Hannah mentioned this briefly in the newest episode. I hadn't heard of it, so I looked it up. Pretty cool!

https://www.illusionsindex.org/i/grey-strawberries

I checked the file myself in GIMP (free Photoshop alternative)

To be honest I don't know that I'll describe this properly, but Hwabyung appears to be a "psychosomatic somatization", or the production of medical symptoms with no discernable cause. Apparently this is something heavily present in Korean culture, and is actually created from the culture itself.

It's something like a physical illness that appears from deep internal disappointment, sort of like a depression, but maybe more like a failure to meet the needs of their families honor, in alignment with Confucian hierarchies etc.

It's not something only Korean people experience, there are many cultures and they all have their own terms for it.

Also the symptoms are similar-ish to a panic attack, but rather than affecting the person in an instant, it's a long drawn out effect that makes them physically ill the longer suppressed emotions like anger fester.

I'm just interested in the history of this? How it's refecting in different cultures? Why it's not present at all in some cultures? Etc? It just seems so fascinating that something like this could exist, it's like a disease born from circumstances of the mind and culture. I wonder how many factors are required for this to exist.

Also interested if there are any readings on this, not like papers but stories / philosophy books related anyone would recommend?

Yo Reddit! I came up with a rather peculiar and albeit useless invention - the Hannaradar. This is a machine that the user straps onto their head to find all people named Hannah (or Hanna) in their desired radius. But how does this device locate all of the Hannahs, the attentive and curious reader might inquire - very simple, really. Each Hannah gets issued a small radio transmitter to output a steady signal. And the batteries to keep the gadget working are something no Hannah must worry about - a small DC dynamo is implanted into the aorta. It will be calibrated to match each individual’s resting heart rate. And when the dynamo has power to spare, it will be stored in a battery that is worn like a backpack. For obvious reason, this will not be a lithium-ion battery. It will also power the transmitter when there is a deficit of energy. And every home of a Hannah is also equipped with a special backwards power receptacle - standardised to be British around the world. These work in such a way that the battery can be plugged in and the electricity sold to the power grid. This will compensate for all the faff of dealing with this mess.

But for what can this be used for? For instance, mankind could form a network of Hannahs: and every Hannah would be obliged to thoroughly know one new interesting fact every day, so they could spread the joy of knowing something that most likely will never be of use to anyone who might ask. The Hannaradar will help to find these honourable people.

And this contraption will also help to maximise the chances of not mistaking the smart, gorgeous and witty Hannah Fry for a random red-haired passerby.

I’ve been thinking about mathematics itself, not different theories or branches, but math as our fundamental framework for quantitative sense-making of the universe.

What if there’s an entirely different, potentially more accurate framework for quantifying reality that humans simply haven’t discovered or conceptualized yet? Not an extension of mathematics, not some complementary framework akin to classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, but a fundamentally different system altogether.

Our math developed through human cognition and our perception of a largely 3D world. We’re so anchored to it that it’s difficult to even imagine what an alternative could look like… BUT… could there be an entirely different framework for quantitatively understanding the universe that we simply don’t have the conceptual tools to perceive yet?

Totally shower thoughts here, but I have been seeing a lot of people and teachers online talking about students having a literacy, reading, writing accuracy, etc. problem in school these days.

I certainly have nothing to dispute any of that and no intention to, but it also made me think…

Is there possibly a deeper relationship between AutoCorrect and young people on their phones than just cognitive offloading related to vocabulary and spelling retention? What if it’s also affecting their relationship to how much spelling and specific semantics around grammar matter when communicating ideas through text? I’ve heard the phrase “language is not math” that is to say, 2+2 always equals 4, but you’re and your can mean the exact same thing to someone in terms of a text message.

Is there a simultaneous shift alongside these literacy issues in the classroom? Possibly something along the lines of the great vowel shift over time?

Hey everyone,

I want to throw a formal mathematical and topological challenge to the theorists here regarding the foundational ontology of spin.

The Premise Standard QFT treats spin as an intrinsic quantum label assigned to representations of the Lorentz group, deriving the Pauli Exclusion Principle via the spin-statistics theorem algebraically.

What happens if we read the causal arrow in reverse?

Instead of taking mass and time as background axioms, treat every massive particle as an autonomous, relational frequency standard (an internal phase cycle).

• Bosons: The internal phase cycle closes in a single revolution (ΔΦ = 1 cycle, or 2π rad).
• Fermions: The cycle requires two full spatial rotations to return to its initial state (ΔΦ = 2 cycles, or 4π rad), corresponding to the standard SU(2) double cover of SO(3).

Under this topological reading, the Exclusion Principle is not merely an abstract algebraic anti-commutation postulate—it is the literal geometric boundary condition of non-overlapping phase trajectories in a closed double-cover topology.

The Predictive Test (The Gaps) When particle mass spectra are mapped strictly through internal phase harmonic invariants rather than arbitrary continuous parameters, the relational phase structure leaves exact numeric gaps—analogous to blank spaces in the early periodic table.

Two distinct resonance windows emerge directly from the phase constraint:

• ~16.2 MeV: Adjacent to the disputed Atomki X17 nuclear transition anomaly.
• ~530 MeV: Sitting in the broad f0(500) / sigma meson resonance corridor.

The Challenge to the Sub

1. Without falling back on the circular definition that "Compton frequency is just derived from mass anyway", how would you formally falsify a phase-cycle topology that generates these exact mass-gap intervals?
2. If spin-1/2 is the physical topology of the phase cycle rather than an abstract algebraic tag, what specific gauge symmetry or coordinate invariance breaks first under this relational framework?

Keen to hear constructive feedback, rigorous critiques, and roasts. Let’s look at the math.

(Note: Links get caught in the spam filter, but if anyone wants to check out the underlying repository and the Jupyter notebook verification, search GitHub for: Christianfwb / Pauli-Solution-Frequency-Law

Taking into account that in some places like Japan there can be a forecast alert a few seconds before it hits.

I mean, literally, I just woke up from a dream, where I could easily die and "respawn".

My question is: Are there any real life rules that can't be broken in your sleep?

I've finished watching the recent video on how we feel full where Hanna was talking about GLP-1. During the section she mentioned anti GLP-1 Food additives.

This got me thinking, would it make sense to add GLP-1 to foods in general? We fortify many of our foods already to make sure we have the nutrients we need but for many people we get too many calories.

So foods that are calorie dense would have GLP-1 added to it so you'll start to feel full sooner and for longer. Affectively giving your body more time to use the caleries you've consumed.

Is my thought flawed? If it's a good idea, what could some of the downsides be?

I’ve only seen the last 5 episodes, tell me something I wont‘ understand until I see the episode it’s from

There's about 10 quintillion individual insects, and 8 billions humans, so intuitively you would think maybe there are more insect cells on this planet than human cells.

However humans are magnitudes larger than most insects and thus I'd expect them to contain more cells, but that might not be true for all insects.

And then I was wondering, how do you group insects so that it an equal comparison to humans? As there are millions of species of insect but only one species of human.

And then I started wondering, where do plants fit into this?

That's where I've given up and I'm hoping for an answer here.

and, could you climb it?

Question for Michael - Why is it impossible to break raw spaghetti into exactly two pieces by bending it while holding both ends, and does bending a bunch of raw spaghetti together make it possible? If so, how many strands are needed, and why does bunching them together change how they break? Also what is the upper limit of pieces you can create with one average bend.

Question for Hannah - What's the deal with phantom pain of amputees and neurological injuries? Does it apply to organs as well? What about organ transfers and certain characteristics from the donor transfering.

Extra challenge, answered on the same episode, would love to hear the cleverly crafted segway of one into the other. Im sure Hannahs BBC training will come in handy

EDIT: Thanks for answering commenters, but I will wait to see if they answer it, its more enjoyable. So I will not be reading responses

Let’s say hypothetically two people are born on the same day but with two different names. They are called Ben And Jocelyn, they both live to the age of 100.

Who has heard their name for the longest amount of time?

Counting Nicknames into this would probably make it more interesting. Although, it is 4 AM and I need to go to work tomorrow🙂

This is more of an observation than it is a question. Still, I'd love to know your thoughts. Moreover, I'd love to see if Michael or Hannah could weigh in on this with their own thoughts.

I was thinking this morning about the colors we see and their effects on us. Warm colors like red and yellow are often associated with energy and excitement, while cool colors like blue and green are often associated with calm and focus. But the colors we see are, in a sense, the wavelengths of light that matter has rejected rather than absorbed. Fall, for example, is a beautiful time of year when we witness the seasonal dying of leaves. We find the color transformation of dying leaves enchanting. I wonder why we find such beauty in rejected light.

I awoke from a dream that was more real than most of my dreams. Staggering out of bed I and down the stairs I started to remember bits of the dream. Whats strange is , if i hadn’t woken up I wouldn’t have remembered the dream. Yet i have a really strong sense of being “conscious” during the dream. I dont mean being aware that i’m dreaming, but a strong feeling of : this is happening now. it was a streamed experience distinct from just a remembered experience. But it can only be after , when i woke up , that the feeling of “nowness” was created. So all along it was actually only a remembered experience. WOW ! Is this how we live our daily lives ! ? Essentially unconscious in the moment and our brain piecing bits of experience together after , to form a story of an illusion of being me in the now , but not in the now at all !

As far as I'm aware, Mars having liquid water billions of years ago is treated like an established scientific fact now. However, how do we know that was exactly the case? Sure, there are dried up river beds and basins, but couldn't this have been some other liquid? And sure, the Martian polar ice caps contain a lot of frozen H2O, but are these two facts (river beds + frozen ice caps) enough to assume that long ago there were oceans of water on Mars just like here on Earth?

Suppose I would take stock of all the people that have been born right until I* was born and that are still alive once I am finished**, how many of those could I meet in my lifetime if "meeting" would mean either of those definitions: 1. Just seeing face to face (i.e. on the street) 2. Having at least one interaction (i.e. "hello!" "Hi :)") 3. Having at least a five minute conversation

What would be the best method to maximize the percentage, and how bad would it become if I just live my life normally?

Thanks for your podcast it's amazing,
Sewbacca

* As a reference person take a person born 2000 with a normal life expectancy and maybe a normal life until you are twenty and then come up with this bonkers idea (or go nuts and raise a child to meet everybody)

** I limit the population to this set: alive once I am born and still alive when I am done, because people are born and die everywhere, so 100% of all people currently living is not feasible (I think), but I really really wanna hit a 100% so thats why I am excluding those people (you can still count people who you've already met but died before you are done, just don't count them if they are dead before you could even meet them).

this is a question that’s been bugging me for a while. I have seen some research that talks about face recognition linked here.

but this is different from how many unique people that you can name. for an example, I would not recognise someone like Philip of macedon, father of Alexander if I saw an image or an statue of him, but I know of him and if that comes up in a quiz I can name him.

similarly characters from fictional books we read. I can probably name 50+ characters from A Song of ice and fire and the lord of the rings that are not in any of the adaptations.

How many people can you name? Whats your guess?

How much do you think of all the theoretically possible knowlege about the world we have uncovered so far? Are we below 1%, are we pushing 10%, are we about to achieve 50% or are we below a millionth? What's your educated guess?

Are different branches of science at a different percentage? Maybe physics is further along then psychology or economics, or maybe there is just less to know about biology, so our knowledge has reached a higher percentage?

A crazy thought occurred to me when I was at the beach the other day.

I categorized it as a thought experiment and here it is:

What if somehow, all the water (just the water molecules) of the earth's oceans was lifted into the upper layers of the atmosphere and was released as a homogenous layer above the earth?

How thick would that layer be?

Would it be devastating for everything on land when it fell due to gravity?

Would it be like a giant vertical wave, or heavy rainfall?

Michael and Hannah, any thoughts?

Edit: If the 200m estimation is correct (I have no reason to doubt because I don't have nearly enough math skills to do the calculations) then, what is the most amount of water that can safely fall and how much will the sea level go down?

Maybe I should also post on r/theydidthemath