To build an LLM that can reason about the 3d world. I suspect they will add the ability to reason about the physics of the world next. It's just another attempt to get closer to AGI.
They most likely will have to pivot a few times but once they show their LLM solving problems that others can't, the others will quickly add these features too. Right now, it is cheaper to wait for World Labs to go first. The others are not that far behind: https://cat-4d.github.io/
> But gravity is the curvature of space caused by mass, it is not described as a form of mass.
Gravitational waves carry momentum and energy (and therefore mass), just like electromagnetic waves. Theoretically, you can extract that energy from gravitational waves, by using oscillating masses tuned to the wave's frequency.
> Gravitational waves carry momentum and energy (and therefore mass), just like electromagnetic waves.
No, EM waves do not have mass. They are massless. They carry momentum and energy, yes, but not mass.
In GR, the source of gravity is not "mass", it's stress-energy. EM waves carry stress-energy even though they are massless.
Gravitational waves do have some aspects that are analogous to EM waves, but there is a key difference: gravitational waves do not have any stress-energy. They are pure spacetime curvature in vacuum. So while there is a sense in which they carry momentum and energy, since properly constructed detectors can extract momentum and energy from them, they do not carry any stress-energy and the momentum and energy they carry cannot be localized the way momentum and energy in EM waves can.
No, they don't. Read what I said carefully. I did not say gravitational waves do not carry "energy". I said they do not have any "stress-energy". In other words, they are vacuum solutions of the Einstein Field Equation--their stress-energy tensor is zero. That is a true statement, and I contrasted it with EM waves, whose stress-energy tensor is not zero.
> It's just not localized
This is a consequence of the fact that their stress-energy tensor is zero, so there is no tensor that describes "energy carried by gravitational waves".
> How do you understand this process of matter escaping a black hole?
No matter escapes. Gravitational waves are not matter. They are spacetime curvature. Nor do they "escape" the black hole; they are emitted from outside the horizon. The reason the mass of the merged hole can be smaller than the combined masses of the original holes, with the difference being emitted as gravitational waves, is that black holes are not made of matter, they are made of spacetime curvature, and when they merge, some of the spacetime curvature doesn't get included in the merged hole. That's just how spacetime curvature works.
> Nor do they "escape" the black hole; they are emitted from outside the horizon.
That's interesting, I'd never really thought about that before. Does GR predict that there would be any waves confined to the inside of the merged black hole?
If there is anything combined inside the resulting event horizon it doesn't matter what it was: as far as GR is concerned it has been reduced to the effect of its mass, charge and spin. But we already know that GR isn't the whole story when it comes to BHs. See "soft hair" black holes.
> we already know that GR isn't the whole story when it comes to BHs. See "soft hair" black holes
More precisely, most physicists believe that GR isn't the whole story. But we have no actual evidence for quantum gravity speculations like "soft hair". They're just speculations at this point. We don't know that any of them will actually turn out to be right.
You are right. GR being or not the whole story is a thing, "soft hair" black holes is another thing with a much more speculative edge.
But I would say that the first assertion, that GR is not the whole story, is more or less a given knowing that GR returns non-physical infinities when trying to describe what's inside the BH.
> he first assertion, that GR is not the whole story, is more or less a given knowing that GR returns non-physical infinities when trying to describe what's inside the BH.
Only at the singularity, but the singularity itself is not even part of the spacetime manifold in GR.
In cases like black holes, there are physical invariants that do increase without bound as the singularity is approached, i.e., still within the spacetime, but their values are still finite at every point within the spacetime.
It is true that most physicists believe that when those invariants reach some particular scale, such as the Planck scale, the GR description in terms of spacetime geometry will break down. But that scale is about twenty orders of magnitude away from what we can currently probe observationally, so this is another of those speculations that, however plausible it seems, is not going to be testable any time soon.
Yes, of course there'd be no external effects. I was just curious, since the region between the event horizon and the singularity is an interesting place to think about, even if we're forever confined to predictions rather than real observations.
Which is caused by matter achieving a particular density. What we observe is not the matter but the _effects_ of the curvature created by that matter but to say they're not "made of matter" seems overly reductive here.
> some of the spacetime curvature doesn't get included in the merged hole
The observable mechanics of a black hole are (probably) controlled by it's surface area and not it's volume. When two spherical objects merge the surface area is less than the sum of the two original objects.
> Which is caused by matter achieving a particular density.
More precisely, by an isolated blob of collapsing matter surrounded by vacuum achieving a particular density.
> to say they're not "made of matter" seems overly reductive here.
No, it isn't, it is making a very important point: that the matter that originally formed the hole is not there any more. The hole itself is vacuum. If you fall into it, you won't see any matter, even though the hole was originally formed by collapsing matter.
> The observable mechanics of a black hole are (probably) controlled by it's surface area and not it's volume.
Only in the sense that the horizon area is proportional to the square of the mass, whereas the volume is not even well-defined. The actual thing that is controlling the "observable mechanics" is the mass (and spin, and charge if present, but in any actual hole it probably won't be).
Just speculating here but I assume law will answer this with one word: "intent". Did MS design this with the intention of planned obsolescence, or was it reasonable to impractical to avoid?
That video is saying that AlphaFold isn't good at predicting how proteins bind to each other, but is actually pretty good at predicting the structure of the individual proteins. Which is exactly what you would expect, because AlphaFold wasn't designed to predict antibody/antigen bindings. That's what AlphaProteo is now trying to solve. Also, as the video points out at the end, AlphaFold is well aware that it's unable to do this task and is communicating that fact via its ultra low confidences in the accuracy of the positioning of the proteins relative to each other. So I am not really sure what this video is trying to prove.
It is suspected that "fiction spreads faster than facts" on social media.
It is also suspected that "when you present the facts to someone who wants to be believe a lie, that person will hold on more strongly to their belief in the lie".
(a crazy idea I wanted to get feedback on) Wouldn't it be much easier if everyone licensed tech from space-x? A space tech franchise haha? (To build a colony on mars we need a massive number of flights, why not spread the costs across several nations? Why spend $2b to $6b per flight on a space-x competitor; we want redundancy but it seems massively cheaper to license rather than reinvent. )
Its not a crazy idea, its a smart idea. There are two things that aim against it, export regulation. These could be overcome but it would require a lot of politics and cooperation.
Second, Europe has NIH syndrome and until reticently were 100% convinced that they were simply superior and would never have even considered it even if the US was open to it.
But not reinventing the wheel on the engines and things like that would make a lot of sense. Its just not practical in the current environment.
Up until severe sanctions started in 2022, Arianespace launched soyuz rockets out of guyana they bought from russia.
Were it not for ITAR, and probably spacex's business model, I'm sure they'd love to buy a bunch of falcon 9s, and barges to go with them. That site would likely be the most payload you could get out of one of those rockets, prograde.
And the thing is, depending on how you do the agreement. Europe could produce the engines themselves, they only would need plans and help with manufacture.
This isn't unprecedented in the space industry. Its how India and China worked with Russian engines. And it also happens between commercial companies.
In case of a complete breakdown of relation Europe could continue to manufacture the engine.
This would allow for in-depended access and still produce jobs in Europe. This could serve for both a large, medium and small rocket. Additionally it could allow for learning to do landing. Also, Europe has a decent second stage engine that they could have combined with that first stage.
Europe has to get away from solid fuel boosters and hydrogen main engines, its totally the wrong architecture and moving away from it would have been smart. Sadly they domed themselves with the Ariane 6 and Vega designs.
If not the US, you could have done the same with something like the RD-191 or something like that.
They most likely will have to pivot a few times but once they show their LLM solving problems that others can't, the others will quickly add these features too. Right now, it is cheaper to wait for World Labs to go first. The others are not that far behind: https://cat-4d.github.io/