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 · _intake0.966

   > Course Laplace was not right. He didn't know about the true laws of physics He thought that Newton's laws were more or less correct it every reason to believe that was true But since then we have relativity and quantum mechanics And so forth so we have a better idea now of what the law is Fundamentally are in fact one of the bold claims

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/newton/001-course-laplace-was-not-right.md

2. 02 · yt0.854

   we had patterns in the universe think about the Integers write the number zero one two three and also negative minus one minus two minus three There's a pattern there if you tell me any one number if you say three I know what the number before that was was two I know the number after that's gonna be it's gonna be four But I don't think that three is the cause of four or vice-versa There's just a pattern that relates all those numbers to each other Laplace is saying the laws of physics are like that It's not that there is an impulse an enchantment a guiding force it's just there's a pattern tha…

   yt/2JsKwyRFiYY-the-big-picture-from-the-big-bang-to-the-meaning-of-life-wit/transcript.txt

3. 03 · yt0.854

   Student: The k coefficient is wrong. Professor Ramamurti Shankar: The fault is not with the k. Yes? Student: We didn't take into account all the force that's friction and the amount of force. Professor Ramamurti Shankar: That is correct. So, we will say we have missed something. There's another force acting on this mass, besides the spring; that's the force of friction that'll oppose the motion of the mass. So, you can say one of two things. Either you can say something is wrong with Newton's laws, or you can say we've not applied Newton's laws properly because we haven't identified all the fo…

   yt/9vLSx1Iv06U-4-newton-s-laws-cont-and-inclined-planes/transcript.txt

4. 04 · yt0.849

   Well, Newton didn't try to describe things moving at speeds comparable to light. He dealt with what problem he could deal with at that time. So, it's a law that has a limited domain of validity. You can always push the frontiers of observation until you come to a situation where the law doesn't work. But the specialty of relativity doesn't also work all the time. If the mass becomes very tiny, it becomes of atomic dimensions, then you need the laws of quantum mechanics. That's wrong too. So, things work in a certain domain and sometimes you abandon the formalism; but don't rush to do that. In …

   yt/9vLSx1Iv06U-4-newton-s-laws-cont-and-inclined-planes/transcript.txt

5. 05 · yt0.838

   So you know that if you do a physics problem, and again you ignore friction and dissipation and so forth, you play physics billiards, physicist billiards where balls just bump into each other and so forth, you can solve the problem of these two balls are moving with certain velocities. They scatter and they go off in another direction. What is the direction and the speed at which the balls are going to go? Laplace was the first to point out that that process is reversible. That if you started up here saying that the balls are moving apart, what were they doing in the past? And Newton's laws ma…

   yt/x26a-ztpQs8-the-big-picture-sean-carroll-talks-at-google/transcript.txt

6. 06 · yt0.825

   And the problem is that even though quantum mechanics works incredibly well in the micro domain and general relativity works incredibly well in the macro domain, whenever you try to put the two mathematical theories together, it breaks down. When you do any calculation that blends the math of quantum mechanics and the math of general relativity, you get one single answer. And that answer is infinity. And infinity might sound well that's kind of you know cool and poetic sounding but it's nonsensical in the context of physics. There's no quantity that you can measure that's ever infinity. So inf…

   yt/o9z5il_FQUw-string-theory-multiverse-and-divine-design-brian-greene/transcript.txt

7. 07 · yt0.825

   But he wasn't in it for the math, he was in it for the physics. So he learned as much math as he needed. And when Minkowski says, "I have some new math that unifies space and time based on Einstein's theories," Einstein himself was like, "Yeah, I don't need that. That's like extra mathematical nonsense." He soon changed his mind 'cause it turns out that that move from space and time being separate to being combined is super useful going forward, including, 10 years later he would invent his general theory of relativity that include gravity into the spacetime story. When Einstein put together w…

   yt/_TBNJyztai0-sean-carroll-explains-the-biggest-ideas-in-the-universe-full/transcript.txt

8. 08 · _intake0.822

   > it right. He didn't figure out the second law. As we now know, sort of the paradigmatic ideas that you need to figure out the second law come from ideas about computation and so on, which were another close to 100 years in the future, so to speak. But it's sort of interesting that he was applying those kinds of philosophical thinking ideas. And it was a misfire in thermodynamics. It was a hit in relativity, in the photoelectric effect, and the existence of photons, and also

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/photoelectric/003-it-right.md

9. 09 · yt0.821

   This is very annoying to me. But he wouldn't have said conservation of momentum. Again, it took hundreds of years to get it right. The basic idea that Ibn Sina put his finger on is that if you could remove friction, if you could remove dissipation, if you imagine something moving through the vacuum, it would keep moving forever. This was the invention of that other device that physics teachers like to use to torture people, the frictionless surface. If you imagine something moving in the complete absence of friction, it would not slow down or require a cause to keep moving, it would just keep …

   yt/x26a-ztpQs8-the-big-picture-sean-carroll-talks-at-google/transcript.txt

10. 10 · yt0.821

    Because to Einstein, it was very obvious that nature would not design a system in which mechanical laws are the same but laws of electricity are different. So, he postulated that all phenomena, whatever be their nature, will be unaffected by going to a frame at constant velocity relative to the initial one. That's a very brave postulate because it even applies to biological phenomena about which I'm sure Einstein knew very little. But he believed that natural phenomena will just follow either the principle of relativity or they won't. And that is something you should think about. Because that …

    yt/pHfFSQ6pLGU-12-introduction-to-relativity/transcript.txt