2012 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Faster Than the Speed of Light
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 мар 2012
- Watch the 2020 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate on Alien Life: • 2020 Isaac Asimov Memo...
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012, over 5,000 people tuned in to the live stream of the 2012 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate from the LeFrak Theater at the American Museum of Natural History.
Hosted by Hayden Planetarium Director Neil deGrasse Tyson, this year's debate pitted some of the experimentalists who claimed to have discovered faster-than-light neutrinos against their strongest critics, as well as other teams who are racing to test Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity with unprecedented precision.
To learn more, visit amnh.org.
2017 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: De-Extinction
• 2017 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?
• 2016 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2015 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Water, Water
• 2015 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2014 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Selling Space
• 2014 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing
• 2013 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2012 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Faster Than the Speed of Light
• 2012 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2011 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Theory of Everything
• 2011 Isaac Asimov Memo...
Rose Center Anniversary Isaac Asimov Debate: Is Earth Unique?
• Rose Center Anniversar...
***
Subscribe to our channel:
ruclips.net/user/subscription_c...
Check out our full video catalog:
/ amnhorg
Facebook: naturalhistory
Twitter: / amnh
Tumblr: / amnhnyc
Instagram: / amnh 
Наука
We don't serve neutrinos here.
A neutrino walked into a bar.
10 years later and still a fascinating discussion
Agreed good sir. There's nothing like them that I've found yet. 🙏 I watch them over and over again :)
Now that gravitational waves are a thing, it's funny to listen to Gaby saying she worked on LIGO. Great stuff.
@@eclipse369. - LIGO has detected gravitational waves.
They were a thing before official detection,but i can understand why it was funny afterwards😂😂.
Thank you for uploading these discussions. Seeing a new AMNH upload that tops the hour mark in my subscriptions instantly makes my day.
Thank you for remembering and honoring Isaac Asimov. In life, he had so much charismatic character.
as a physicist going into aerospace engineering I am saddened to see how my fellow physicists are so quick to minimize the genius of the GPS engineers by moronically implying it all works due to GR. GR is a component, but there's a lot of engineering they had to do first. As success stories go, physics is very successful, but the innovation provided by aerospace engineers makes a mockery of even physicist's most celebrated efforts.
Talent hits the mark that no one can hit, but genius hits the mark no one can see. I agree that the contributions that engineers make usually go unnoticed. But GR was a connection that had been outstanding for a while, looking back on it, it was almost like it was staring the Physics community in the face for several decades, even Henri Poncaire had made some assertions on the relativity of things. I also personally believe that Henrik Lorrentz should be celebrated alongside Einstein, it's almost shameful that popular history has excluded him from having any credit.
thank you so much for your videos! always enjoying them!
Its nice to hear accomplished scientists talk together. I could listen all day. NdT is great as moderator- funny, insightful and lively. Thanks for posting!
Thank you so much for making this event available to everyone. We live in a wonderful time.
😂
..
P
. I;😊;
Petlte😮🎉
😮
😅ong😢😅😢
There once was a.lady named Bright, who traveled much faster than light. She started one day ina relative way, and returned on the previous night!
Terrific, Joseph. Did you write that yourself?
this was great, thank-you gor the video.
So many accents in one video.
Great conversion as always ❤
Nobel Prize winner confirms speed of light is faster than was first thought (when measured in a vacuum).
Now I know, I should have received a higher mark for my paper (aged 14).
How time flies (no pun intended) listening to such educated and passionate people.
This is amazing conversation.
I am a physics student, and I will tell you that if anything, I was highly motivated by the Opera results, even if theyre wrong, that really doesnt matter. The conservative american UCLA phycisist to the right has got it all wrong, things like this motivates, because it makes science relevant and discussable, and it sparkles our imagination! Thumbs up for CERN and Opera |b|
To the left if you look at the screen. It's relative to the viewers position.
When is the 2013 debate being uploaded? I missed the live stream TT
15:39 Love Dr. Laura's accent! :D
RIP David B. Cline
I find it amazing... in at least 8 out of 10 of these incredibly interesting debates, where they invite the finest scholars and scientists we have on the planet... They don't get the microphones to work.
there's probably some christians in the sound crew.
I don't like how David Cline over and over attacks Laura during the conversation. She always stayed fair, but David did not. In my opinion he could have respond in a much more diplomatic way and here he has just shown his lack of empathy. This was just "unsportsmanlike behavior" ... sorry to say.
haha. There is a reason these people are in Science and not in politics. High IQ, not enough EQ.
Gene74 Ok, I cringed as Laura was being attacked, but I can understand David taking a firm stance given that diplomacy and PR can be so disruptive to science.
dghhdfh djfjfjjd nah, it’s just US culture... Nothing about being a scientist, it’s about the environment where you have grown.
For the record, the Italians later discovered an error in their calculations, and their neutrinos are now believed to have had a speed less that the speed of light.
Hardly too surprising ;-)
Damn
Hello from 2015 :)
You should put a spoiler.
yep although I wouldn't be at all surprised if this isn't the last we here of something travelling faster than the speed of light, after all it breaks no rule in physics for things to travel faster than the speed of light, the barrier is accelerating things upto the speed of light from below it, and even that I've never been totally convinced of, it says you require infinite energy... but what if you could somehow just manipulate the higgs field and negate mass altogether
Thank you for the discussion. If only there was a way to harness the small burst of enthusiasm towards science that this paper created.
Amazing brother, wish you the best of luck on your endeavour.
He has to keep it in the time constraints of the debate. thats why it may seems like he is inturrupting. He also likes to explain or re-word some of the more detailed questions/comments. But I love these debats and hope to keep seeing current videos and news in the study of physics.
Isaac Asimov wrote 500 books, wow, omg, jeez, amazing!
It's not like those 500 books were on 500 of his inventions.
@@chris.a9628😂
It is amazing to See and hear these scientists talk about the methodology and experiments they work on in unity to solve the mysteries of existance and the universe thru studies in particle physics ! Our politicians and world leaders would do well to emulate these principles of unity, cooperation , justice and law and illiminate the political, ideological, economic and religious alienations the people's of our world suffer from as a result of these superficial alienations that bring about our narrow minded conflicts !
Listening to discussions like these makes me hopeful for humankind.
There once was a lady named Bright,
Who traveled much faster than light,
She started one day in a relative way,
And returned on the previous night!
What shape is the Universe in?
The Universe is in Great Shape for an Old Universe!
What shape is the Universe in? The Universe is in Great Shape for an old Universe!
I love this.
I literally love this.
No comment on the last question, darn! Can someone tell how things panned out? (while typing this it is 2016).
i always wanted to know if spl and general relativity can both affect motion and time and voila... just... chills
I was so happy that I got to watch this on a live stream. Seeing Tyson soo excited always puts a big smile on my face. Sure he may interrupt a lot, but if theres a chance that there's a possibility of faster than light neutrino's at least he's helping us lesser mortals keep up!
This debate has me thinking we seriously need one spoken language which supersedes all others, one language who everyone on Earth has to learn and be able to speak fluently, and If implemented it would lead to an increase in scientific discoveries and maybe be one of the biggest achievement in human history.
+Apples'n Pears
Yup. It's called 'English'.
Actually we normally use Latin. English is a needlessly complicated language.
math?
@@kit93 oh yeah!
That mic drop at the end though
can someone PLEASE explain to me how the 2011 Asimov debate was the 10th annual and THIS one (a year later) is somehow the 13th annual debate??? were there more years that i missed somewhere?
"its hard to complain about particles that don't exist"
What particles are you referring to?
+Fredrik Johansson Tachyons.
hahahahahaha
20:10 I think it’s actually good that something like CERN was built in EU and not US since this kind of open collaboration happens mostly in Europe, US usually tries to isolate itself from the world.
did you not hear the statement by Prof David Cline UCLA, "a vast majority of my students are Chinese. and China is PAYING THESE PEOPLE to go to school here." if "US usually tries to isolate itself from the world." why would we be issuing student visas FROM THE US GOVT. allowing OUR LARGEST ECONOMIC COMPETITOR in sciences and technology ... even in 2012 ... to send their COLLEGE STUDENTS to UCLA and other colleges nation wide? why would we be educating MORE FOREIGN NATIONALS in many fields, including medical education, than American students? seriously, if the US was isolationist, NOBODY would get a Work Visa, or a Student Visa, or be permitted to legally immigrate, and we wouldn't spend a single dollar in foreign aid, giving loans to foreign governments, we wouldn't even have a State Department, we'd just never send out a single diplomat or have contact with even Canada or Mexico. we'd close every border, we'd have military forces everywhere within our borders looking outwards at the world and 'I double dog dare you to cross this line.' and suchforth. there's an Ethiopian cardiac surgeon that worked on my dad during his open heart triple bypass. over ten years ago. he's still practicing in my town today. I LIVE IN NORTH EASTERN ALABAMA! seriously. he's an obviously African Ethiopian with a horridly thick accent and I've met him dozens of times. if we're so isolationist, why did he happily go to medical school HERE IN ALABAMA, and is STILL TO THIS DAY OVER A DECADE LATER practicing medicine here instead of in Africa, or Atlanta, or further up the East Coast? the US hasn't been OFFICIALLY ISOLATIONIST SINCE BEFORE WORLD WAR 1!!!! I don't know where you got the idea the US is isolationist. but you're entirely, completely, totally, 100% wrong.
@@lesliekilgore648 - mad much? Anger is only a spark never a solution. As a child of European immigrants who came here in the 70s, we are isolated. Isolated by media. We get no outside world news from the sources themselves which has a great affect on the human psyche. It’s how totalitarianism starts , by controlling the broad conversation. Very clear by how how divisive and split this country is , and it’s the cause of it.
The right question for this problem: "Is there a way to create a bubble in space and be inside of it, while it is being compressed by strange matter and forced to move in a certain direction?". Nothing can move faster than the speed of light. But Room itself can.
Can't wait for the next debate, does anyone actually when it's going to be?
Thank you so much for this. I watched last year's debate and thought it was awesome. This should be too. Bu then again, everything that involves Neil deGrasse Tyson is awesome.
"I can imagine micro unicorns." Haha!
I always love watching this.
I am submitting this question for the second time(first here). If you were to enter a black hole below the event horizon, could this possibly be a form of entering into a time warp/wormhole? May be a silly question which has no merit.
And 4 years later gravitational waves have been confirmed! How surreal is that!
How fucking weird, the event is only held once a year, and the last / previous few years I've watched there's always mic problems. How incompetent are these audio engineers? completely useless, you can't get 5-6 mics to work for 2 hours once a year?
agreeed...
I agree. And the astonishing weirdness is going to last some more events in the future, if you check the following years of these Isaac Asimov Memorial Debates there's always microphone problems. How long are they allow these incompetent audio (I'll not call them engineers, because they don't deserve the title ...!) amateurs to be in charge of the PA (Public Adress) system? Isaac Asimov would be ashamed.... Come on, it's a "talk show", so please, get the "talk" be audible in a minimum normal conditions, will you? And I'm thinking 2017, 2018 events... We'll see/hear if they'll fix the sound/mic issue....
The format is difficult to follow, with Neil interrupting the panel numerous times. The camera people are either asleep or unaware that they aren't focusing on the person who is the current subject at that moment, they camera people refuse to show the over head display in addition to the speakers. Please work on making the format better thank you!
hey, you know the idea of quantum entanglement, that once some particles were entangled if one was affected the other entangled one would be affected instantaneously. Let's say that we invent working nanotechnology and by manipulating entangled atoms which we purposely entangle ourselves, this could show if nanotechnology worked through entanglement.
Now what if the particles before we entangled them, were already entangled with other particles from long ago, say as far back as the big bang for hypothetical. These entangled particles could be very distanced from each other. I'm talking on the opposite sides of the universe in theory. Now if one is affected and the other entangled one is affected immediately, wouldn't this be communication faster than the light it would take to travel between them, as in faster than light, actually instantanous connection. If so this has consequences.
A sci-fi film called "Kill Switch" had an idea of entangled worlds mooching off the power of one to empower the other. Of course in the film this was destroying both worlds, and a guy is sent to the other world to activate a kill switch to destroy that entangled world and save his own. Now with this entanglement, even though they don't call it that, it creates the two worlds to be side by side and able to take the energy of another. However in the film this other world is artificially created by this handwavium physical process, so much that there are copies of the characters in the hero's world, and all the planetary features, buildings and businesses and political groups, just mirrored. Unfortunately this mirroring would make one of them actually antimatter, and thus a very dangerous situation where contact between either world could set off a chain reaction destroying both worlds. Now matter and anti-matter pairs can arise from a high enough energy in the electromagnetic field, and in reality with entangled particles if one say is spin up the other is spin down, so this entanglement of mirrored particles is potentially possible, it just wouldn't create it instantaneously next door.
Now if we are entangled with other particles, then there indeed could be particles near us we could manipulate that would manipulate already entangled particles somewhere else. Let's say we create half a quantum computer and have the entangled particles create the other half, thus allowing a form of computerized communication between the two. Now if we can do this, we could create robotic bodies that can create nanotech and use nanotech to manipulate other particles around it. More on this later. But let's say we create a quantum AI that can observe from both halves of the quantum computer. We would be able to theoretically see some other part of the universe through such a device. In fact in science fiction there was a device based on faster than light communication called an Ansible by Ursula Le Guinn.
But if we can build robots and AIs, why not entire colonization ships, or android bodies we could remotely control through a BCI. We could thus travel to another body somewhere else in the universe without having to travel all the way from our local area location to the location of the entangled versions. This could allow us to explore other parts of the universe, instantaneously, without having to even move beyond our solar system. We could be entangled with other humanoids on other entangled planets and such a computer could allow first contact.
Now what if we take this a step further, we create nanotech entangled with other nanotech via an entangled quantum computer. Now we have that nanotech manipulate other atoms nearby and create another quantum computer robot that could be entangled to another in a totally other distant part of the universe. We could create, theoretically, a series of communicating quantum AIs across the universe, entangled and interacting via nanotech creating a sort of quantum entangled intergalactic internet. We could create sensors connected to this entangled quantum internet, thus detecting things like gravitational waves, gamma ray bursts or even explore how fast the universe is expanding, and thus be able to measure things like dark energy or dark matter, and create basically exploration vessels throughout these entangled quantum internets, which again could have colonists or explorers in humanoid robotic form, allowing us to transfer our consciousness or pick up the sensory information from any entangled robot in the universal system.
In essence this could allow us to create ambassadors and emissaries to communicate with other alien life forms, and create basically a way for people to travel to other parts of the universe through a BCI travelling through what would be in essence quantum hyperlinks, like the hyperlinks between web pages in our current internet. We could travel through hyperspace essentially without having to travel through hyperspace, and because these quantum computers are entangled, they would maintain connection no matter how far they drifted apart. We could study and explore the entire universe, create VR constructs of those monitored zones and do so from the comfort of our own solar system or planet. If we can do this to BCIs we could also link thoughts into a hive mind of sorts, and by entangling our own neurons with nanotech or entangled particles, we could upload our consciousness onto quantum computers and essentially live forever in these simulations created by the quantum computers. We could also learn and map how the matter in our own solar system is entangled with the rest of the universe, and thus find out how the universe is quantum entangled with itself.
Thus we have essentially a permanent instantaneous connection all around the universe, uploading our minds into systems that can be as tough as diamond and able to run off the energy of a star, connect our minds into a supermind, and be able to hop from body to body, star system to star system, planet to planet, galaxy to galaxy, and maybe, just maybe universe to universe. This is instant communication using only nanotech and quantum entanglement and AI, which is technology we could develop in the near future. This means no having to make anti-matter to power starships to get to the speed of light, or create exotic matter like dark matter or dark energy or negative energy to hold open huge wormholes. That stuff will happen in the future possibly, but this means that within a century or so, we should have technology able to do experiments to see if this hypothesis is right. If so, the places we could go instantaneously could be unimaginable. This is like me in Perth communicating with someone from Pennsylvania, 12 hours apart, on opposite sides of the planet, communicating instantaneously on the internet. This means that sensors could detect dangers long before they would affect our region of space, in real time without any potential time travel or temporal paradoxes.
And if quantum teleportation is workable through this system, imagine being able to hyperjump to another part of the universe, like the space ships do in the recent Battlestar Galactica series. If we can use 3D printers using nanotech, we could fabricate anything connected to the entangled quantum computer system. This means also backups eternal backups to the objects we manufacture with nanotech. In fact a working nanofabrication machine could exist with certain technology like a 3D printer and a scanning tunnelling electron microscope. They were able to spell IBM in xenon atoms back in 1993. Imagine hooking that nano-manipulator tech to a 3D printer with superconductors in basically subzero temperatures in space, which creates the coldest environments, and we could build nanotech from the atom on up. We also have nanomachines that can take in certain inputs and create certain outputs, we just call them cells or viruses or bacteria. We could genetically engineer nanofabrication through bio-tech or wet nano, or use the 3D printer version or dry nano. ANd if entanglement proves to work in this, we could create the whole object by only manipulating half of it.
Sorry for the long post, but I hope this creates some discussion.
Soon, we discover that WE ARE GOD.
Wow, that was a big pile.
1:16:00 I disagree. I think it is good to have "findings" in science broad cast that turn out to be untrue. Otherwise science seems to be perfect, and that leads to people claiming that science is just another faith, equal to any other sort of faith.
These mistakes are opportunities to show how evidence based science is NOT faith. With faith there is no way to disprove wrong ideas. Science is all about proving ideas wrong.
When a faithful person is "inspired" he claims the inspiration came from God and MUST therefore be true. When a scientist is inspired the first thing they should do (because other WILL do it) is say, "yea, right!" and try to find evidence that it isn't true.
Evidence that DISPROVES a theory is much more important than evidence that proves it. Creationists are always pointing out evidence that proves their ideas yet they ignore the mountains of evidence that disproves them.
What they meant was that it got blown out of proportions. However, knowing media, the press release probably said "OPERA has found some interesting results" and like they hyenas they are, media immediately announced that Einstein was wrong. Not exactly, but you know what I mean. It might also have been middle management that got too greedy on showing results so they simply jumped the shark. It wouldn't be either the first or last time we have seen that happen.
Something I found rather annoying though, was the constant pointing out that the US must have a machine. It felt to me it just had to be .. because 'murica. CERN quite proudly and fondly spoke of the positive multicultural effects on the projects, which is absolutely a proven fact, but.. no... Have to be in the US. Very annoying since CERN quite clearly shows it doesn't matter where the damn machine is. I sensed that it was due a political agenda where maybe the super power for once couldn't be the king of the castle. And that made him butthurt.
Agree. David Cline was a jerk in how he responded and posed himself as a scientist who would rather hide results from the public and he relished trying to shame Laura Patrizii. No scientist should encourage hiding the facts/results/errors. He could have disagreed, explained why and not got all personal about it. Let all data be available, that is the beauty and opposite of other areas of study, like religion where hiding the facts and leaders conducting mass lies is promoted/desired to keep the congregations in line.
BadTrip
+Raubhautz
The American machine would have been bigger and better than the LHC, The fact it was American had little to do with anything besides national pride.
When I was growing up America led the world in invention, and science. Now it seems we are giving up on the STEM fields. like some sort of spoiled child. If we can't be first all the time we won't even play.
Frankly it's fucked up.
Faith implies belief without evidence.
Science doesn't ask you to believe in it AT ALL.
And never is it required to believe ANYTHING without evidence.
This is why science DEBATE about the existence of God instead of saying "we are right everyone else is wrong" we need to know people are wrong before telling them which is absolutely in opposition with faith.
So no, science isn't a faith.
If you think a scientist is wrong you are encouraged to prove them wrong.
***** Your sentence on its own makes no sense at all as an affirmation.
Who is "Proving ideas are either wrong or incomplete." and what ideas?
Too much interjections from the moderator. Just let the people talk, please.
You can't. The time is too limited and he has a agenda that he wants to cover. I'm 100% sure they would be happy to spend the whole 2 hours just speaking about what went wrong in the experiment.. but how fun would that be?
This is for fun to make science accessible to a broad audience, if you want more debate and details go back to school..
andrew sweetney:
I have little science training. That is why I want to listen to the panel speak on the issue. Why the hell is the moderator inject in the middle of the conversation? I have listened to people, such as Brian Green moderate. He only interject when appropriate.
The issue with this moderator is that he doesn't know shit about science .He gets the name recognition because of affirmative action. I know this because he couldn't answer simple questions when you press him to explain. Yet he always use big words, like the language of mathematics and stupid shit like that. This man doesn't know shit, and he does not belong in these conversations.
Let other people who are more capable do the moderating.
7:11 Did time slow down!? O_O
Dr. Tyson, you don't have to apologise for not getting a foreign name right. I used to apologise for not speaking English perfectly, as it is not my native language. But then I realized that if I am the one who is trying his best to speak a foreign language, word or sentence to a person, I am actually the one who is making the conversation possible to begin with.
Furthermore, if you say something to me and I can even correct you for not getting it perfectly, that is because I could actually understand what you said in the first place and the correction is not needed, for the interaction you made was successful.
Nice to see women in the forefront of physics (two women were also in the 2011 debate)!
There are a lot more men in the forefront of physics, but they chose 2 women because they didn't want another science sausage fest ;)
Your tokenist point is not well taken, and you missed my point altogether. Not too long ago, they wouldn't have had to opportunity to be where they are regardless of their capabilities, simply for being women. And no doubt it's been an uphill battle for them for the same reason.
John Hunter I agree with you on that, but i'm pretty sure, that they only put the two women on the panel because of "tokenist reasons"
I'm pretty sure Neil would state otherwise. In any case, I regret that our society is still sexist, and hope we advance to the point of having outgrown that, for the sake of all.
John Hunter That's some silly assumptions.
The goal in such a panel is obviously twofold, first and foremost to present the brightest minds in science and secondly to present a panel that can attract as much attention from the public as possible.
It is common knowledge that the male intelligence spread is higher then the female so you will find more men at the top then you will find women hence the brightest minds will most likely be men.
Neil wants women on his panel because he is an educator and he wants to reach as large an audience as possible via a diverse panel.
I'd dare to say that the principle of doing panels like that has a bunch of problems e.g. that you're no longer presenting the brightest minds by default and also if women _needs_ to be represented then.. what about other minorities(yes women are a minority within hard science), do we need an alternative sexual orientation too? what about black people? what about dwarfs? It's a slippery slope imo.
I'd personally prefer if they just take the most qualified people they can get, no quotas. Maybe being somewhat selective to get more interesting discussions and if that includes some sort of minority then alright, no harm done.
Dr. Laura is such a sweetheart!!!
@MysliusLT I'm just about to watch this, but why not?Even if it's about a failed experiment it is still a debate.I'm still intending to watch the entire length of the video.
is that on t.v. also, or just live streaming?
Nutrinoes sounds like a good name for a healthy breakfast cereal.
Wait are we supposed to believe Neil deGrasse Tyson not only never heard about the fact that GPS is made possible by the relativity theory but is also mind-blown over it?! didnt he just said he studied Astrophysics?
That is clearly not what blew his mind. Of course it was acting as well, but quite frankly I didn't know the precision they operate within either. I knew about the corrections, but not the precision and the impact.
And ofcourse he knew about the measuring of gravitational waves as well. But again, the precision is astonishing.
Love this program👏👏
I love you guys! You are after my heart! And after I am dead and gone you can have everything I have written!
HAHAHA most of the debate was about how dumb OPERA people were for releasing this result. I am actually glad that they did though because, in today's world of climate denying claiming "these 4 scientist decided that were not burning enough gas", I think it is a valuable lesson for the general public to see how hard you get shit on if you are wrong.
In the global warming debate scientific consensus is treated as an opinion. This shows what it is and should really be like.
Eric Stevens consensus is very dangerous unless it is 100%, or very close. There is no comparison between AGW and Relativity. 97% of climate scientists work for the government and they know if the don’t toe the party line they will be canned.
I don't think it's dumb or that there's any shame there. If they couldn't find any mistakes they made, why not publish it? So what if you'll almost certainly be proven wrong? 1. You'll figure out what went wrong along the way. 2. If we just toss out all data that doesn't fit our current ideas, we render them unfalsifiable.
Perhaps there'd be some shame, if they had been boasting that they had just disproved special relativity, but they didn't, here's a quote from their paper:
"Despite the large significance of the measurement reported here and the stability of the analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed anomaly. We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results."
love the italian woman's accent :D
At 35:27, Neil says Einstein didn't have barcodes in mind when he was writing the basic equations that led to lasers. He did, however, think "This could lead to a really cool cat toy!"
I have a question, If they are measuring the speed of Neutrinos by using the GPS satellites and the satellites alter the clock based on the altitude and speed of the satellite, how can you get an exact measurement of time to the milli-milli-milli second.
The satellites don’t alter the clock. Physics does. The perturbations are known and can be corrected for. I don’t know all the details, but it is possible for laboratories in two places on Earth to synchronize their clocks.
"I makeh deh pizzah four youehh"
For what it was supposed to be...I'm sorry but this was terrible
Totally agree. His "moderation" has gotten better with every new video I see (he interrupted too much in earlier debates, although he was still brilliant of course :)).
Just a simple question ,
If you name and/or describe nothing did you not make from nothing something ????
Tyson takes seven minutes to greet the audience and introduce the panelists one by one, then he wastes another twelve minutes letting the panelists introduce themselves. His non-stop hamming and interrupting during the discussions is the reason I stopped attending these debates. Plus, there have always been too many panelists.
Dennis Middlebrooks yeah shame, personally I was so disappointed to watch Gates lay out that ECC codes appear to be a fundamental layer of this reality and then nothing gets discussed on simulation theory, the usual Matrix line and go back to the same old thing. Simulation theory deserves the opposite, but they're all too scared to talk about it because they have nothing to present. Sooner or later a mainstreamer will show them all up. Einstein ? he was just born too early, if he had computer simulations to code and information systems to analyse, he'd have solved the theory side in less than 10 years no problem. Tom Campbell went way further in 35 and I challenge anyone to fully understand it and then find something we can observe or experience but it can't explain. QM 'impossible' weird science becomes easy. Placebo effect ? easy. Precognitive dreams ? easy. UFO's also easy. Known physics describe the rules of the simulation. Consciousness and it's ability to perceive information is fundamental and while we can't ever exactly know what consciousness is from within the system, that is a very very minor limit to our portential understanding. Tom deserves a Nobel far more than any of these people..
Science is failing in a sense, there is an awful inefficiency by clinging to the fact that reality has to be objective and measurements by different people (consciousnesses) must be the same, that everything is deterministic, time and space evolution is 'rewindable' etc. The pioneers of Quantum Mechanics all understood that consciousness and information existing in this reality is the mystery, but had no useful references to draw from and make the link. Consciousness is where information comes from, by an aware being seeing patterns. Tom has a fabulous line.. information has no weight and takes up no space. It isn't the book, that is code symbols for conveying it.. the actual information is the meaning/significance OF those code symbols. Only consciousness can do this, and thus consciousness has incredible potential for information processing. A simulation this complex isn't actually that complex when it is probabilistic (as QM proves undeniably) vs deterministic.. when you understand all this and more, it becomes very clear how accurate Tom's MBT is.. no other theory should ever be needed.
Meanwhile.. how many billion gets spent on chasing the same direction decade after decade ? Now we have created this monster.. dark energy, dark matter ? IMHO you can deduce logically there is no such thing, it is an illusion brought by error upon error upon assumption, modern physics has created theory with too much faith in old models and mathematics, ignoring old proven information. This is my reasoning.. In a simulation', if we pretend for a second Tom is right.. the speed of light is a measure of information/energy/whatever transfer between 'pixels' in what appears to be a 3D reality with time as an updated main loop. There is a specific video where Tom talks about speed of light if anyone wants to watch it. The speed of light can change if the system has its processing power increased, reduces load, or is reoptimized. A dynamic system could grow in complexity, power and efficiency, the speed of light would go up at a rate undetectable over short periods (1000yrs, is very very short vs 13.7 billion).
OK so if we get this far.. this immediately breaks the concept of redshift if I am not mistaken.. which also breaks things like all the mass calculations of all the 'stuff' in the universe and need for a whole field of science ? are we trying to progress too fast for our own good ? are we so sure of ourselves ? well yep that sounds like us ! Anyone good at relativity please confirm the above would break redshift as a thing you can trust ?
+Dennis Middlebrooks In my opinion, his goal is to make science as approachable as possible for a wide audience
Well, I think it's okay because he is presenting himself as a representative of the general public who do not within a second understand what's being discussed. That IS important, because may be..just may be...if public had rallied behind the idea, that Texas Colliader which was canceled was important, it wouldn't have been canceled. Politicians are allowed to address rallies and explain their policies in order to gather support, he is essentially doing the same for the cause of Science. I think we should give him some leeway.
Fair enough. I was curious where you were coming from, and I found out.
Close captions please?
Maybe spanish subs?
:)
Not without a preexisting written word that directs the formation of life forms.
You cannot use significantly sequenced directives as evidence of no direction.
1:10:57 There are also [LDD] and Borexino...
I just finished watching the 2011 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, and searched "2012 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate" ... and... YESS!!!!!
So the microwave background has the same value as e (natural log base)?
Why Tyson pointed jokingly to the middle guy and said 'it's your fault': loose fiber optic cable between the clock and the GPS receiver. The clocks at CERN and LNGS had to be in sync and they used GPS receivers and atomic clocks to accomplish this.. This lowered the time of travel. There was also another error, but as the lady said, that error lengthened the time ..
Say you have a physical ruler of wood or plastic or metal, say 1 meter long. You start push it (choose speed) so it moves 1 cm. What is the speed the movement from the push end until it starts moving in the other end? If instantly, then it is faster than light. Or is it different between materials the ruler consist of? Can swap the ruler with one of the drinking glasses the panel participants have on the table, or any other rigid object.
No object is perfectly rigid.
,
thanks you .
Well now wouldn't that be the first step? First find out what makes us, then find out where these objects reside. After that you observe how the possibilities of these objects could come in contact with each other. Then after making more observations you go into in-depth scenarios of recreating the process (this is just a short hand explanation). Also let me add that I put a link in one of our chats, scroll up and you will see, that will also explain how objects made us. Thank you once again.
If anyone was not sure, OPERA was wrong and had some timing errors. You can check it out on Wikipedia under faster than light neutrinos. Interesting read as well.
I would love to see Dr. Amy Mainzer in a debate.
What exactly are you basing that statement on?
I'd love to know your reasoning behind your feelings towards physicists. Are you against the advancement of science and our species? Against our eventual future in the cosmic frontier? The supervolcano comparison is quite harsh and it interests me to see where it stems from.
I'm a little sad that I didn't hear much of anything from Gabriela. I'd have loved to hear her opinion.
I left you a voicemail Dr. Tyson.
(8.4*10^-16/1.048)^2*(1.048*c)/(137.036*pm)=881 second for neutron decay into proton(pm=1.67262*10^-27 kg) with speed of 1.048*c, c=299792458 meter/second is speed of light, 8.4*10^-16 meter is proton radius from pion decay , 8.809*10^-16=g(p)*4.1888*pm/c^2 from vacuum energy ch, g(p)=g*m^2/pm^2=1.13*10^28 is strong force, g=6.6741034*10^-11 gravitational constant, m=2.176466*10^-8 kg Planck mass, 8.809/8.4=1.048.
Patrizii's accent is lovely =)
Neil about near pulled the dudes arm off grabbing that mic back lmao
Neil deGrasse Tyson is an Astrophysicist, he isn't a theoretical physicist, not a physicist either.
He is mostly a comunicator and a very good one at that, as you said.
1:27:50 This could be possible 🤔
I don't understand why they say "nothing could travel faster than light "
I guess the were referring to the fact light travels at a terminal velocity inside of our galaxy, but what if between galaxies or between clusters of galaxies light actually travels faster maybe because the absence of heavy celestial bodies... ✨😌 1:38:00 Exactly my question... 😅😁👏🏻👌🏻
And in that line what if in fact because of the nature of neutrinos (almost doesn't interact with matter) they actually travel even faster that light... That it doesn't seem impossible to me, in fact sounds very logical 😌👌🏻
Wow they got David Huddleston on the panel, that's cool :P 18:40 He looks grumpy.
31:00 so - it's hard enough to get a clock to run to time, then you have to give it an "error" to correct it for relativity.
does light travel with it's constant speed even in a vacuum or does it loose speed through earth and air filled planetary systems?
also does gravity have mass? in itself not gravity with other atoms, but the concept of gravity and can gravity exist with no mass?
Current understanding is other way around. Particles have mass because they interact with Higgs Field which spans across whole known universe. Check recent videos about Higgs boson.
Jewish king "does light travel with it's constant speed even in a vacuum"
It's speed is constant IN the vaccum. It is different in different mediums. And different kinds of lights are differently affected by different mediums - that's how prisms work.
"also does gravity have mass?"
Gravity is the resulting force of the curvature of space time, which is caused by mass.
touching
Obviously real curiosity escapes our thread's main antagonist, JungleJargon, but the last bit about symmetry is particularly mind-numbing. Lawrence Krauss has recently begun carrying the torch, so to speak, and doing his best to enlighten the masses along with promoting his work A Universe from Nothing, which supports a flat expanding Universe, the kind of Universe in which we seem to be residing according to the FLMR model supported by NASA.
But who concluded the Universe is asymmetrical?
Of course - thankyou. XXX
This is because scientific fields are becoming increasingly specialised while the actual areas being researched are becoming progressively more diverse, resulting in progress so rapid that's it's increasingly difficult to keep abreast of developments within your own area, never mind outside it! Additionally, this 'super-specialisation' further alienates the public who find it even harder to understand the latest research. The important of science communicators is essential and likely to grow.
The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light in vacuum, c. Within the theory of special relativity, the constant c is not exclusively about light; instead it is the highest possible speed for any physical interaction in nature. Formally, c is a conversion factor for changing the unit of time to the unit of space.(wiki) therefore in the beginning of the universe it was possible as space was expanding faster than light.
You should never put down anyone's attempt at pursuing a career in any field of science. We need more physicists in the world.
@arjuntemurnikano good luck and if you're serious glad to hear it.
There was a young lady named Bright,
Who could move quicker than light.
She left , so they say,
In a relative way...
And Arrived the previous night.