@0:19 Quantum particles can be in two places at onceI have some quibbles. Black holes do suck in matter. Just look at a quasar:
@1:08 Entropy is disorder
@2:28 Black holes suck in matter
@3:18 We all move at the speed of light
@3:49 The cosmological constant was the worst prediction ever
@4:31 Time stops at the speed of light
@5:15 Time only slows apparently
@6:16 Quantum particles exchange information faster than light
@7:40 Einstein was wrong about quantum physics
@8:10 Dark energy is anti-gravity
@9:21 Faster than light travel is incompatible with Einstein's theories
A quasar (/ˈkweɪzɑːr/ KWAY-zar) is an extremely luminous active galactic nucleus (AGN). It is sometimes known as a quasi-stellar object, abbreviated QSO. The emission from an AGN is powered by accretion onto a supermassive black hole with a mass ranging from millions to tens of billions of solar masses, surrounded by a gaseous accretion disc. Gas in the disc falling towards the black hole heats up and releases energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. The radiant energy of quasars is enormous; the most powerful quasars have luminosities thousands of times greater than that of a galaxy such as the Milky Way.These black holes suck in so much matter that they are the brightest objects in the universe.
Einstein's criticisms of quantum mechanics only make sense if he believed in hidden variable theories, and those were shown impossible by Bell and others. So yes, I think Einstein was wrong.
And faster than light travel is incompatible with relativity. She says you can do it with infinite energy.
My biggest gripe is her explanation of time dilation:
5:00 But it’s not like if you run faster, then time runs slower. 5:05 Time only runs slower if you accelerate. That said, I need to follow this up immediately 5:13 with another common misunderstanding.This is wrong. The time dilation effect is based on velocity, not acceleration.4. [It is a myth] That time slows in Einstein’s theory 5:18 is just an illusion or an apparent effect to do with measurements.
5:22 That’s not true. If you have a clock that is accelerated and you compare 5:27 it to one that isn’t accelerated, then the accelerated one ticks slower. An important 5:34 special case of this is sitting still in a gravitational field, as you probably do now, 5:39 because that means you’re accelerated. And the stronger the gravitational 5:44 pull at your location, the slower you age.
This means that for example time on the surface 5:51 of earth passes a little bit more slowly than on the surface of the moon. It’s a measurable, 5:58 real effect. But it’s so tiny that it doesn’t matter unless you need to synchronize something 6:03 to nanosecond accuracy. This is why NASA wants to introduce a moon time that’s separate from 6:10 Earth time, because these two times can’t be synchronized, they just run at different speeds.
This relates to my recent post on Modern Interpretation of Length Contraction. There is likewise more than one way to interpret the time dilation. The preferred interpretation is that it is geometric effect, that shows up as an apparent effect based on how we do time measurements and clock synchronization. She acknowledges at the end that it is only noticeable in synchronizing something.
The geometry is an interpretation, popular from 1908 until today, and it is fair for her to subscribe to another interpretation, such as what Lorentz or Einstein said. But there is no way to make sense out of time dilation being based on acceleration. The formula is given by the Lorentz transformation, and it uses velocity, not acceleration.
Her point about "sitting still in a gravitational field" is indeed a confusing one. The answer is that you a are not really sitting still. You are moving farther away in spacetime from the clocks you want to synchronize with. You are not aging more slowly by sitting still. There is only an apparent effect when you compare to time measured another way.
The effect is usually described in general relativity textbooks, but it is really just special relativity and the equivalence principle. The principle says the gravity is equivalent to acceleration and no gravity. The formulas of special relativity apply to instantaneous velocity, even if velocity is not constant.
On another subject, she previously posted a video on This Experiment Just Ruled Out The Many Worlds Theory, Physicists Claim. Of course, no experiment can prove or disprove many-worlds theory.
Update: Dr. Bee posts The Problem with Eric Weinstein. She says she is friends with him, and coming to his defense.
6:53 And this is why this pisses me off so much. Sean totally knows that most of his colleagues 7:00 work on similarly flaky stuff, it’s just been covered up by more working hours. 7:06 The literature is full of papers without proper predictions without Lagrangians, 7:12 ill-defined operators or problems that will be solved in some “future work” that never comes. 7:18 Sean knows that. Everyone in the damned field know that. But normally, no one’s saying anything about 7:26 it. Because they’re all tied up in the same scam. Unless the person who comes up with the idea is 7:32 Eric Weinstein, in which case it’s suddenly hugely offensive and everyone starts yelling.Not much of a defense. Weinstein is a charlatan just like all the other theoretical physicists.11:41 In any case, I think what’s really happening here is that a lot of people who work in the 11:47 foundations of physics are very afraid that Eric is exposing how rotten their 11:54 entire field is. This is why they’re trying hard to discredit him. But the truth is 12:00 that that Eric’s idea isn’t any better or worse than all the other crap they’re working on, 12:05 the only difference is that he hasn’t wasted as much of your tax money on it.
The difference is in how Weinstein tries to sell his ideas to the general public. His ideas do not work, and he complains that they are ignored because of corruption.