Future videos will return to physics, mathematics, and engineering. But, my personal views regarding some of the questions raised at the end of this video are available on my "Objective Morality" website at veg1.org/morals.html

@lanog40

Жыл бұрын

Oh my gosh are you vegan! Yay another vegan science person!

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I am a vegan. Though my vegan website is different from the one above. My vegan website is at veg1.org

@miodrag.aleksic

Жыл бұрын

Great video, although a bit unexpected one. I myself love asking similar questions to the ones you have featured in this video regarding the nature of our universe and reality, and have over time stumbled upon some possible answers you might say are enterntaining at the very least. I'd love to have a talk about them if you're ever interested. Would be great to get your take on them.

@Vector--

Жыл бұрын

This universe is static, when I write this sentence is a piece of 4D space in a 5D spacetime.

@xbzq

Жыл бұрын

My comments are being deleted for some reason. Hmm.

Awkward perfection. There's something so enjoyable about these goofy animated characters and their uncanny expressions, paired with the surreal environments and sincere tone of the monologue. So dream-like. I wish all science was taught this way. Thanks for all the wonderful videos you make!

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks! I am glad you like my videos.

This is so, so deeply weird Eugene, and I absolutely love it. The creativity, the commitment, the brilliance, the audacity. It’s all so you and just wonderful.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the compliments. I am glad you liked my video.

@JuliusUnique

Жыл бұрын

I am not sure if he/she appreciates the word "weird", I get called weird a lot and hate it just because I care more about logic and progress of humanity than most other people do

@luisd5098

Жыл бұрын

@@EugeneKhutoryansky I also love it. Thanks for the banger content bro

This feels like a small peak inside your personal mind and the way you think. I am grateful that you decided to share this with the world. Your videos fueled my passion for physics ever since I began my bachelor's degree and being close to finishing my master's now I still find your channel oh so enjoyable to watch.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!!!

My favorite channel on youtube, trully explaining complex subjects like I had never seen before. Thank you.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the compliments.

Truly the anime we desperately need. Thank you so much for this gem.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

@xnoreq

Жыл бұрын

You truly don't understand what an anime is.

@viliml2763

Жыл бұрын

@@xnoreq Ironic

@jamesyeung3286

Жыл бұрын

@@xnoreq it's when Cory in the house

Can somebody explain ti me why this Eugene fellow isnt one of the worlds most celebrated science educators? His videos simply beyond belief they are so well made.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the compliments.

I want a Benjamin Franklin bust on a turntable too.

@VeganSemihCyprus33

Жыл бұрын

The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖

I wanted to say that "physics" is a greek word meaning "nature", and "meta-" many times can be translated as the latin "trans-", which both mean "beyond-", so metaphysical could be translated as beyond-natural, like supernatural, which could explain why it is used the way it is used today

@micraan1579

Жыл бұрын

This is exactly the misinterpretation referenced at 6:07. "metaphysics" was originally intended to mean "that which occupies the pages that come after the pages on physics" but it was misunderstood as something transcending the bounds of physics. All abstract concepts we have come to us through long series of misunderstandings, originating in basic, real world concepts. "Morals" used to simply mean "the attitude of a group", "good" was just an attribute describing a person who owned land. etc.

@viperking6573

Жыл бұрын

@@micraan1579 I didn't know that part about good xD I wonder if in the future we're gonna be able to like, use quark current or something like that

@AntiCitizenX

Жыл бұрын

The word "meta" means AFTER. It's a literal reference to the collective writings of Aristotle that he happened to cobble together after his Physics---as in, "the books after the Physics."

@micraan1579

Жыл бұрын

@@viperking6573 no hold on, the "good" thing is incorrect. We first had the word "guot" as an expression for something we like, from which both the German "Gutsherr" (i.e. someone who owns land) and the moral category of "good" originate. So I had that mixed up, but the general point remains. The Idea of owning a plot of land is obviously more abstract than having a generally good feeling towards something.

I am smiling because many miss the fact that you are an artist as well as a scientist, Eugene. A very interesting combination of license and logic.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the compliment.

Because of your videos, i can feel physics... Thank you so much. ❤️❤️❤️

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks.

Maxwell’s demon is the waifu we all need but don’t deserve

I love the music you play in your videos Eugene, it really heightens the atmosphere and I’d hate for other people to convince you to take it out

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks.

I strongly agree with the script of this video, thank you Eugene and Maxwell"s Daemon. Im a 34 year old college educated man from New York City and I've been watching your videos for quite sometime Eugene, since my late 20's when I took great interest again into physics, quantum physics, and cosmology. At present I am setting myself on a jouney to probe number theory and logic. Your content has always been grounded, accurate, and consistent with science which is a gracious service to the education of the community. But this video here is one of the first times we've heard you address the term "meta-physics" and I know that may come as a surprise to maybe more than a few of your long time followers. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your candor and sincerity in giving a fair mention to a topic most scientist have regarded as pseudo science. You have humility in regards to what both physics and "meta-physics" can achieve, and in this way you are a true objective scientist. I will say this however, in my humble opinion, in my humble time here on this Earth, physics today has reached an astounding, lets say, certain "upper bound" in regards to what we already know, can experimentally test, and in what can quite literally be comprehended by a single human mind. I am not discounting the scientific method, however we are also now dealing with natural phenomena that inherently, seemingly, defy logic and typical comprehension. You need only look at such topics as quantum entanglement, the blackhole singularity and holographic theory, quantum retro causality, higher dimensional hyperspace, and cyclic conformal cosmology just to name a few. These phenomena and theories are quite literally pushing the bounds of how we ordinarily ascertain and test knowledge, information and science. We've already known for a while that time essentialy has no preference in which direction the equations of General Relativity move. I would say physics has definitely taken on a more "abstract" nature over the past one hundred years or so of progress. Perhaps not "meta" yet, but definitely abstract. There are going to have to be reformulations in counting and measuring as well as language/linguistics and syntax adaptations going forward to address some of these ever progressing fields. I suspect artificial intelligence will be a big aid in this. What then can be said about the foundations upon which we've built our sciences? The individuals that contributed to our understanding are enourmous. If it was not for their hunger for truth and ingenuity, we would not be close to the privilege of our understanding of the universe today. We owe it to them to probe as they did, when many would have called their work psuedo science. The funny thing is, if they were to look at some of the progress today, they would likely call it psuedo science themselves were it not for the evidence, as too would we to the scientist many generarions ahead of us now.

I seriously recommend, for anyone interested in this topic, to check the introduction of Mario Bunge's book 'Ontology I: The Furniture of the World' (it's not too long). Bunge was a physicist made philosopher (or maybe it was the other way around?), and we was deeply interested in metaphysics, but not in any form of metaphysics, nor in any way of understanding what that word meant. For him (and he was rescuing Aristotle's tradition), metaphysics was the discipline that studied the general features of every that existed, and the discipline that proposed concepts that could generalize any other concept that it's used to describe specific parts of reality. And he proposed a way of executing such tasks, namely, to use the current knowledge of science to back any conceptual proposal, and to use logico-mathematical tools to formalize such concepts and the relation between concepts. The justification for incurring in such endeavors is to provide science with the best frame of concepts and general hypothesis, in order to systematize all scientific knowledge and to correct some metaphysical assumptions that some scientist hold and that affect the way they interpret empirical results. Bunge claims that scientific theories hold metaphysical assumptions, and that, when not made explicit, nor analyzed nor systematized, they tend to be contrary to what scientific knowledge tell us about the world. A few examples of metaphysical discussions: are complex objects just the sum of their components, or is a complex object a sui generis thing, somehow different (in which way?) from its components? Do objects have properties regardless of what observers could adscribe to them, or do the properties depend somehow on the observer, and if so, how? Is there any feature that absolutely every object possess and share in common? If matter transforms into energy, can there any such thing as "energy without objects"? Is spacetime a kind of thing?

It seems to be a theme of parents. Mine too had an experience "out of the box" that certainly had an impact on their lives. Now, at 57, whilst I'd hoped to have a similar experience in my lifetime, to help me understand, I've finally realized it's a coincidental lottery I'm not winning. Remember folks, if something is a one-in-a-million chance of happening then, on average, every day 8,000 people win that lottery (given that there are 8 billion people playing that coincidence lottery every day). Of those 8,000, most will recognize it for what it is, amazing, for the remainder, it's a new ghost story or a UFO sighting or whatever (insert here your favorite paranormal bollocks here).

@adiadiadi333

Жыл бұрын

You can never rule out that perhaps it depends on your belief.

@kirkhamandy

Жыл бұрын

@@adiadiadi333 You can never rule out that it may depend on some people being more gullible than others.

@adiadiadi333

Жыл бұрын

@@kirkhamandy ofc you can't, unless you experience it yourself, for which you may have to be gullible, which is not the scientific method. It's quite the loophole.

This is my favorite channel on KZread

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

Very interesting video Eugene, you always seem to make videos about subjects I have been thinking about lately.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

I am glad you liked my video.

I had a similar experience to the New York story. I was living in Las Vegas, and my parents were visiting, and I had a strange, unexplained, but very strong feeling that we should just go home and keep to ourselves for the day. My parents didn't have this feeling, and kept shopping even after I left them. That evening, the Las Vegas shooting happened, and although they weren't shot, they were close enough to encounter the wounded coincidentally. I haven't had a feeling like that before or since, and it doesn't really cohere with my worldview, but it seems unreasonable to ignore it.

@thephilosopher7173

Жыл бұрын

I've had experiences like that too, and I think only those who've had similar experiences or various other ones, will ever accept a video like this. It'll be an uphill battle but I know that what we think is impossible will be understood.

@BariumCobaltNitrog3n

2 ай бұрын

An overwhelming need to justify your instincts is a step away from reason. You predicted the shooting? Shopping and shooting are almost the same word. If there was no shooting you would not have a story. Fortunately people died so you could prove you had an unexplained feeling that helped no one.

Eugene, I have an undergrad degree in math with physics (1965 - I am an old guy 😂), but I love your videos. I like to have my physics knowledge refreshed and brought up to date, and perhaps learn some new things. Thank you.🙂

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

I am glad you like my videos. Thanks.

@jpraise6771

Жыл бұрын

Seems like you could teach me a thing or two. If you got time, send me a random physics fact

this video is so good, returned to it today thank you for all your work.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks.

Eugene throwing some lovely little angels up in paradise.

I like Ms Demon, she seems very nice and caring.

I love that uncanny existential aesthetic of 90s era cgi and animation. So creepy so captivating :o

The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss by Theologian DB Hart has great metaphysics chapter explaining ontological necessity of God to sustain existence. science explains what, but nothing within nature can explains why it exists, *that* it exists

my best explanation on how the matter appeared, is that it's like a paradox that it's solving itself, like a loop that explains itself by it's own existance, same like in donnie darko movie or Predestination movie

I absolutely adore your work, Mr. Khutoryansky. You have a remarkable way of teaching that resonates with me. Thank you so much for sharing your work and your analyses with the world.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!!!

Thank you, Eugene (And Kira!) for this entertaining and very thought-provoking video! I had never bought into all the concepts and mumbo-jumbo of "metaphysics", but thank you for reminding me that to be truly lucid, one must always keep an open mind! Finally, and most emphatically, thank you SO much for asserting the concept of "ethics" without ever once mentioning "morals", as the latter term implies not only the existence, but the will of a supreme being. While I will admit I do not believe in such a being, I must concede that one's existence is not beyond the realm of possibility. Yet to propose that we mere mortal beings possess the insight and wisdom to speak for such a higher power, interpreting it's wishes from our own limited point of view is the height of hubris! This brings me back to your own example of the clergy rejecting Franklin's lightning rod, because they claim to know that such events are direct instances of God's will! And yet, it was their own ignorance and fear that let countless people die needlessly, all to satisfy some narrow-minded religious "dogma"!

12:26 _"Having "nothing" exist seems to be a perfectly valid logical possibility. However, to even utter this statement implies that even in a state of genuine nothingness, there are certain logical principles that still exist, against which the state of nothingness can be evaluated."_ That looks like a non sequitur. A _"logical possibility"_ is not the same thing as a "metaphysical possibility". A _"logical possibility"_ usually means that the proposition doesn't entail logical contradictions (that it doesn't infringe any of the laws of a given logical system). There is no logical contradiction in *postulating* a _"state of nothingness"_ . But it is only that, it is nothing more than a "postulate". The _"logical principles against which the state of nothingness is evaluated"_ are not used from within the _"state of nothingness"_ itself, they are only needed from within the act of postulating... Remember, there is no necessity that metaphysics itself be "logical". 13:03 _"Could it be the case that these logical, mathematical, and ethical principles are so fundamental that there is no possible world in which they are different or in which they do not exist?"_ Sure, it _"could be the case"_ , this is certainly what thinkers like Plato have been proposing. But that isn't the only explanation/proposition out there.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Here is the sense in which I was making that statement. Hypothetically suppose someone came up with a valid argument as to why a state of nothingness is not internally logically consistent. One possible response to this argument is that in a state of nothingness, the laws of logic wouldn't exist, and hence this logical inconsistency is irrelevant. If we reject this response, and conclude that logical inconsistencies are still important, then we are concluding that the laws of logic still exist even in a state of "nothingness."

@MrGustavier

Жыл бұрын

@@EugeneKhutoryansky Yes, and that seems to be a non sequitur. Let me try to put it in the form of a syllogism, and let me know if that isn't misrepresenting your argument. P1- there exist a valid argument that shows that X is *"not internally logically consistent"* P2 - logical inconsistencies are important C - the laws of logic still exist in X Let me know what you think.

@CFSworks

Жыл бұрын

I'm still trying to understand your first point, but it sounds like you're saying simply, "there's no paradox in imagining an empty set"? I think what Eugene is saying is not that an empty set is a paradox, but that for the empty set to be all that fundamentally exists would be a paradox: how can there be an empty set if the concept of a set itself doesn't even exist? You cannot have a "state of nothingness" because that is a "state." Thinking more about this, I might be grasping what you're trying to say: "of course OUR system of logic would demand that only that particular system of logic exist, and therefore also rules out the 'null system', but the 'null system' doesn't care"? That sounds to me like you think Eugene's argument is circular (using a system of logic to prove itself valid) not actually a non-sequitur?

@xnoreq

Жыл бұрын

@@CFSworks An empty set can only be logically incoherent/contradictory _within_ a particular logical system. So if the *contents* of that empty set would be all there is, which is (philosophically) nothing, then there could not be a logical contradiction either. By saying that an empty set itself exists, you're literally saying that the concept exists because an empty set is a concept.

@MrGustavier

Жыл бұрын

@@CFSworks To put it simply : an *"empty set"* is a conceptual construct. Proposing that any conceptual construct could be what *"fundamentally exists"* is a very strong claim. It would be a form of idealism. Plato advocated for what he called "pure ideal forms", those would be abstract concepts that exist independent of any mind (real) and outside of space, time, matter etc, they would be necessary (they couldn't be non-existent). In that case, the _"state of nothingness"_ would be an empty term, something that points to nothing real, much like the term "unicorn", the concept of "unicorn" itself would be real, it would be an ideal form, but it would not be "instantiated" in reality, at any time, at any point. But of course this is a platonist position, which has its own shortcomings. If one is not a realist about conceptual constructs such as the *"empty set"* or the _"state of genuine nothingness"_ , if one simply think that these are products of the mind, then, like he said, _"Having "nothing" exist seems to be a perfectly valid logical possibility"_ , like you said : *"there's no paradox in imagining an empty set"* . In the video, Eugene (Maxwell's demon) says at 12:26 _"Having "nothing" exist seems to be a perfectly valid logical possibility. However, to even utter this statement implies that even in a state of genuine nothingness, there are certain logical principles that still exist, against which the state of nothingness can be evaluated."_ As you can see the sentence _"to even utter this statement implies that even in a state of genuine nothingness, there are certain logical principles that still exist"_ is an incorrect inference, the first part of the proposition does not entail the second part of the proposition (a non sequitur), the entailment relation is wrong, for the simple reason that something can be uttered by someone in virtue of laws of logic that do not obtain in the state of affair (nothingness) that is referred to in the utterance. One can refer anachronically. One can refer to the _"Epic of Gilgamesh"_ as advocating for a hedonistic philosophy even if the term "hedonistic" was invented centuries later. For the same reason, one can refer to the "state of nothingness" in virtue of laws of logic that did not obtain in the said "state of nothingness". If I am charitable, I can see a way to interpret the inference so that it is correct, that would be to take a realist position on the _"logical principles"_ , the problem is that if the _"there is no possible world in which they [the _"logical principles"_ ] are different or in which they do not exist"_ (13:10), then the first premise ( _"Having "nothing" exist seems to be a perfectly valid logical possibility"_ ) is false. I hope this is clear. Let me know if you want me to give more details. Now in his response to my comment, Eugene said : _"Here is the sense in which I was making that statement. Hypothetically suppose someone came up with a valid argument as to why a state of nothingness is not internally logically consistent. One possible response to this argument is that in a state of nothingness, the laws of logic wouldn't exist, and hence this logical inconsistency is irrelevant. If we reject this response, and conclude that logical inconsistencies are still important, then we are concluding that the laws of logic still exist even in a state of "nothingness.""_ This is, again, a non sequitur. Neither the fact that _"we reject this response"_ , nor the fact that _"logical inconsistencies are still important"_ lead to the conclusion that _"the laws of logic still exist even in a state of "nothingness""_ . Once again, I find myself in need to be charitable with Eugene, to see a way to interpret the inference so that it is correct, and once again, I have to ascribe some sort of realism about _"the laws of logic"_ to Eugene for his argument to go through. Which isn't present in one of his premise. I don't know what you mean by circularity here though. No one is *"using a system of logic to prove itself valid"* here as far as I can tell. No one is trying to prove the validity of any system of logic.

Another wonderful piece. Thank you, Eugene. 🙏

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

I am glad you liked my video. Thanks.

The spin down of free will and the spin up of benevolence, Maxwell's demon is a pretty pair.

"OMG, she's literally me" I'm going through a phase and really needed this video. Thank youu

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks.

Nice to see you improve the production quality! :D Path planning is a hot industry, not?

It was nice to hear a piece of your story, Eugene. I still hold out the belief that the supernatural (or whatever we might call it) may still exist, somewhere, for some reason or another. I think the idea that laws might exist that transcend existence itself is an interesting concept and would be an amazing thing to explore if it were ever possible to test.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

It is difficult (truely impossible) to answer the creation of universe, because human dont have enough tools (like maths, phy, languages) which can describe this fact. So some secrets are meant to be secrets.

@jeffevio

Жыл бұрын

I don't think it's obvious that humans won't be able to build up larger and more useful toolboxes of concepts, words, mathematical descriptions, and instruments to understand reality completely.

We need Metaphysics and Physics all. Open your mind first. Thanks bro. Keep simple. Never stop.

Maxwell's Demon confirming Eugene (and all other characters) exists is now canon.

You're a smart guy for mastering the subject of physics well enough to teach it, but even better that you break away from the textbook facts and try to ponder what it all means. Regarding the "why is there something rather than nothing?" question: I believe we live in a simulation from some creator who lives in a higher-order dimension of spacetime. I like to think of a fish tank at home. Each day, your fish sees you open the door, coming home from work 5 days in a row at the same time, followed by 2 days off. The fish cannot comprehend that you work so that you can pay for your shelter. It doesn't understand money, or rent, or land ownership, or the aversion to homelessness, or the need for you to pursue knowledge so you can have a better career. All the fish knows is that you walk to the tank and sprinkle food inside. The fish might wonder why it cannot travel past the confines of its tank, just like we wonder what was before the big bang. The fish knows (maybe) that it should not jump out of the water or fall over the edge because it will die, just as we will if we fly too far away in space. It has orders-of-magnitude less knowledge about reality, just like we ostensibly have less than our creator.

This question may be unrelated to the (wonderful) content, but what is the name of the piano music starting at 14:38?

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

All the music in this video is from the free KZread audio library, and the names of the songs are the following. Wither Must I Wander Allemande Renaissance_Castle

I love how unique these videos are. This one is somehow even more so than the others. I love that you said to deny the possibility that certain things exist is anti-scientific. I agree. Not to say every claim made by every charlatan or that everything that seems supernatural is as it seems, but science only sets out to make observations and to record them. It’s purpose is not to speculate what is or isn’t possible by any mode of rationale. Speculation is always just speculation. It’s therefore possible that Eugene’s father experienced an extra sensory episode. It’s possible that many other people have too. Just because none of them have been able to appropriately articulate whatever they experienced in an objectively scientific format, doesn’t mean that it NEVER can be articulated nor does it mean that it doesn’t exist. Electromagnetism was likely observed by countless people and even other animals well before it was formally described and commonly accepted by science

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the compliment about my videos.

We'll come back to KZread Eugene, liked before watch, I trust your content.

My mentor! will you please make a detailed video about near death experiences in the future?

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

There are other channels that are dedicated exclusively to discussing near death experiences. If I tried to make a video on this topic, I would probably lose a lot of my subscribers. Though, when I briefly mentioned "Out of Body" experiences in this video, this includes Near Death Experiences. Thanks.

One of the best videos of the year!

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

I am glad you liked my video.

@Life_42

Жыл бұрын

​@@EugeneKhutoryansky I will always enjoy all your videos. It's like you're showing us the raw secrets of the Universe :)

I'm glad to see that you made a video on this topic. I've know all this to be true myself but it's difficult to talk about it in public.

Can you do a video on the Ranque-Hilsche vortex tube (vortex cooler) -- maybe with animation at the molecular level?

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

I will add that to my list of topics for future videos. Thanks.

Though out of the ordinary, an interesting video to say the least! Have you considered making one about Noether's theorem, and more generally the relation between symmetry and conservation in physics

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Noether's theorem is on my list of topics for future videos. Thanks.

Every scientific discovery can be improved on, that improvement can also be improved on, and to infinitum…

Seems like a good place to chill

Eugene, you are at once a great teacher, and an artist with a clear vision. Thank you!

@EugeneKhutoryansky

8 ай бұрын

Thanks for the compliments.

An awesome video. Thanks for your effort and dedication on physics.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. I am glad you liked my video.

Hello Eugene, great video as always. I have a video suggestion for you if you have not covered the topic yet. Could you talk about fictitious forces like the coriolis force for example?

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. I cover coriolis force in my video "Laws of Motion - Newton and beyond" at kzread.info/dash/bejne/e6yam7yyisSrabQ.html

@DeluxeSlayer

Жыл бұрын

@@EugeneKhutoryansky Thank you!

Throughout these years you have enlighten my soul, Eugene. A most sincer Gracias

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. I am glad that you enjoy my videos.

My mentor! Will you please answer one of my questions? I am only confused about one thing, an astronomical physical phenomena of everything (every spinning spherical object) whether a black hole, pulsar or a new forming star, why all of these release jets of radiation and materials from their poles only and not from equator or somewhere else on the surface? What is causing this phenomenon? There is not a single video on KZread explaining this important astronomical phenomenon and I have returned pretty much disappointed from google. Now only you are my last hope. Can there be a visual and intuitive electromagnetic explanation to the phenomenon of solar winds and solar particle approaching the poles only?

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

I will add that to my list of topics for future videos. Thanks.

@physicslover1950

Жыл бұрын

@@EugeneKhutoryansky I am also confused about another thing .. Its about electrical component named piezoelectric .. It converts applied force into electric current... The often told main reason behind this mysterious phenomenon is that when a piezoelectric crystal / material is compressed or stretched it causes disturbance of its metallic lattice the atoms of unit cell dislocate and create an uneven distribution of charge which gives birth to an electric dipole in the unit cell, consequently creating an electric field throughout the material/crystal. This electric field causes the free electrons to move in the direction opposite to the electric field. Now if the crystal is not connected to an external circuit, no electric current will flow. Suppose a piezoelectric material is connected to a capacitor; the current will flow until the voltage on the capacitor equals the voltage on the piezoelectric if a constant force is applied on piezoelectric... The problem arises when we connect a light bulb (resistor) with the piezoelectric such as connecting a street light to a patch of road made of piezoelectric. Now, if someone quickly steps on the patch and takes off his step, the street light will blink which is simple to understand. The confusion arises only when person steps on the patch and keeps standing on it. The thought experiments according to the above mentioned concepts say that the bulb should glow without blinking or going dark as long as the person is standing. But this should not happen; it also doesn't happen in real life scenerio because it clearly seems to violate the conservation of energy principle and the bulb giving off light continuously indicates creation of free energy. But this puts a question to the concept which we have been taught so far (and which majority of KZread videos tell) that when the force is applied it creates a dipole... The confusion is that shouldn't the current continue to flow if the man standing on the patch has compressed the piezoelectric, as the dipole and hence the electric field is still there in the dipole? My mentor! Believe me I can't find any helpful video on KZread about the topic which particularly addresses this misconception. I also asked majority of my friends who are electrical engineers and the only answer they give was that piezoelectric gives alternating current instead of DC. This answer, however makes a sense, is still incomplete and has disappointed me. It again fails to clear the misconception that as long as the weight (force) of the person is being applied, there is no way for the electric field, created by the dislocations of individual atoms of the lattice, to vanish away without any reason until the unit cell of the lattice restores its original previous configuration (relative position) which is only possible when the piezoelectric is no longer in compressed state i.e., when the applied force (weight of the person) is removed... My mentor! Such a widely misunderstood topic desperately craves for an intuitive visual animation video from our best physics professor Eugene Khutoryansky.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

I will also add the piezoelectric effect to my list of topics for future videos. Thanks.

Oh this is so good Eugene. Thank you. You help me think in new ways.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. I am glad you liked my video.

Demon Discrimination PSA - I love it!

im in love with your videos

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

Dear Eugene, I've watched almost all of your videos, but this one is my favorite. I grew up in a religiously fundamentalist environment that opposed science and higher education in general. I grew up feeling like a demon stuck in paradise, so to speak. Now I'm studying physics and mathematics in hopes of helping others with my abilities in the medical field, and your beautifully surreal artwork has helped me understand and retain so much about these topics, especially quantum mechanics. Thank you for your work, and for this video in particular. It celebrates rationality without disrespecting those who entertain the supernatural.--dynamicspacebabe

@EugeneKhutoryansky

10 ай бұрын

Thanks for the compliments. I am glad you enjoyed my video and that my videos have been helpful.

@Gomer._.

7 ай бұрын

A demon stuck in paradise, I saw the meme of suburban houses saying they thought heaven was going to be like that as a kid, day all the time and would get so afraid they’d throw up. It’s such a relief how so many of my extreme experiences turned out to be not so original.

@Gomer._.

7 ай бұрын

@@EugeneKhutoryanskyily

Thanks a lot for this video! I study physics but I am very religious and have had some spirtual experiences that I can't explain, though none that predicted the future. Although I have dreamed of a particular street seen from a particular view since I was a child. I moved thousands of miles away to a different continent and after living here for 6 years, I finally found that street. I walked down it and tbh did not find anything special, but still felt a deep need to do it. The people in my religious community are mostly accepting of the "unexplainable" experiences but don't accept that physics, math, and the things I understand about it are a crucial part of my spirtual experience, because as they say, science always changes and our religion doesn't.They see science as mostly a way to build technology and not very good for anything else. My peers/professors/etc do not accept the spirtual aspect of me and sort of think "as long as she can compartimentalize the crazy religious stuff away, it's fine." I try to explain to people that they are one and the same but people do not want to listen. So seeing someone from the physics world talk about these things without dismissing them offhand gives me huge relief.

@marc-andrebrunet5386

Жыл бұрын

Welcome here 🤝

@imix360

Жыл бұрын

Yup. There's plenty non-ordinary phenomena that elude current models of understanding, even modern ones. Myself included, I also have experienced spooky-accurate sensing of external information that for no means I would normally have access to, as well as both presenced and been told of a lot of paranormal stuff, so I'm pretty much convinced it's not "hysteria"/"hallucinations"/"random mistaken coincidence"/etc. -some long random notes below- I think one of the best ways to start to tacke into a model that explains non-ordinary phenomena is that of the information universe, and how there is information interaction in three layers: physical, psychical, and essential (with a pinch of quantum weirdness and whatever) A couple of hypotheses regarding "future vision" come in mind that takes states of mind into account (such as the one of a mind that meditates or is in an intermediate state between vigil and sleepnesses), in which one would be able to interact with the other layers: be it with specific voltage and frequency of neural activity, plus maybe a state in one's own psychic and essential layers. As far as I'm concerned, I have read of the effect of certain hallucinogens to trigger such results (DMT being one of the most popular in literature), but of course it's just random reading and not a formal research, for reasons... Don't get me wrong, I was an academic for a bit after graduating, so I know how one must try to keep a good judgement on sources and information. My reads have included mostly some more spiritually-oriented literature, but a more recent source seems more landed in the experience of well-studied people (like Rick Strassman's book on DMT, which is still a pending read as far as I've seen looks promising and interesting to explore). For personal reasons, these topics are still an inner struggle/conflict (and there also are a couple of fears), so I always elude attempting formal research and further exploring them It is an undeniable fact that "supernatural phenomena" has been since the dawn of time and is a whole anthropological phenomenon, and not because the by-chance events of mistakes of innocent/naive people being deceived or misunderstanding things, but because there also have been the real ones going on and there is plenty of evidence of dots that won't connect through classic understanding Are these senseable/measurable? Yes, we have modules that can interact with them, but those are either atrophied or underdeveloped. Supposedly, the pineal gland is the most important part of the system, but the "subtle architechture" (that of chakras and whatever more) play a big part in those interactions. Other stuff that comes into mind is how apparitions (ghosts n such) not only involve telekinesis of stuff, voices from nowhere, etc., but also weird electromagnetic distortions and effects (for which there are sensors built and some spiritual workers such as banishers and mediums tend to rely on to pinpoint the space of highest probability of an entity's "location") There's plenty to talk about. Of course, the amataur tackles are to be called pseudoscience for there is no way we can have controlled experiments on most of the ellusive phenomena, but I noew someday we could achieve a more flexible model of understanding It's like probabilities in a closed system that are either 1 or 0, but there will be an epsilon of uncertainty of "how closed" that system is, and thus modify those extremes to be not absolute -I know a more proper essay could have been written, but I don't have the disposition to do it; just writing a bit of what I know/have read-

@DipayanPyne94

Жыл бұрын

My friend, you don't seem to know much about how the human brain works. Some of your personal experiences like dreams are all creations of the mind. They are acquired during your lifetime from your experiences. But that doesn't leave behind the possibility of INNATE knowledge. Whatever the case, the creation of such visual imagery in the mind leads to confusion. People often end up calling this confusion a spiritual experience. It's normal. Nothing spritual or supernatural about it. It's just a bunch of subjective experiences. All you need to understand is that such subjective experiences are NOT indicative of reality. To understand reality, we need Objectivity ALONE. That's all.

@Iudicatio

Жыл бұрын

@@DipayanPyne94 I used to believe the same as you and there is certainly A LOT we can learn by looking at the world objectively but there is another world out there too and once you have experienced it, you know. You don't even necessary have to look at religion/spirituality/mysticism to discover it. For example, in pure math there are many objects that don't seem to describe anything in the real world. Though some objects that initially fell into this category were later discovered to describe something. So in what sense these objects "exist" is a hot topic of debate. I believe all of them exist but not necessarily on our plane of existence.

@DipayanPyne94

Жыл бұрын

@@Iudicatio Those Objects in Math are Abstract in Nature. They don't exist physically. But I understand what you are saying. You are talking just like Plato. Many Mathematicians are Platonists. Haha. Anyway, the point is that Platonists feel like the world of the abstract is an actual world. Well, reality says otherwise. We know that the abstract objects exist only in the minds of humans. But humans don't exist before conception, do they ? They don't. So, neither do those abstract objects. Then, how is there a different world ? Until we have any evidence of any such world, the correct position to withhold belief ...

Here is a Sanskrit verse from the Rig Veda - "नासदासीन्नो सदासीत्तदानीं नासीद्रजो नो व्योमा परो यत् | किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद्गहनं गभीरम् ?" which asks the following questions - "Then even nothingness was not, nor existence, There was no sky then, nor the space beyond it. What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping? Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?"

The part about nothing reminded me of the recent video from Sabine Hossenfelder called 'What is "Nothing"?'. She talks about 9 levels of nothing that Robert Lawrence Kuhn came up with.

What is the Bach piano piece in the ending? I can't remember at the moment.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

All the music in this video is from the free KZread audio library, and the names of the songs are the following. Allemande Renaissance_Castle Wither Must I Wander

I really like your closing statement, it's excellent!

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks.

Very good video and questions, thanks Eugene and Kira!

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

Eugene, could you please make some videos about fluid mechanics?

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

I already have videos on fluid mechanics. Examples are below. Bernoulli's Principle -- kzread.info/dash/bejne/hpeByc2OY9Oscrw.html Archimedes' Principle -- kzread.info/dash/bejne/hYaVptJ9hMLgnrw.html Pascal's Law -- kzread.info/dash/bejne/nJWmz7mzd8idaM4.html

I'm not sure whether to like this video or to dislike it. But ... that basically means you made me think and as such you earned a like and a comment. 👏

Could you present new breakthroughs in modern physics in an animated, easy-to-understand video?

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

I prefer to focus on "well established" theories and experimental findings, rather on the latest developments, because the "latest developments" are often quickly found to be incorrect. This is why science is based on many repeated observations and experiments, by many different observers and scientists, over a long period of time.

I think it will be interesting to find an optics explaining video:)

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

I have videos on optics. These are below. Lenses & refraction -- kzread.info/dash/bejne/eXlhuMd-ganXiJc.html Mirrors -- kzread.info/dash/bejne/nJ2a09WxfLW4h84.html

Absolutely amazing video!

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. I am glad you liked my video.

Fantastic video! A Demon with such wisdom that even the angels cannot cope with.

@Iudicatio

Жыл бұрын

I'm not sure, but this video might be taking a more Islamic theological view, where angels do not have free will and can only obey God's every command, but demons and humans do have free will.

@MrFlaviojosefus

Жыл бұрын

@@Iudicatio It is an interesting take on this story. But for me, the important thing is that we see a physicist discussing metaphysics openly. I know they do it a lot, but no one dares to do it publicly. People say that physicists are not supposed to discuss metaphysics. There is much more to say about this but the space here is very constrained.

@Iudicatio

Жыл бұрын

@@MrFlaviojosefus I totally agree! I studied physics and if you consider subjects like Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, the beginning of the universe, higher dimensions, etc, you quickly land in metaphysical quagmires. And I believe in these quagmires is where the beauty of God lies. But I cannot really talk about it to either people in the physics community or my religious community and be taken seriously. I find that extremely sad and I really hope more people talk about it.

@garmarrod

10 ай бұрын

@@Iudicatiofree will is chaotic, just like demons.

Thank you verry much, like your explaining vidio,s a lot 🧡📺👍👋

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!!!

The end 🤣💥🤣💥🤣💥💥💥🤣🤣💥💥🤣🤣💥🤣💥💥🤣🤣💥💥🤣💥🤣🤣💥🤣💥💥🤣🤣💥🤣💥

That was kind a weird, like science it self, and on that note, I use to explain it as follows: Scinece is the "how" and "God" (or call it as you wish) is the why

I've missed Maxwell's demon! But I missed the classical music playing in the background :(

I feel like this sort of video might be the most thought-provoking ones of all, but that's really, really making me miss the music..

@SplendidKunoichi

Жыл бұрын

oh, but there it is coming in towards the end. i stood up and clapped

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. I am glad you liked my video.

love it thank you!!!!! your work is amazing

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the compliment.

i can feel the dogmatic religions hearing that you want to mitigate suffering and arguing that suffering is the will of an all powerful all good and all present being. make your actions of trying to stopping his design retribution a sin against the moral authority.

Seeing inside the center of stars? PERIODIC TABLE OF THE ELEMENTS: (copy and paste from my files): Potential completion of the Periodic Table of the Elements: I currently believe that there are 120 chemical elements in this universe. If a person were to look at how electrons fill up the shells in atoms: 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8 (seven shells), and realizing that energy could freely flow in this universe if nothing stopped it from doing so, then a natural bell shaped curve might occur. An eighth energy shell might exist with a maximum of two elements in it, chemical element #119 (8s1) and chemical element #120 (8s2). Chemical Element #119 (8s1): #119 I put at the bottom of the Hydrogen group on the Periodic Table of the Elements. It only has one electron in it's outer shell with room for only one more electron. Energy might even enter the atom through the missing electron spot and then at least some of the energy might get trapped inside of the atom under the atom's outer shell. Chemical Element #120 (8s2): #120 I put at the bottom of the Helium group since it's outer shell is full of electrons. It might have some of the properties of group two, Beryllium group (Alkali Earth Metals group) since it has two electrons in it's outer shell; as well as some of the properties of the Helium group (Noble Gases group) since it's outer shell is full of electrons; and if you look at the step down deflection of the semi-metals and where #120 would be located on the chart, it's possible #120 might even have some semi-metal characteristics. #120 would be the heaviest element in this universe. I believe chemical element #120 could possibly be found inside the center of stars. When a neutron split inside of this atom, it would give off one proton, one electron, neutrinos and energy. The proton and electron would be ejected outside of the atom since all their respective areas are full. One proton and one electron are basic hydrogen, of which the Sun is primarily made up of, and the Sun certainly gives off neutrinos and energy. And note, it's the neutron that split, not a proton. So even after the split, there are still 120 protons inside of the atom and the atom still exists as element #120. The star would last longer that way. In addition, if the neutron that split triggered a chain reaction inside of the star, this could possibly be how stars nova, (even if only periodically). If stars were looked at as if this theoretical idea were true, and found to even be somewhat true, then we might just have a better model of the universe to work with, even if it's not totally 100% true. And if it's all 100% true, then all the better. (Except of course for those who might be in the way of a periodic nova or supernova. They might have a no good, very bad, horrible day.)

I watched the video on Maxwell's Demon from the Mechanics playlist, and a few videos later, I decided to go back to it to say what a great anime MC she would make. When I clicked on the channel, what should I find? That the most recent video STARS Maxwell's Demon! Coincidence? This does not count as official, scientific data because it consists of just a single, unrepeatable event. Nevertheless, it's still an interesting story.

Это потрясающий канал который явно недооценин, один из лучших на KZread! Also, I will glad to see your autobiographical video.

Would you like to do an animation of the Euler angles of rigid bidy rotationsi?

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

I will add that to my list of topics for future videos. Thanks.

Very interesting material. We haven't reached our scientific limits and probably never will, and history has shown that. I'm glad we have the good demons helping us out.

To suffer to struggle is to live.

Being limited to what is physically observable is simultaneously the greatest strength and weakness of science. Only relying on repeatable observable phenomena means that any theory can be continuously tested and either confirmed or refuted depending on the data. However it also means that anything that can't be observed is by definition unscientific, which means the scientist has to accept that not all questions can be answered by science. After all it would be naïve to think that every question can be answered merely by observing the world around us. I think an appreciation for metaphysics, and philosophy more generally, is vital for the enlightened scientist. Unfortunately many scientists today will neglect this, believing science has all the answers, or that science can exist without philosophy.

Loved it 👍💯✅😁 pure genius bravo 👏👏👏👏👏🎉🎊

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks.

This was very, very informative and sweet~! Especially your words on striving to alleviate suffering even though it seems suffering will always exist. Thank you~! I will pass it along.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. I am glad you liked my video.

1:36 The demon is too kind for clearly that was a fortunate thing.

A masterpiece!

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks.

Can you do one with ZVS circuit

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

I will add Zero voltage switching (ZVS) to my list of topics for future videos. Thanks.

Thank you, the question about nothing is bothering me so much... How can it be, that something exists even when at some point surely there was nothing.

The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖

Love you Eugene and your work ♥️

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks.

In the beginning there was darkness, and the Lord farted. !!!BANG!!!

The Colin’s Bear of physics

As soon as I heard the first six notes in this video I knew that I know them from somewhere. But from where? It took a minute or two. Whither Shall I wander, Vaughan Williams. It's one of the songs I studied when I was taking voice lessons. kzread.info/dash/bejne/hJyHwbqrobunZLw.html

Eugene, you are one of a kind!

@EugeneKhutoryansky

3 ай бұрын

Thanks!

So it's a science version of death note😂

@VeganSemihCyprus33

Жыл бұрын

The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖

please please make a video on pulley system analysis

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

I will add that to my list of topics for future videos. Thanks.

@MultiversalExplorers

Жыл бұрын

@@EugeneKhutoryansky I Am Extremely Thankful To You

Your videos are thought provoking

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks.

That explains a lot. Thank you.

@EugeneKhutoryansky

Жыл бұрын

Thanks.

8:34 I got a really big kick out of Maxwell's Demon trying this. I mean, of course Maxwell's Demon would be able to do it successfully every time.