theory a clever string theorist would extract the genera…
yt/o9z5il_FQUw-string-theory-multiverse-and-divine-design-brian-greene/transcript.txt
- 05 · yt0.784
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
- 06 · yt0.782
They can become bigger. And so physicists are going to want to say, hey, that's not a physically reasonable space-time. That's not a physically reasonable model of GR. And you ask, well, what's your reason? Why not? And the original justifications given by — it was originally Penrose, Geroch, and a few others back in the 60s in the golden era. You look at the justifications there, and it's very much metaphysics. It's Leibnizian metaphysics. It's the idea that, oh, well, nature — why would nature stop when…
yt/iGOGxaZZHwE-it-s-not-that-we-don-t-know-it-s-that-we-can-t/transcript.txt
- 07 · yt0.780
and that technically can sort of accommodate dark energy, but it's preposterous. So assume that the experimental result fell apart. I'd be in the same place I was in the 80s. This is not going to hold. This is completely artificial. Einstein was correct. And if he had the courage of his convictions, I think what he would have done is to recognize that the entire Einstein field equations cannot live on in this fashion where you've got one term that's perfect and two terms that are unggainainely to say the least and preposterous to say more. You know, we were talking in particular about a piece …
yt/BVkUya368Es-why-people-are-terrified-of-eric-weinstein-s-geometric-unity/transcript.txt
- 08 · yt0.780
Now to the uh proverbial uh the implications of the dark energy changing is are astonishing if indeed it's true. There are many things that can happen. The cosmological constant can slowly change sort of asmtoically changing to some value. It could get bigger. It could get smaller, right? It changes. It's not going to be a constant. It won't be a constant, right? So, the dark energy term will evolve. Can't evolve. We parameterize it by these two terms, omega or wa. Those are both the equations of state which govern the existence and the the net effect of the scale factor on distance. How the s…
yt/BVkUya368Es-why-people-are-terrified-of-eric-weinstein-s-geometric-unity/transcript.txt
- 09 · yt0.780
It's just the model. The point is, we are prepared for something that hasn't happened yet, right? If somebody sees matter that cannot have due to their behavior a Lorentzian background but you would then, phenomenologists would pretty quickly figure out what may be the simplest background that could do that, then the question comes up, but what's the action for that background? It can't be Einstein, right? Einstein is for a Lorentzian metric or a metric in general. But then you would try to solve our equa…
yt/Bnh-UNrxYZg-frederic-schuller-the-physicist-who-derived-gravity-from-ele/transcript.txt
- 10 · yt0.777
And when we do that, we almost always find that the ideas from the earlier generation, yes, they really work in the original domain, but when you go beyond that domain, you need to update them. You need to replace them. And so Newton did a wonderful job at describing the orbits of the planets. General relativity comes along and says, "Well, actually, if you can go a little bit further than just the orbits of planets, if you want to understand more extreme environments like black holes, then you need these new ideas of the general theory of relativity." And that is indeed the process that we fe…
yt/o9z5il_FQUw-string-theory-multiverse-and-divine-design-brian-greene/transcript.txt
Curation checklist
- ☐ Verify excerpt against source recording
- ☐ Tag tier (axiom · law · principle · primary derivation · observation)
- ☐ Cross-cite to ≥1 primary source (PubMed / arXiv / archive.org)
- ☐ Promote to
bucket-canon/06-cosmology/