Quantum Physics Woo - Sixty Symbols
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- The Mail Online article: bit.ly/quantumwoo --- Obviously Dr Lanza did not write the article. Read Dr Lanza's own words on Biocentrism here: theamericanscho...
This video features Professor Phil Moriarty, a physicist at the University of Nottingham.
Visit our website at www.sixtysymbol...
We're on Facebook at / sixtysymbols
And Twitter at #!/...
Awesome video, it's fun watching Phil pick apart bad science journalism whilst desperately trying not to swear.
didn't expect to see you here haha. Greetings!
Same
Are you into physics
Yeah, he's an angry borderline personality disorder addled sperglord filled with vitriol and hatred of anyone who isn't a Marxist, so centre-right publications send him into a frenzy. Although he has the same disgust for you, and I, for not being communists mind you. For not dogmatically believing in feminism as our lord and saviour, and for ironically saying there are two genders when at 8:18 he counters his own arguments.
@@bashkillszombies You on the right video mate?
I don't know if people realise, but Brady always asks very clever questions.
Yeah I got that a while ago.
..the problem are all about the moronic questions p. moriarty give to the public !!
He asks the questions I would ask
totally agree , its funny to see the scientust struggle to answer his questions
Very true. On my earlier viewings I did not realize it, but he is a skilled interviewer.
"I don't diffract when I go through a door." Amazing and hilarious explanation. 10/10 analogy.
Hear, hear.
FWIW: If I've had a little too much to drink it FEELS like I diffract when I go through a door.
Wait, you mean that's not normal?
I’m going to put that statement on a t-shirt.
Because he is not going fast enough
Tiny door*
As for what harm it causes, I'll just say this: I'm a physics teacher, and having students pick up bullshit disguised as physics does NOT make my job easier.
If I were you I'd turn it into a game of sorts. A sort of off day every once in awhile where students try to present which articles are BS and which are founded in reality. It would be a great way to get the students to improve their BS meter accuracy.
STOP TEACHING THE KIDS WHAT TO THINK.. START TEACHING THEM HOW TO THINK!.. You Sir are a part of the problem =/
Rock Dodger Uh, that's exactly what we do in science education. We teach a method, and part of that method is critical thinking.
Alan Hunter Well instead of a day where the class just sifts through articles, and decides which are credible (many students wouldn't pay attention or participate). There could be a small assignment, where you have to find an article related to physics and discuss its accuracy in a small report. That would certainly develop the student's understanding of how science actually works.
***** You have no idea.. Seriously.. Your are as conditioned as the Teacher that taught you!
"First of all, it's the Daily Mail."
+WeeWeeJumbo British Mail readers are the type of people who don't realize the paper has an international audience. Ukip in print.
WashashoreProd Stateside, I think the New York Post is roughly equivalent but I'm not sure
WeeWeeJumbo A fair assessment.
Somewhere between the Post and the Enquirer, from my understanding.
/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI just saying
Why does it matter? Because it degrades and insults the people who do it for real. And doing it for real is a noble and worthwhile thing to do.
Why its really matters is that it can change the perspective of voters an politicians, we have a lot of problem with that in Sweden where ethen the physics education at the university is controlled by genus "Scientists". The resertch getting dumber for every year.. also, look at the pisa result.
The very mentality that allows people to be seduced by woo like what's discussed in this video is what the true threat is.
It's even more than what Moriarty says. You get nutjobs like Deepak Chopra who convince people of random crap like this by appealing to feel-good woo language like "spirituality" and misusing physics terminology (particularly quantum), and then people _do_ actually alter what they think and how they behave down to their entire lifestyle because of it. He's supported by Oprah, for crying out loud, and while this isn't necessarily the case in the UK, Oprah's influence in North America is incredibly vast, and thus incredibly dangerous. Following the line of Oprah, we get to Dr. Oz, and when you have that sort of absurdly heavy influence giving people legitimate medical information coupled together with pseudoscientific drivel, you get extremely dangerous, really fast.
It's also annoying to have someone find out you're a physicist and then have them get excited and try to talk physics with you--only to be presented by weird gibberish and stuff that obviously came from youtube videos about alien conspiracies.... and have the person try to argue with you sometimes.... LOL! That all comes from misinformation that they see/hear online. They're not coming up with this stuff themselves; they just didn't know that what they watched or read was a bunch of nonsense.
awww, it insults them?? Awww poor scientists, i hope i didnt make them cry
And:
It gets to a point where they are taking naive people's money in droves.
Sometimes not even naive like "I believe in astrology" but more above average intelligence "I have heard about quantum physics" people.
And of course is sometimes use to justify astrology or homeopathy too.
But I mean charity funded research claiming to "unlock the secrets of the conscious universe through math" or some bollocks
Funny how just 2 punctuation marks can completely change the meaning of the title:
*Quantum Physics, Woo!*
That's definitely how I read it when I clicked on the video.
And the question mark in ''Other opinions may exist?' Implying it is a fact, which it is, that Britain would be better off without the bloody daily mail. XD
¡Quantum! Physics woo?
I think the problem with quantum woo or woo in general is that a lot of people are not interested in reality but in what feels good to them.
well put, sir!
Reality requires math and is hard, feelings only require a wish.
Big oof
You spitting some truth man
@Shimmy Shai Then why do we have anti-vaxxers?
Brady should have a 'Grinds My Gears' channel with just Prof.Moriarty going off on topics like this.
The answer to "Why does it matter?" is so awesome I just want to write it down and share it:
"Because it changes our perception of physics, it changes the perception of the world around us and my job as a physicist, and everyone's job as a physicist is to understand the world around us. And, moreover, we're funded by the public, the reason we do this videos, the reason we produce papers, is to disseminate our work, to say 'look, this is the way the world is.' And that's why it hacks off so many physicists, it's because it's false, it's just fundamentally wrong."
It's a time wasting diversion and polarizes society which is not helping to solve todays problems. If your not part of the solution ...
the shelves behind him have wave like properties.
00Billy
'Particle' board physics :)
Charles Dahmital Actually the shelves bend keeps increasing minutely. Fluid dynamics and shelving. There's a paper that needs writing.
this is the funniest thing i've ever read
Hahaahaahhaahh
Looks like the wave is about to collapse at any moment.
When I was a kid, I loved "The Tau of Physics". Then I actually studied quantum mechanics at university and I realized that "Tau" had as much to do with physics as my Iron Man comics had to do with engineering.
It's Tao. Or Dao.
Yes, I started to read it years ago with great interest, hoping it would be right, but it just put me to sleep.
Lol!!
😂😂😂
So many people need to see this video.
Man this guy is so passionate and inspirational..
I love Phil's face when Brady says "lets be sympathetic for a moment"
If looks could kill lol
Brady- As a professional biologist, I appreciate your science and what you are doing for us all. Ciaran.
I think being a quantum physicist is the third worst kind of scientist when it comes to the public perception of your work. Only evolutionary biologists and climate scientists must be more afraid to flip open the science section of a newspaper, especially one that is more committed to sales figures than the truth.
For real!
That's one of the big problems with Quantum Woo... they take that word "observer" far too literally (anthropomorphically).
With words comes woo.
With logic comes computers.
They explain how it works, and not if it works.
And multiverse.
And simulation theory.
And cats in boxes.
And inventing teleporters.
I'd love to see this guy just let loose and say the things he *wants* to say about the Mail. :D
+Jack Traveller That video would not be allowed to be uploaded...
Maybe he did in another take.
I want to hear what he wants to say about his nemesis, Sherlock Holmes.
Deepak Chopra should watch this video.
***** That's a fine analogy, but unfortunately his misunderstanding of quantum physics coupled with his gullible audiences creates widespread misconceptions about what our understanding of quantum physics actually is.
xct321 Well, he got so badly destroyed by Sam Harris and Michael Shermer that I almost felt bad for him. It's weird that he still holds on to these ideas even when the physicists claim otherwise time after time.
xct321 his consciousness already did
Ardy F what was it about?
Ardy F tell it anyway :DDD
Love me some Professor Moriarty. Love his enthusiasm for this stuff
The word that quacks latch onto more than any other is "observed". They always take it to mean something about consciousness. If quantum mechanics had a public relations department, I'd suggest they switch to "interacted with" or something like that.
I think 'measured' would be an appropriate phrase.
@@r_____________________ The issue with the word measure is that it implies gathering information without changing the information. Like measuring something with a ruler doesn’t change its length. But for example, you can measure the salinity of water by boiling it and measuring its boiling point, but in doing so you’ve changed the salinity in the water. Measurements of quantum phenomena are more like that than using a ruler. But that nuance is so easily lost.
@@ambrisabelle Yes, that makes sense to me. Are there any other words that can be used do you think?
@@r_____________________ I'm still in undergrad, but so far the word interacts looks to be more apt. It would completely change how we talk about the phenomenon, but I think for the better. When particles travel through free space, or simply an energy potential, their wavefunction stays reliable and predictable. It's upon interaction with other particles that their wavefunction changes seemingly instantaneously and unpredictably. And even then not every interaction results in this strange behaviour so it's hard to really pin down a word.
@@ambrisabelle I'm in undergrad aswell, even if it's for a completely unrelated topic lol! Thanks very much for the explanation 🙂
"why does it matter?"
because truth matters. Period.
Why do we have Trump then?
damm...truth nazi allert.
@Siyovaxsh En-sipad-zid-ana Ultimately truth is for us to define, and this definition makes truth not a very useful concept. I definitely think people being more aware of the philosophy of science would be helpful though.
sounds like religious science...
"Invisible pixies are popping in and out and effecting the particles" that sounded like a pretty decent explanation of virtual particles
You know, I'm a big fan of your longer videos, and I am especially pleased that THIS particular topic turns out to be one of them. Thank you.
Einstein: quantum effects are "spooky"
Daily Mail: therefore there's "an afterlife".
Thank you Dr. Moriaty. I am sick and tired of people of 'consciousness' and sellers of happiness in shiny bottles for thirty five dollars each.
Ouch, the misinterpretation of what _qualia_ actually means is painful, particularly because it deals with how the _interpretation_ can be subjective, even though the actual phenomenon is objective.
*EDIT*: I'm referring to the misinterpretation in the article, not the esteemed professor, who has it completely right.
One of my favorite quotes is from Dara o'Brian "science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop"
Damn I hate tabloid "journalism". It's a cesspool of relativism and "anything goes". I read an article about future human evolution and right after line two it was obvious that the writers were absolutely clueless as to even the most basic workings of evolution. The "experts" they cited were a dentist, an osteopath and a dermatologist. They asked the dentist about his views on the human digestive system, the osteopath cooked up something about the skeleton and the dermatologist got to voice his weird opinions about hair and genitals. I think it was in the daily mail as well.
"I don't diffract like a wave when I go through a door"
Hilarious :) And at the same time such a great example that contrasts the quantum world with the macro world.
Dr. Moriarty is my favorite professor on all of Brady's channels. His passion is so easy to see in every video, and he explains things really well.
I wish there was a video with him every week. :D
I've watched a few videos and done some reading about quantum physics and I'm not even going to pretend I even understood half of it. The main impression I came away with is this analogy, we've found 5 or so pieces of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle and everyone is trying to figure out what the picture is once it's fully assembled. The problem is there is so much empty space in this puzzle because we haven't found the pieces yet that you can say it's anything as long as it doesn't directly contradict the 5 pieces we've found and it will be difficult for others to refute your claims. I don't believe this is necessarily a bad thing though, attacking a problem from as many angles as possible is the best way to stumble across a solution. So whenever I hear a wild claim about quantum mechanics I generally think sure it's possible but I'd like to see some proof or at least some strong evidence. I have noticed that physicists do tend to get aggravated when outsiders approach quantum physics philosophically instead of scientifically, and I can't say I blame them one bit.
Ugh, every time someone brings up the observer effect in conversation (This happens, I cannot believe it happens as often as it does.) I get this sinking feeling because I know something like this is coming.
Thanks for standing up against the hijacking of science.
This kind of relativism is a plague on all kinds of science and philosophy though, its not JUST physics.
Yeah I heard about this article a bit ago, I was so sad that the general reaction in the comments was supportive of the idea. I was pretty disappointed =\
The use of 'schizophrenic' describing light acting as a wave is an example of WOO.
Brady is a damn good journalist!
thanks man
Speaking of words that quantum mechanics has used that have different meaning in the macroscopic world, "observer" is one that really stands out. Because everyone I talk to immediately interprets it as "conscious mind".
After just finding out about the whole load of Spirit Science videos here on youtube, I am so glad that this video exists and I wish it was seen and understood by people who believe that utter nonsense.
Prof Moriarty is definitely my favourite professor on SixtySymbols.
I tried the double slit experiment with my cat
Mattias Sollerman more details please :)
icegirl901 all i can say is, the cat wasn't pleased
Mattias Sollerman Instructions unclear; cat now exists on an infinite two-dimensional plane.
Mattias Sollerman Please, stop using cats in your thought-physics-experiments already. Please!
Mattias Sollerman You forgott the box again, didn't you
It would have been so much easier not to put this video up, but it addresses an important misunderstanding, so good on you guys for posting this video.
Yeah, I fell for this bullshit too when I was a teenager. On the positive side, it encouraged me to understand physics better and made me feel like an idiot
To answer Brady's question: Physicists say things like "elementary particles are both particles and waves" when they are really neither of those things and "an observation changes the behavior of an elementary particle" when they don't mean observation, which requires an observer (linguistically). They're just not always great with using language in ways other people understand, but that matters because deep down people think of physicists as wizards and value what physics has to tell us about the world.
7:33 -
Pauli's Exclusion Principle: The Origin and Validation of a Scientific Principle
by Michela Massimi
I won't mind seeing more video's about debunking woo, even if they we're more technical.
Hey Brady can you asks the profs here on SS to explain Dr. Penrose's new theory on the origins of the universe? I just saw a lecture about it and found it absolutely fascinating.
Moriarty is so open about his general opinions outside of physics and it's great
My man, love these videos keep up the good work.
Extra thanks to Brady,
Keeping the RUclips community educated on "cutting" / "bleeding" edge of maths and computer science!
And all others that contribute / help with the videos!!!!!
Hey, this gives me a chance to ask this question regarding entanglement. My understanding was slightly different then how you described it. my understanding is that when we have 2 entangled particles, we know for a fact that their spins are opposite of each other. This means that is one is up, the other, must be down. This is true even before we measure the spins.
Now no matter how far apart these particles are from each other, this still holds true. Observing the one is not causing the spin on the other, but it instantly allows us to know what the spin is on the other.
Imagine that you had 2 boxes and you placed a letter A in one and B in the other. Then you mixed them up and gave one to someone else to take far away. At this moment neither of you know what is in your boxes. However, you look into your box and see an A. This means that you know with 100% certainty, without ever having to observe the other box that it contains a B! You don't ever have to open that box to know that fact.
That is how I understand entanglement, am I wrong ?
i love it when Prof. Moriarty says "waves" XD
ikr! whaaaaavs
Ahhh Moriarty we meet again....
Could you do something like a series on quantum mechanics which explains each of these bits. There are already some great videos but I'd love to see more. One that explains entanglement for example. I also don't understand what we mean by an observer here. An electron for example goes to a known state when we observe it. But if this is the way nature works and if it doesn't need a conscious observer (us humans) then what is an observer in this case? Sorry if these questions seem silly :-/
Also, a couple of months back, on the comments, Prof. Moriarty mentioned he'd like to speak on electromagnetism from a quantum mechanics perspective. I just revised Maxwell's equations last night and I'd still love to see that video :-)
Thanks for making these great videos!
So good to see prof. Moriarty doing videos again!!!
Even the brightest of politicians only did PPE at Oxford, that's the reason why they had plenty of time to get involved with student groups and societies, a physics degree is way, way beyond those guys - and the crazy thing is, we trust them to run (down) our country - who's the fool ;) Moriarty for PM !!
Quark has an actual meaning in german: curd cheese.
When physicists chose to use the word "quark" they "stole" it from the IRISH author James Joyce.... and Prof. Moriarty should know that.
OMG, does Prof. Moriarty's last sentence mean there is a HELL and therefore a Heaven too? Is this fact derived from quantum mechanics? :D
Total layman here so please be gentle with your answer. Does this quantum entanglement thing mean that we measure one entangled particle and use that data to infer what the other particle is doing? Not so much that one particle affects another but that one is always up and the other is always down so if this one is up the other particle, across the universe, is down? If yes, that is not really instantaneous relational data conveyance from one particle to the other. If that be the case it's pretty much like I have two envelopes, one containing a blue card and the other a red card (you see where I'm going). I then send one envelope to Andromeda and I retain one in Chicago. I open my Chicago envelope and it is red so that means I know that the envelope in Andromeda is blue, presto, i know instantly what is contained in an envelope 2.5 million light years away. Or is it weirder than that? Is it more like I open my envelope and paint the card blue and it simultaneously turns the Andromeda envelope red? Before I get any more convoluted I guess what I'm asking is do we measure what is, and that's that, or can we change the spin of the local particle at will, to instantaneously affect the distant particle? Thanks.
The problem with Quantum entanglement for how I understand it is:
You have a twin. your twin brother gets slapped in the face. You also feel pain in your cheek.
Timothy Barth Yeah, I think there's a movie about those twins, I forget the name.
Your solution to quantum entanglement is very smart. In fact it was favoured by Einstein in his discussion on the entanglement (spooky action at a distance) with Bohr. As Einstein put it, it is like two gloves. A left one and a right one in two boxes. Open the first box and you will see the left one, then you instantly know the other box must contain the right one. Unfortunately for Einstein (and for you) experiments showed that this explanation does not hold (but it took fourty years to figure it out!).
Ronald de Rooij To whom were you speaking?
***** Observation is a measurement especially when it's a complex state and must interact with something to make it observable, so it can be measured. So, ipso facto, observation also causes the state to collapse, because when it's in an unobservable state, you must make it observable to measure it. The act of measurement is to make an observation.
Ronald de Rooij In the Einstein experiment, you a presuming that one box contains the left hand or the right hand before then you open to find out, and there's no way to know which hand is in which box before hand; it this case the boxes contain both the right hand and the left hand, they're changing all the time; the only thing we really know, is that whatever one is, the other's the opposite. The problem is that neither box contains either left or right before you open it, it contains both, and only becomes what it is when you open it. This is instantaneous, and doesn't respect the speed of light, it's faster than that. That is what was proven. And therefore, I have not said what you claim i have said. And besides, I'm aware to the possibility existing of a Hidden local variable, which allows for the state to be undetermined until the moment of observation. That Hidden Variable is held in common with both boxes. It is both a time based state; and a phase based state. In the phase state, it is in a state of interference, which makes it unresolved unti one side interacts with reality, and the state is chosen.
So, you weren't talking to me. Besides, I think deep down Einstein was proven wrong; but, he's also right. Because the Hidden Variable can occur in Zero Point Space, which every point has, it is the only dimensionless state that can have a phase state, that connects every other phase state in zero point space; it's how the universe stays synchronized. In the case of the two gloves. They occupy three points, one is an x,y & z coordinate in Spacetime for each box (2 points), and the third is Zero Point, in which they both hold in common.a phase relationship (the 3rd point). If we could know that state, we would automatically know the other states. I think this is how FTL and Transporters will work. Where matter in one place x1,y1,z1 has in common, matter in x2, y2, z2 then by placing a phase difference between ZP,x1,y1,z1 and ZP, x2,y2,z2 That the matter can be realized and placed into a real state by observing it in one of the places, or in this case, the machine fixes the e ZP (here) space to be phased out, and the ZP(there) space to be phased in. But, first both ZP states must be unobservable. The difference in phase between two ZP, is the difference between where it is in spacetime, and where it is not in spacetime (Time is constant).. Once it becomes unobserved here, it can be observed there. And so, we do that by modifying the ZP phase state of where it is, to the one where you want it to be. But, first we must find out how the phase differs from one point to the next. It takes little to no energy; but requires a huge computation, as every ZP from here, needs to be phased to every ZP there.
I do have some vague ideas on how exactly to do this; but, accomplishing it will require is to resolve at planck levels for every planck width pixel which contains the object to be be moved. Perhaps this doesn't need to be done simultaneously; but, like a scanner, over time. And in a small enough time that it doesn't exist there long enough for chaos to set in, so probably pretty fast, and before things move much.
I don't get the idea of this "responds instantaneously". That sounds the same, as I throw a coin, if it drops with herb on the top, so the bottom responds instantaneously with the number.. There is nothing special about this.
What o like, at 0:59, is the double "split" experiment... Not to be done by physicists but by ballet dancers (ballerinas) and art skaters!
"Just because we can't understand them, we cannot make up any nonsense."
That's a good program to follow.
The visible frustration in the silent pauses speaks volumes.
I could not agree more with everything said in this video
i reckon he got it in one with: "[the article is] assuming that nature, reality has to be observed by a CONSCIOUS observer to observe this stuff.." and by pointing out how "anthropomorphic" the article's take is on the whole thing. professor moriarty strikes again
I'm a regular viewer of sixty symbols..and this guy is absolutely wonderful!!!
That's it. I'm definetly going to study Physics at the university. Thank you Professor Phil Moriarty.
So? Did you?
oh no
3:38 is a really important point
Moriarty is not correct about spin. Spin really is a spin in a very definite sense of the word, it just doesn't correspond to a billiard ball like object spinning around its own axis because billiard ball like objects don't exist and can't exist in quantum theory. If you're insistent on talking about it at the level of wavefunction you're perhaps seduced by thinking you can only use spin to classify particles according to what representation they transform under the rotation group, but once you go beyond and start talking about fields or strings then a picture of true rotation emerges. In quantum field theory, spin is the polarization of the field (which does rotate) as can be seen in the excellent Am. J. of Phys. article "What is spin?" by Hans Ohanian. In string theory it can be understood as a string rotating around a point. Because strings are so massive it can be rotating slower than light and generate the observed angular momentum, and because of several cancellations the final particle can have the observed mass.
The idea that spin is somehow "just a number" is one of those physics misconceptions we would like people not to repeat, and it's sad that even professionals repeat this seemingly innocuous mistake that conflicts with *experimental* data (viz. the Einstein--de Haas effect).
avicenna Agreed, but it isn't the same as spin in a macroscopic sense, which is what he was getting at. It does seem to represent a rotation of something, at least as far as the mathematics are concerned, but if someone takes their feelings about ballerinas and applies it to spin, they'll get the wrong answer. Not least because it's quantised.
avicenna I thought he meant "everyone" knows what the spin of an electron is (1/2), but when physicists talk about spin they really mean the projection of spin on the z-axis.
***** Sorry it took be this long to get back to you. I have been kept very busy with my own research and I wanted to give your paper a read. It was very interesting, and it also informed me a little bit better on your perspective on this. Yes, there seems to be something a little bit unsatisfying about non relativistic treatments of spin. After all, it is only in a relativistic theory where the spin statistics connection makes any sense (attempts by hapless authors to prove it in nonrelativistic QM notwithstanding). It seems that the very concept of spin is more readily understood in a relativistic setting, which makes your comments certainly understandable, no "lying to children" required.
Coincidentally, I have recently read a few papers on Bohmian mechanics by Oliver Passon. As widely known, Bohmian mechanics has no straightforward relativistic generalization. There are a few models which, the author argues, seem to do the job, but depart from non relativistic Bohmian mechanics. Now, I personally don't think that Bohmian mechanics is correct, but nevertheless this to me indicates some unresolved tension between the nonrelativistic and relativistic flavors of QM itself -- much like what we have here. Taking the "particle" limit of a field theory is far from simple!
At any rate, thanks for the reference. All the best to you as well.
MsZooper The projection on the z-axis of a particle with spin 1/2 can take two values: +1/2 or -1/2. What I pointed out in my OP is that, if one considers solutions of the Dirac equation (the relativistic field equation describing electrons), then spin admits a straightforward interpretation in terms of polarization states which are analogous to circular polarization states of the photon.
It is easy to see a circularly polarized photon intuitively as something "rotating", even if it's not a billiard ball. Indeed, for reasons I won't get into here, a photon cannot even be localized in a small region like you can do with electrons (there is no photon wavefunction), which means that people were never seduced into thinking about photon spin states in a "billiard ball" sort of way. It helps that photons, being massless, are _always_ relativistic.
07:00
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
The Doctor said, "Knowledge has its limits. Ours reaches this far, and no further." And he was being a good scientist in doing so. But we lesser mortals (including most scientists in history) want answers not just to "What do we know?" but to "What does it mean?" From Democritus to whatever they're doing at CERN this morning, scientists have been speculating beyond the facts in their effort to extend our understanding. I don't see anything wrong or unscientific with this, as long as one keeps clear in one's statements and in one's own mind what is an demonstrated fact and what is speculation - something you will seldom find in the popular tabloid press...
Quark: A Central-European Low-fat milk product similar to Cream Cheese in consistency.
I thought Brady did an amazing job on this video; not on the filming and editing (that stuff is top-notch in every video), but on the questions he was asking. They made everything much more interesting; loved the video.
Actually calling it 'woo' presupposes materialism
With every video from 60 Symbols and the other channels I think 'wow, this person is great, their passion, their enthusiasm, the delight they take in describing their field of study, this scientist is my favorite.'
Then comes the next scientist with different passions, different interests and again I think, 'wow this, now this one really is the epitome of all that is wonderful about science, math, physics, chemistry.'
So I must generalize and say 'Wow, the scientists, the technicians, all the people I've seen Brady interview are all, marvelous, wonderful people, people whose passion for and delight in their work allows me my greatest hopes that perhaps our species has a promising future.
Thank you Brady, thank you for bringing all these wonderful people and ideas to an ever (I hope) growing audience.
I love it when he tries to describe The Daily Mail without swearing.
I think the single, titanic mistake that physicists have made here is the careless use of the term 'observation' with regards to quantum states and whatnot, neglecting to define what exactly is meant by that... Jargon about quark colours and flavours and the like don't - or shouldn't - actually cause nearly as many issues on their own.
It would be a lot better if these kinds of people would stop insisting their ideas using language such as "IS". These ideas can exist without lying about absolute affirmation. A more accurate title should be "Quantum Mechanics may provide information as to whether there is an afterlife or not.". This title is more accurate as no one has openly proved that quantum mechanics does not prove an afterlife although I am currently on the side of this being highly improbable. But as always, evidence should be provided by the side making a claim.
Wow: "The Tao of Physics" gets a mention. I actually read that book many years ago and my memory is that it's central idea is the formal logic of the "West" is incompatible with physics so we have to look to different traditions. No doubt there is an incompatibility of formal logic with quantum mechanics which is why we struggle to understand it; e.g. it's the law-of-the-divided middle we must let go in order to appreciate the quantum realm. However what's really missing from the book is any discussion of the idealist dialectics developed by Hegel and given a materialist foundation by Marx and Engels. Such things as "The world is a complex of processes, not a complex of things" correspond far more with modern physics that any eastern mysticism.
I'd like to hear Professor Moriarty discuss that and the philosophy of physics a bit more.
I love the genuine passion of professor Moriarty!
You're all about Pauli's Principle, but nobody mentions the Pauli Effect. Let me rectify that omission:
Pauli, though a brilliant theoretical physicist, was notoriously bad at and form of practical lab work. He had only to look at laboratory equipment, and it would break down.
One day, when he was an invited speaker in a major university conference, there was a fire in the lab of that university. After careful examination of the calamity and the time table of the train Pauli took to the city, it turned out that the start of the fire EXACTLY coincided with Pauli entering the city limits.
THIS is the Pauli Effect.
I would love to see a video explaining exactly how particle entanglement works. Don't hide the truth from us!
I don't want to see that because I'd misinterpret due to my lack of knowledge.
@@WorldOfDeepThought don't worry too much. When it comes to understanding a quantum effect/property of a system you don't necessarily need to know the mathematics (most of them are pure mathematical description of how the universe works). It will baffle you the same way it baffles many professionals in the field. The maths makes sense, but why the maths is the way it is at the quantum scale isn't that clear. Many equations and theories have been derived from physical experiments. We observed first... then we postulated.... (not everything though) . Check quantum tunnelling as well.
I think this kind of newspaper article does a disservice to both the religious and scientific communities. Thanks for coming back for this video Prof. Moriarty.
1. Ignore websites titled like "Mail Online".
2. Move on.
Sadly,I think you're missing one of the best arguments in Phil's talk: what if the people in charge of the funding think this tot is worth putting money behind.
TPPMac1 yes, I posted when he showed the article
Ignorance has never really been a solution to anything in history.
Could you please add annotations to the videos at the end? I'll find them myself of course lol, but would be useful!
I would like to introduce you to a french woo peddler who presumes he reconciled shamanism with quantum physics but he's not likely to speak english.
"the particle is the material world and vibrations are the spiritual world". That's just a bit of 30 a minutes cringeworthy nonsense video from an "ancient traditions" cult he belongs to, in their fundraising announcement page.
4:10 Schizophrenic doesn't make sense in this context, though this is a common error people make. Dissociative Identity Disorder is the term you want. I know psychology isn't your field and this video is from 4 years ago but I just wanted to point this out because the sentence doesn't convey the message you want.
Bottom line, stop saying that quantum theory is strange or whatever... It's not... because it works and we see it working and it is the most successful "theory" in the history of science. Nature isn't strange. In fact, it's the most normal thing that there is. It's counter-intuitive, it's senseless, at times, it is subtle... but it is normal. Quantum theory is normal. Classical mechanics is strange. Newtonian mechanics is strange. Classical mechanics, classical thermodynamics, etc. sometimes work in a narrow band of circumstances. That narrow band of circumstances seems rather wide to us because that's all we see... but the conditions we live in are rather rare... In fact, we have trouble finding other planets with these circumstances, to foster life... But the universe and nature itself is mostly found in extremes... extreme temperatures (high or low), extreme pressures (high or low), extreme densities... Even something as seemingly simple as the orbits of planets in our own solar systems is only partially modeled by classical mechanics... The precession of the orbit of mercury requires general relativity.
Modern physics is not strange. It's confusing and subtle, but not strange. It is actually more normal than classical mechanics.
+Aditya C hmmm Of course, modern physics is far more accurate than the historic ones. I think the people feel that modern physics is weird and strange but classical mechanics isn't because at least for classical mechanics, interactions are intuitive and we've been growing up watching objects collide and interact with one another.
Ancient philosophers with their "hard" questions (like trees in forrest, or chickens with their eggs) are behind this mess.
+Evi1M4chine Very deep.
Anybody who uses the expression "left field" deserves to be marked down.
Dear Loadbyte and prof Moriarity
I am answering here on my Google plus page, as your comments don't seem to be appearing on the youtube page. I don't know if that is your intention as the commenting system now is so appallingly confusing.
I am fully aware of the meaning of the term and here are my objections. I realise most of them are utterly subjective and therefore susceptible to criticism
1) It is a revolting cliche.
2) It is a revolting cliche which is a verbose, inelegant and grammatically dubious substitute for an adjective, where a suitable adjective would be much more elegant and informative.
3) It is a horrible Americanism
4) It is a sport-related horrible Americanism, and what is more the sport in question is baseball, something I believe science should avoid unless investigating bat and ball kinematics.
5) It is a music related Americanism of a sporting Americanism
6) It is a bloody ugly, pondering phrase, in contrast to the subject matter of physics, which is streamlined, pointed, objective and free of cultural idioms.
7) It is not a scientific phraseology, and more appropriate to some media personality, such as Sara Palin, trying to get down with the kids. Whereas for someone who is in the highly venerable post of a professor in physics it's use just looks amateurish. You wouldn't catch Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose or Peter Atkins using the phrase ( please God! )
I have been asked on my Google plus page by Professor Moriarty to justify my dislike of the "left field" phrase. In case he intended to comment on youtube and was accidentally directed to my Google pus page I provide an answer here as well as on my page.
The phrase "left field" is objectionable fort the following, mostly subjective, reasons:
1) It is a revolting cliche.
2) It is a revolting cliche which is a verbose, inelegant and grammatically dubious substitute for an adjective, where a suitable adjective would be much more elegant and informative.
3) It is a horrible Americanism
4) It is a sport-related horrible Americanism, and what is more the sport in question is baseball, something I believe science should avoid unless investigating bat and ball kinematics.
5) It is a music related Americanism of a sporting Americanism
6) It is a bloody ugly, pondering phrase, in contrast to the subject matter of physics, which is streamlined, pointed, objective and free of cultural idioms.
7) It is not a scientific phraseology, and more appropriate to some media personality, such as Sara Palin, trying to get down with the kids. Whereas for someone who is in the highly venerable post of a professor in physics it's use just looks amateurish. You wouldn't catch Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose or Peter Atkins using the phrase ( please God! )
"It is a music related Americanism of a sporting Americanism".. you should have absolutely not right to comment if are complaining about someone using the term "Left field", when you post crap like that...your fail
And given that your grip of English is very poor, you have no right to comment on my comment.
It makes sense if you really think about it. If something flies through our universe(if that is even possible), and it never interacts with anything in it, did that something exist? No. If there is no difference in 'never interacting' and 'never existing', then there is no difference in 'existing' and 'interacting'. If a particle is not interacting at any given time, it no longer exists, and assumes a waveform. When that wave form interacts, the particle pops back into existence, then back out again and assumes its waveform when no longer being interacted with(observed)
Rodrigo Gallinari Not as a physical particle. The _physical_ macro existence emerges from the interactions, and is not actually a characteristic of just that particle. The chance of detectability(interaction) is proportional to the amplitude of the wave function. The physical 'existence'(as in, being a solid particle) is just an emergent phenomenon when interaction occurs.
What we witness at the quantum level is the physical emerging of what we call reality in the macro scale, so everything between those wave function collapses are very weird, and not what we would call physically existing yet, as in, they are not actually physically occupying a specific place with a specific velocity. To determine a location for a particle, you must interact, which then disturbs the velocity. The reason is not because of our limited ability to detect, but because these values are not yet fully defined, because these definitions emerge after the interaction.
Just like, reality cannot be defined yet if a cat lived or died until you open the box and see, in the Schrodinger cat thought experiment.
The attributes of the particle will influence these definitions, but they are not actually defined until interaction occurs.
Attempting to measure them without interaction is when they behave in their natural state, a wave. The physical nature of the particle only emerges when that wave function collapses, or, when they interact.
The physical nature of particles is only the interaction of those particles.
In this, our physical reality is limited only to the things that are, can, or will interact, or will effect interactions, and things that will not, are totally excluded, and do not physically exist in our conceivable reality.
The afterlive is a Quatum phenomenon?
Wouldn't that imply that Souls are incredibly small?
A comment to the part about colours: A friend of mine is colorblind, and I've asked him once how he coul get along with red and green traffic lights if he could not distinguish between red and green. His answer: It's that easy: one is on top, the other is at the bottom. Besides of that, one is dark yellow and the other brownish.
Colorblindness is often called Daltonism, after the Chemist Dalton who could not distinguish substances distinguishable by their colour alone. So objective reality exists!
This is why colour as detected by the eye is an unreliable measure, whereas colour detecter by a detector is reliable: the wavelength is what makes the colour what it is, not what we actually see it as. And - yes, indeed, this is how we know that objective reality - to a very great extent - actually exists.
3:50 - The professor is obviously bigoted against the invisible pixies of the universe, and the AFIURP (Association for Invisible Universe Running Pixies) shall be contacting him with a formal complaint any century now.
I'm sure the Daily Mail will inform him when he's been served, too. Though said pixies will be curiously green once the editors' usual imbibing of Absinth for "creative inspiration" kicks in...
when he used the blue sky colour example to make his point, it reminded me of that dress problem with the colour. different people perceive it differently but there can only be one colour. it is objective and really can't be argued
+Renn Kai that's actually a great example. yet people were still arguing saying it was gold and brown or whatever, even after being shown evidence
Afterlife? Of course we have it, if our bodies aren't destroyed, we will be reborn into countless fungi, bacteria and maggots. [/sarcasm]
And I refer to decomposition if its not obvious enough.
Even though your being sarcastic. It is far more beautiful to me than the laughable picture that most religions paint as the after life.
Seriously all these people believing in some utopian after life. How many of them believe a utopia is even possible in the first place?
Have you heard of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson's reply to a creationist on how he views death?
“I would request that my body in death be buried not cremated, so that the energy content contained within it gets returned to the earth, so that flora and fauna can dine upon it, just as I have dined upon flora and fauna during my lifetime”
He is a true scientific poet.
KS Ng I had not heard that before. Even more reason to love Dr. Tyson!
My professor of Coordenation Chemistry said this quote from Lavoisier two weeks ago, at the end of our last lecture. He was saying goodbye to us and telling that we can do a lot if we fullfill our minds :)
I always enjoy the videos with Prof. Moriarty, Hes so engaging. (plus i love his accent)
As an American, I had never heard the term 'Woo' until recently. I love the term, because the best term we have for that in the U.S is pseudoscience. Woo is a much broader
and more specific term.
Interesting article... Must have some hard science behind it, clearly!
I love Dr. Moriarty going on about anything. Thanks Brady!
I saw a video proposing that quantum entanglement isn't all that spooky. The fact that they're entangled doesn't necessarily mean they're transferring information instantaneously but that they have the same spin for extended periods and so therefore they will be measured the same no matter how far apart they are.