+Daniel Kerr You used a comma and an apostrophe wrong in the same "sentence." You must smoke weed to be able to pull that off. Go work on your punctuation.
My favorite comment was in the code of the moon lander that got released recently: # TEMPORARY, I HOPE, HOPE, HOPE Also not bad, in the source of Half-Life: // This is the most evil, hacked, bastardized thing I've ever seen.
Got a suggestion. Caption the names of the scientists each time you go to a new face in the vid. Alslo would be nice to have them credited undar the video with therr speciality.
These professionals are some of the most humble people I've heard talk about science. It really goes to show that the more you know about something, the more you can appreciate and understand how much you still haven't learned. I'm a second year engineering student and I've definitely noticed a significant increase in the humility of my classmates after 3 semesters of calculus and physics.
The illusory superiority bias, which is one of the most thoroughly researched cognitive biases, contends that when someone knows nothing about a subject, are aware of it. When someone knows a little bit about something, they believe they know far more than they do. When someone has a deep understanding of a subject, they are acutely aware of what about it they don't know, and they grossly underestimate their abilities.
Scientists aren't pretentious. When they don't know something - they'll be the first to tell you. Try and get a politician to answer a question like this. The truth is that the more you learn, the more you realize how little you really know. Only the totally ignorant think they "know it all."
***** I'd agree with that. The same is true about the existence of a deity. Agnostics (my status) say that the existence of a deity is not known and is probably unknowable. Atheists are just as guilty as Theists. Atheists state that a deity definitely does not exist. Although I tend to agree with them, they have not PROVEN IT. This is why I prefer the term "Agnostic."
Gentry Walker I know many Atheists who are 100% sure that no deity exists (Despite offering no evidence). These people need a category that defines their views. For me, the more rational category is Agnostic. An agnostic states that the existence of a deity is not known and is probably not knowable. Beyond that, there should be two sub-categories for Agnostics: 1: Agnostic-Atheist 2. Agnostic-Theist Both state that the existence of a deity is not known. But these two categories allow the Agnostic to speculate one way or another. I myself am an Agnostic-Atheist.
***** _"So that means that it is sensible to let people die from cancer or some other disease"_ Are you referring to "supreme being" part? If yes, then you are making a mistake of assuming as if that supreme being is bound by "your" sense of morality and sensibility. For rest of your comment, I can't tell if you are countering anything I said or just agreeing with me or just stating your points.
It's important to disabuse students of the delusion of infallibility as soon as possible. I teach physics and mathematics, and I remind my students regularly that there is plenty I don't know, and I will make a lot of mistakes (and they will too), and it's okay!
One of my professors at uni rather babbled some stuff than admitting he didn't know. (That was even about trivial things not related with the course itself.) The moment I realized that, I lost all respect for him.
Nothing confuses me. I am all knowing, all seeing, all encompassing. Ask me a question. I will provide you with the answer. How, do you ask? I have a 15 year old son who knows everything about every topic, so all I have to do is ask him, and the answer will be provided. Along with a shoulder shrug and the phrase "whatever". Anyone else fortunate enough to have a child who knows it all?
I first watched this video during my GSCEs. I'm now nearing the end of a Quantum Physics PhD and got recommended this video again. I know a lot more about physics now but that just means there's even more to be confused by, which is kinda the fun of it.
I'm honestly surprised that nobody mentioned anything about classical mechanics at all. I'm not really a professional physicist, but I'm a PhD student and hope to be a professional (whatever that means) someday. Sure quantum theory and relativity and stat mech and all that are really really confusing but idk, I guess I expected them to be like that so it's not as suprising that you have to develop intuition from scratch sometimes. But classical mechanics... There was some expectation I had as a young student that it would be "easier" or just more intuitive because you can look at systems of springs and tops and pendulums and things in daily life, but I was shocked to find how nuanced and profound classical mechanics is. Idk, just my thoughts.
What i respect a lot about physicists is the willingness they have to admit when they dont know something. In theoretical sciences, more than in other fields of human activity, you are so immersed in the world of facts and proof that you quickly realize just how much you as a person and we as a species dont know. This has a bad side effect. Scientists tend to be extremely skeptical even about things that are well established and proven. You still have people that debate relativity for instance. However, this extreme skepticism is IMHO beneficial, it enhances inquisitiveness and might help catch details that were lost. Truly a marvelous but exhausting human discipline.
I think professors in any discipline are open to say they don't know. The more you know, the more you appreciate the gaps in your knowledge and understanding.
I must admit that I do find this channel most informative and very entertaining. The questions asked do tend to challenge those who are asked. What I like most is the pure honesty :)
The thing about these topics, especially astronomy is, that you can't always look at it from a mathematical or linear perspective. This explains it logically but not perceptively- sometimes you have to visualize and think about it in a optical way, instead of trying to explain with written formulas- they do work, but only to an extent. I am no physicist yet, but know by experience that visual or cognitive expression is a lot easier to explain or create an understanding than the math of it. And it also leads toward a better solution sometimes.
Some things are impossible to visualize especially with quantum mechanics and some parts of astronomy. So we use mathematical modeling to understand what's really going on. I think math is actually a better tool that visualization.
I read a quote somewhere, and I wish I could find it again because I've forgotten who said it, to wit: "You never really understand the new theory-- you just get used to it." It was either Feynman or one of the other big names in modern physics.
Howard Wiggins At the end of the day, humans are humans. We build our knowledge at the frontier between our assumptions and our observations. No frontier => no knowledge. No assumptions => no frontier. It doesn't mean that alternative assumptions are equally true (or valid, if you like). Most people receive and accept scientific knowledge and religious knowledge in precisely the same way: they trust the person who tells them. I've never smashed protons into each other, after all, nor could I even begin to follow the proof of Fermat's last theorem. I don't understand computers anymore, but I'm using one right now.
This is reassuring to someone just starting to learn some physics. It seems so radically different from other modes of thinking. I find the parts that I understand mind boggling, but not intuitive. I would not have guessed that even physicists find some parts challenging.
+FullCircleStories 'obviously' there is nothing obvious about it... even the scientist says there is no way of obtaining the information... but you find it obvious.
What confuses me (degree in computer science, lay interest in physics) the most is what fundamental principles unite complex systems. Chaos theory tells us that it is impossible to predict complex systems with our current mathematical techniques. But, these systems often behave in ways that they can be predicted statistically. These systems also often have emergent behaviors. If we could understand how to engineer systems with nonlinear dynamics such that they exhibit specific emergent properties at scale, the impact of that would be revolutionary in a way we've never seen before. It would be far more significant than the discovery of classical mechanics or quantum mechanics (as it would almost certainly unify those and show how classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics in large systems). It would enable us to do things that sound like magic today, like dropping a box of parts on the ground and have it self-assemble into a machine.
Yes, you can lean on statistics if you're trying to make rough estimates regarding something like the air in a room... but if you want to design and build a system to create a specific emergent effect, such analysis won't help. If you want billions of components to self-assemble into a macro-scale system with a particular behavior, theory doesn't get you very far. You are right about the basics of chaos theory, but those basics imply the other things I spoke of. And sure we work on nonlinear systems, but we're limited to statistical and phenomenological study rather than principled theory. The 3-body problem with gravity still has no mathematical proof for an exact answer, even though we can make fairly strong statistical statements. The problem with that is that chaos theory shows us that even teeny-tiny differences can alter the behavior of the entire system. And the tiny details we smooth over with statistics are the very ones which control of would enable us to build very simple systems with intended large-scale interactions.
The trouble with these episodes of sixty symbols is that they're so fascinating and addictive its hard to peel yourself away. And the questions asked are from a laymans point of view which make it all the better. Probably not from the Professor's point of view though.
mdiem Exactly, this is what Stephen Hawking calls Model Dependent Realism. The question isn't, is reality composed of little vibrating strings, (for example), but rather what does that model add to what we can understand, or can we predict anything useful and verifiable?
Mathematics can only describe, it cannot explain. Edit: Sry guys, I said 'in', when I meant 'it'. The point is maths can describe relationships really well - as far as it goes Eg Newton's gravity predicting another planet when Uranus' orbit was odd but, failed to address Mercury's variance. Maths is thus playing catchup and did so when Einstein showed Mercury's orbit predictable re Relativity... This may also be the case re entanglement re so called Dark Matter and potential for Wimp like particles the size of an astronomical unit or so which betray a wavelike nature with gravity potentials...
This is so comforting. Sometimes I look at the high level sciences and think to myself "I'll never be able to understand all of this." You just have to remember, no human can know ALL of it. You have to pick a field you like and figure that one out as best you can.
imran saleh Some of the easiest most confusing questions that bother every mathematician - What's the largest prime number. What is X divided by 0. What is infinite + 1
Square Root I don't think any of these questions confuse mathematicians. I'd be very surprised if they do: There are infinitely many prime numbers, and hence no largest one. Usually, infinity plus one is defined to be infinity (as is the case with cardinal arithmetic and the augmented real numbers) . In most number systems, 0 doesn't have a multiplicative inverse and so dividing by it is not defined.
imran saleh Ah, you just gave the text book answers of all three questions. None of those questions has a definite answer, yet. And that's why they are confusing. "Undefined" is not an answer acceptable by mathematics, hence no mathematician can accept it as an answer. And that is what creates the curiosity, which in turns creates confusion. If you are not confused by them, you simply are not curious enough. The core in all three question is the most confusing question of all - "What is infinity". Prime number one is the most confusing one, because although Eucild has proven that there are infinitely many primes, it raises another question - Is infinite a prime number? Any number less than infinite should be quantifiable.
I so appreciate this team just being honest and real. We are all just trying to grapple with a lot of things that really are more than we understand, if we are honest. blessings
Who was the physicist with the Miles Davis pic behind him? When I play my bass all I think about are the wave functions emanating from it causing a note to collapse into The Birth of the Cool - otherwise known as the Universe...hopefully that is how he thinks the Universe emerged from the BB and now is Cooool!
I don't know if anyone replied to this for you or not. He is Professor Emeritus Roger Bowley and is one of the best in explaining things in terms most folk can understand. A True Class Act if there ever was one.
I love that the professor at 1:01 is so honest about his understanding of general relativity because I have tried to wrap my head around general relativity too and it is not easy. The professor at 0:24 said it best. I my opinion, you have to accept that quantum physics does not make sense if you want to learn about it.
We need a "Ministry of Scientific Propaganda" as a branch of our government. An uneducated populace creates confusion and skepticism. Flat earthers are a result of this.
There is a difference between deducing something and it being intuitive. As I remember it, Dirac only arrived at a mathematical description for QM method by spotting similarities to equations he had met in other fields.
Paradox, if you know nothing you can't be confused. The more you know the more you can identify what is the source of confusion, so it's a matter of deciding how much you need to know to do what is required.
getting confused id not really a bad thing.it is just a sign that you already know so much stuff to handle anymore.it means u are ready for being englightened(probably wrote wrong spellings)
TheTyphoon365 I'm a catholic, and I don't find this video offensive. Probably someone of low intelligence, or some arrogant pricks who think they know everything.
Glad to see that I'm not the only one confused by general relativity. I could never wrap my head around the fact that the speed of light is absolute, but the passage of time is not.
Just having a quick look through the comment section it would seem we're in a never-ending loop of debating the same things using the same words every day for ever and ever and every words for the using things debating same..... Seriously guys, there's the classic 'religion' vs 'non-religion', 'god', 'bible' and even 'what does mean' thrown in for good measure! Don't go there! There be dragons!
At least we aren't getting out heads chopped off anymore for saying the earth isn't flat. We've come a long way. Maybe our kids or our kids kids won't have to put up with this nonsense anymore.
Watching this video has really made me appreciate the ingenuity of Schrodinger, Einstein, Planck, Dirac and all the other great minds of that great period. It begs the question: what makes someone more intelligent than another? Genetics, Early education and upbringing, pleasure, or an entrenched, perhaps verging on an obsessive, desire to know; that is, character and/or the will of the individual?
I would love to see some (If not all) of these guest star on "The Big Bang Theory" show! I think they have such awesome personalities and knowledge that they could/would be a huge contribution to the show!
Physics can be explained by one simple equation. The gravitational constant multiplied by the electric constant times the magnetic constant. G(F/m)(H/m) = 7.426157905 x 10^-28 m/Kg. It is what the quantization means or implies that confuses the physicists. Sometimes the final outcomes or measurements of time quadrants or other physical manifestations are not expected and often confusing. The events create a paradox or paradigm.
The British Empire Will rise again I dont really think its anti matter, I mean its a potential candidate but it doesnt make sense to me. Dark matter and dark energy are transparent meaning theres a type of particle that is moving at the speed of light or maybe even faster which is impossible technically(The only known candidate for this could be neutrinos or anti neutrinos). In my opinion dark matter and dark energy are somehow connected with the higher dimension theories and the superstring theory and M theory. Because dark matter doesnt neccessarily have to be matter, like m theory says, gravity is seeping or being absorbed by higher dimensions, thats why the EM force is way stronger. Either that or it is anti matter or it can be literally another type or sets of laws of physics and particles and structure when it comes to dark matter and dark energy.
infinite regression (usually of beginning of time or size). You can keep peeling a layer back, asking what causes this? But what caused that cause etc. etc.
Interviewer: so besides that nothing confuses you? Physicist: no, absolutely not. Interviewer: so tell me, what happened to "Old Zealand"? Physicist: _confused demonic screeching_
What makes physics difficult is because a new foundation in thinking has to be made; a new foundation for each topic in physics. Physics requires visual thinking and lots of philosophical mind experiments. It is understandable that physics is difficult because NOTHING in physics is common sense. It took me half a semester of self study to develop a feel for kinematics and dynamics. However, now that we got into the topic of thermodynamics, I have to develop a new foundation because I can't picture solid object in my head anymore. I have to start from scratch. Its easy to learn topics but no one will understand them right away. It takes lots and lots of thinking. Recently, I figured out where to begin when trying to understand heat (and other topics) and that is starting out with diffusion. Why do they spread? If they are the same temperature, how will it look? These are the kinds of questions that could lead to success in physics.
This is amazing and comforting, in case anyone feel dumb, by just watching this you know not only you struggle through process of understanding but even top scientist do! which make you rethink what it means by entering the world of physic. Everyone is learning so don't get mad if you can't solve something, cheer up :D there always room for improvement ja?
Seeker296 Technically psychology not quite "science" as their biggest controversy was 50% of their research were a fraud. Unlike psychiatary and neuroscience.
Adam Taylor. True, but let's also remember to apply the Principle of Charity. It is true that superficially, all those topics are easy. I doubt if many topics exist that are easy in depth.
In essence it is the same thing, the Higgs field has an energy carrying particle (i.e Boson) which interacts with a particle which is going at the speed of light and then deflects it, and since the particle has a certain amount of energy part of it goes from momentum into 'mass' which is really just a state of temporary rest (that is why photons are restless), and so you are 'slowing' a particle. But yes (like I said in an earlier comment) if photons had mass they could not travel at C.
From Merriam-Webster: "a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions", And you sir defined irony as : " irony is use of words to express something other than literal meaning" but that definition is not the same as I accused you of, I said that you accused me of doing something that you, yourself is doing. And THAT is IRONIC.
And these are the experts. That's like asking a drummer what do you find challenging about music? And they reply, "I've always had a hard time with rhythm."
Special relativity and the general specifically .... I face a lot of "vague" things or ideas in it . It's very simple as it seems however it's brilliance fascinates me.
"As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it."
- Albert Einstein
now THAT is a clever phrase. i like that!
Einstein would have had to smoke weed, to come up with all the theory's and ideas he did.
+Daniel Kerr You used a comma and an apostrophe wrong in the same "sentence." You must smoke weed to be able to pull that off. Go work on your punctuation.
amazing
Even these physicist are are aware of just how counterintuitive relativity is. Man, I wonder what Einstein was smoking.
So physics then. Physics confuses physicists.
+Paranoid Ladder It's funny because he didn't ask what confuses them about Physics, did he?
+Paranoid Ladder
Indeed, I guess they understand everything else.
He asked which part of physics and astronomy confuses them...
Maybe that's why they're physicists? Seriously, in science if you completely understand something then it's not as exciting.
@@endlessduck1642 actually yes. He asked that very question...
Physicist:being professionally confused and getting paid for it
It's the same with Programming. Some of my best projects were done while I was completely and utterly clueless.
//I dont know what this code does but everything stops working if its gone so dont remove it
dream job
"Okay, so if I put this number here, and complete this string in this way, everything seems to go smoothly and nothing crashes. Close enough."
My favorite comment was in the code of the moon lander that got released recently:
# TEMPORARY, I HOPE, HOPE, HOPE
Also not bad, in the source of Half-Life:
// This is the most evil, hacked, bastardized thing I've ever seen.
Got a suggestion. Caption the names of the scientists each time you go to a new face in the vid. Alslo would be nice to have them credited undar the video with therr speciality.
Y E S .
Your last sentence sounds a lot like a pirate.
That's nice.
Aye.
Yarr
Where's me rum?!
These professionals are some of the most humble people I've heard talk about science. It really goes to show that the more you know about something, the more you can appreciate and understand how much you still haven't learned. I'm a second year engineering student and I've definitely noticed a significant increase in the humility of my classmates after 3 semesters of calculus and physics.
that's what I thought too
Egos get weeded out pretty early on in these programs
The illusory superiority bias, which is one of the most thoroughly researched cognitive biases, contends that when someone knows nothing about a subject, are aware of it. When someone knows a little bit about something, they believe they know far more than they do. When someone has a deep understanding of a subject, they are acutely aware of what about it they don't know, and they grossly underestimate their abilities.
yea...you dirty engineers better stay humble!........totally kidding by the way :]
p-values or it didn't happen
"Classical...Classic things like Quantum Physics" --TRIGGERED
To be fair Quantum Physics is kind of old now and String and Quantum Loop Theories are the new cool kids on the block.
abschussrampe The material may be a bit old, but Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics are two completely seperate areas
Tom McGraw It confused me too for a moment, but it's not called "classical mechanics" but the "standard model".
abschussrampe the standard model includes relativity and its weirdness, but classical mechanics tends not to
Tom McGraw I feel triggered now.
Scientists aren't pretentious. When they don't know something - they'll be the first to tell you. Try and get a politician to answer a question like this. The truth is that the more you learn, the more you realize how little you really know. Only the totally ignorant think they "know it all."
***** This is because science is about truth and politics is about lying. The two should never be mixed.
***** I'd agree with that.
The same is true about the existence of a deity. Agnostics (my status) say that the existence of a deity is not known and is probably unknowable. Atheists are just as guilty as Theists. Atheists state that a deity definitely does not exist. Although I tend to agree with them, they have not PROVEN IT. This is why I prefer the term "Agnostic."
Gentry Walker I know many Atheists who are 100% sure that no deity exists (Despite offering no evidence). These people need a category that defines their views. For me, the more rational category is Agnostic. An agnostic states that the existence of a deity is not known and is probably not knowable.
Beyond that, there should be two sub-categories for Agnostics:
1: Agnostic-Atheist
2. Agnostic-Theist
Both state that the existence of a deity is not known. But these two categories allow the Agnostic to speculate one way or another.
I myself am an Agnostic-Atheist.
***** _"So that means that it is sensible to let people die from cancer or some other disease"_
Are you referring to "supreme being" part? If yes, then you are making a mistake of assuming as if that supreme being is bound by "your" sense of morality and sensibility.
For rest of your comment, I can't tell if you are countering anything I said or just agreeing with me or just stating your points.
***** _"I am just stating what it is important to be certian of."_
Okay.
My students are always a little disappointed when I say, "I don't know."
It's important to disabuse students of the delusion of infallibility as soon as possible.
I teach physics and mathematics, and I remind my students regularly that there is plenty I don't know, and I will make a lot of mistakes (and they will too), and it's okay!
+Jared Frick That should excite them.
One of my professors at uni rather babbled some stuff than admitting he didn't know. (That was even about trivial things not related with the course itself.)
The moment I realized that, I lost all respect for him.
I've always found, 'I don't know, how can we find out?' to be one of the strongest tools to learning.
That's why your students should learn bythemselves, with books, internet, observating and trying to be surrounded by people who know a lot!!
This is oddly inspiring
I'm so glad that I stumbled across this channel. I've watched so many videos in a row now and love how honest everyone is!
Nothing confuses me. I am all knowing, all seeing, all encompassing. Ask me a question. I will provide you with the answer. How, do you ask? I have a 15 year old son who knows everything about every topic, so all I have to do is ask him, and the answer will be provided. Along with a shoulder shrug and the phrase "whatever". Anyone else fortunate enough to have a child who knows it all?
This is just gold.
I have a question for thine self, oh mighty one!
How do you understand Trigonometry?
comment of the day xD
***** erm thats not trolling tho
Täking Thë High Roäd Well you are Randy Rhoads...
'There are some areas, where if it doesn't confuse you, that tells you, you haven't understood it.'
I love that phrase!
I HAVE A THERMODYNAMICS TEST TOMORROW IN MY AP CHEM CLASS. MAY GIBB'S FREE ENERGY BE WITH ALL OF YOU.
MAY NEWTON BE WITH YOU
IT'S MAY MASS TIMES ACCELERATION BE WITH YOU.
ISAAC NEWTON DON'T LIKE YOU KNOW.
Tate H lol my (delta) G
did it go well
"Classic things, such as quantum physics"
LOL, think about it... Was the pun intended?
I first watched this video during my GSCEs. I'm now nearing the end of a Quantum Physics PhD and got recommended this video again. I know a lot more about physics now but that just means there's even more to be confused by, which is kinda the fun of it.
If you want to be confused, watch a video from the PBS Spacetime channel.
So true
True that
True.
Rishu Raj Sharma
You should watch their videos in chronological order. They explain geodesics in one of their videos.
A normal person would have to take notes.
I'm honestly surprised that nobody mentioned anything about classical mechanics at all. I'm not really a professional physicist, but I'm a PhD student and hope to be a professional (whatever that means) someday. Sure quantum theory and relativity and stat mech and all that are really really confusing but idk, I guess I expected them to be like that so it's not as suprising that you have to develop intuition from scratch sometimes. But classical mechanics... There was some expectation I had as a young student that it would be "easier" or just more intuitive because you can look at systems of springs and tops and pendulums and things in daily life, but I was shocked to find how nuanced and profound classical mechanics is. Idk, just my thoughts.
I like your channel just one thing , It will be great if you mention the Name and profession when u interview some one . . . . .
What i respect a lot about physicists is the willingness they have to admit when they dont know something. In theoretical sciences, more than in other fields of human activity, you are so immersed in the world of facts and proof that you quickly realize just how much you as a person and we as a species dont know. This has a bad side effect. Scientists tend to be extremely skeptical even about things that are well established and proven. You still have people that debate relativity for instance. However, this extreme skepticism is IMHO beneficial, it enhances inquisitiveness and might help catch details that were lost. Truly a marvelous but exhausting human discipline.
I think professors in any discipline are open to say they don't know. The more you know, the more you appreciate the gaps in your knowledge and understanding.
1:44 he takes a power nap to come back and be smart for another 1 minute
humble people,, crucial sign of intelligence
It's great to watch these videos again now that I am going back to school for a degree in physics.
Great example of the Dunning Krüger effect. The more you understand something, the more you realise how little you understand.
I must admit that I do find this channel most informative and very entertaining.
The questions asked do tend to challenge those who are asked.
What I like most is the pure honesty :)
The thing about these topics, especially astronomy is, that you can't always look at it from a mathematical or linear perspective. This explains it logically but not perceptively- sometimes you have to visualize and think about it in a optical way, instead of trying to explain with written formulas- they do work, but only to an extent. I am no physicist yet, but know by experience that visual or cognitive expression is a lot easier to explain or create an understanding than the math of it. And it also leads toward a better solution sometimes.
Some things are impossible to visualize especially with quantum mechanics and some parts of astronomy. So we use mathematical modeling to understand what's really going on. I think math is actually a better tool that visualization.
English Majors. They confuse me
I wish people in positions of power had this humbleness and honesty
I read a quote somewhere, and I wish I could find it again because I've forgotten who said it, to wit: "You never really understand the new theory-- you just get used to it." It was either Feynman or one of the other big names in modern physics.
+theRealPlaidRabbit It was Von Neumann: _Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them._
Howard Wiggins At the end of the day, humans are humans. We build our knowledge at the frontier between our assumptions and our observations. No frontier => no knowledge. No assumptions => no frontier. It doesn't mean that alternative assumptions are equally true (or valid, if you like). Most people receive and accept scientific knowledge and religious knowledge in precisely the same way: they trust the person who tells them. I've never smashed protons into each other, after all, nor could I even begin to follow the proof of Fermat's last theorem. I don't understand computers anymore, but I'm using one right now.
This is reassuring to someone just starting to learn some physics. It seems so radically different from other modes of thinking. I find the parts that I understand mind boggling, but not intuitive. I would not have guessed that even physicists find some parts challenging.
In the very beginning, there was nothing. Which then exploded....
+Benjamin Dover Obviously there was something, or else there'd be nothing to explode!
+FullCircleStories exactly!
+Benjamin Dover expanded*
+FullCircleStories 'obviously' there is nothing obvious about it... even the scientist says there is no way of obtaining the information... but you find it obvious.
+Benjamin Dover *there was a singularity of infinitely small size. Which then expanded....
I love how humble they are.
Most physicists can agree time started at the Big Bang. "Before the Big Bang" makes as much sense as "North of the North Pole". shoestring230
The Dunning-Kruger Effect at play.
What confuses me (degree in computer science, lay interest in physics) the most is what fundamental principles unite complex systems. Chaos theory tells us that it is impossible to predict complex systems with our current mathematical techniques. But, these systems often behave in ways that they can be predicted statistically. These systems also often have emergent behaviors. If we could understand how to engineer systems with nonlinear dynamics such that they exhibit specific emergent properties at scale, the impact of that would be revolutionary in a way we've never seen before. It would be far more significant than the discovery of classical mechanics or quantum mechanics (as it would almost certainly unify those and show how classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics in large systems). It would enable us to do things that sound like magic today, like dropping a box of parts on the ground and have it self-assemble into a machine.
Does swarm intelligence cover some of that?
Yes, you can lean on statistics if you're trying to make rough estimates regarding something like the air in a room... but if you want to design and build a system to create a specific emergent effect, such analysis won't help. If you want billions of components to self-assemble into a macro-scale system with a particular behavior, theory doesn't get you very far. You are right about the basics of chaos theory, but those basics imply the other things I spoke of. And sure we work on nonlinear systems, but we're limited to statistical and phenomenological study rather than principled theory. The 3-body problem with gravity still has no mathematical proof for an exact answer, even though we can make fairly strong statistical statements. The problem with that is that chaos theory shows us that even teeny-tiny differences can alter the behavior of the entire system. And the tiny details we smooth over with statistics are the very ones which control of would enable us to build very simple systems with intended large-scale interactions.
The trouble with these episodes of sixty symbols is that they're so fascinating and addictive its hard to peel yourself away.
And the questions asked are from a laymans point of view which make it all the better. Probably not from the Professor's point of view though.
One thing one must keep in mind is that models are to explain, but aren't nesessarely what's real.
mdiem Exactly, this is what Stephen Hawking calls Model Dependent Realism. The question isn't, is reality composed of little vibrating strings, (for example), but rather what does that model add to what we can understand, or can we predict anything useful and verifiable?
I think this is one of my favorite Sixty Symbols videos. It provides such optimism : )
Mathematics can only describe, it cannot explain.
Edit: Sry guys, I said 'in', when I meant 'it'. The point is maths can describe relationships really well - as far as it goes Eg Newton's gravity predicting another planet when Uranus' orbit was odd but, failed to address Mercury's variance. Maths is thus playing catchup and did so when Einstein showed Mercury's orbit predictable re Relativity... This may also be the case re entanglement re so called Dark Matter and potential for Wimp like particles the size of an astronomical unit or so which betray a wavelike nature with gravity potentials...
9 years later this is in our recommended
this is the RUclips algorithm for you guys
Paranjay Dahiya searched for this comment
I love the honesty! :)
Sixty Symbols videos are the most-informative videos on the Web.
Pausing the video and posting before watching any of it: Gravity. Gravity confuses the HELL out of physicists.
This is so comforting. Sometimes I look at the high level sciences and think to myself "I'll never be able to understand all of this."
You just have to remember, no human can know ALL of it. You have to pick a field you like and figure that one out as best you can.
I find it depressing
"Classical things like quantum mechanics" what???
It's comforting to know that they struggle.
1:05 Is that a Miles Davis poster?
looks kind of blue ;P
Such a fine example of the dunning kruger effect
Could you do a video on what confuses mathematicians?
imran saleh Some of the easiest most confusing questions that bother every mathematician - What's the largest prime number. What is X divided by 0. What is infinite + 1
Square Root I don't think any of these questions confuse mathematicians. I'd be very surprised if they do:
There are infinitely many prime numbers, and hence no largest one.
Usually, infinity plus one is defined to be infinity (as is the case with cardinal arithmetic and the augmented real numbers) .
In most number systems, 0 doesn't have a multiplicative inverse and so dividing by it is not defined.
imran saleh Ah, you just gave the text book answers of all three questions. None of those questions has a definite answer, yet. And that's why they are confusing. "Undefined" is not an answer acceptable by mathematics, hence no mathematician can accept it as an answer. And that is what creates the curiosity, which in turns creates confusion. If you are not confused by them, you simply are not curious enough.
The core in all three question is the most confusing question of all - "What is infinity".
Prime number one is the most confusing one, because although Eucild has proven that there are infinitely many primes, it raises another question - Is infinite a prime number? Any number less than infinite should be quantifiable.
+imran saleh I think that would be a much longer video haha.
+Square Root those are more philosophical than matbematical
I so appreciate this team just being honest and real. We are all just trying to grapple with a lot of things that really are more than we understand, if we are honest. blessings
Who was the physicist with the Miles Davis pic behind him? When I play my bass all I think about are the wave functions emanating from it causing a note to collapse into The Birth of the Cool - otherwise known as the Universe...hopefully that is how he thinks the Universe emerged from the BB and now is Cooool!
I don't know if anyone replied to this for you or not. He is Professor Emeritus Roger Bowley and is one of the best in explaining things in terms most folk can understand. A True Class Act if there ever was one.
I am always amazed at the true strength of the Proffessors shelves in their offices.
2:19 He was proved wrong, but in less than 10 years.
Also why is youtube recommending it to me now
Still not useful
I love that the professor at 1:01 is so honest about his understanding of general relativity because I have tried to wrap my head around general relativity too and it is not easy. The professor at 0:24 said it best. I my opinion, you have to accept that quantum physics does not make sense if you want to learn about it.
Classic things like quantum physics.
Very honest and refreshing to hear.
What confuses a physicist? Physic itself.
This is truth
I once heard a parody of Gordon Freeman comparing String Theorists to cultists
I'm inclined to agree
and I thought they would all say social interactions
We need a "Ministry of Scientific Propaganda" as a branch of our government. An uneducated populace creates confusion and skepticism. Flat earthers are a result of this.
There is a difference between deducing something and it being intuitive.
As I remember it, Dirac only arrived at a mathematical description for QM method by spotting similarities to equations he had met in other fields.
And I thought I was dumb because I didn't understand every scientific video on the Sixty Symbols channel
This video needs to be updated, please. Will love to know today's opinion after LHC, LIGO and a more development in Q. Computers.
At least now I know scientist aren't superman, so now I shall not be discourage when I don't understand something in class
Its so cute how passionate they are with their research
Cats .
They confuse the #@%# out of everyone .
Paradox, if you know nothing you can't be confused. The more you know the more you can identify what is the source of confusion, so it's a matter of deciding how much you need to know to do what is required.
Thus explaining why christian fundamentalists seem so certain.
"classic things like quantum physics"???? wrong statement
getting confused id not really a bad thing.it is just a sign that you already know so much stuff to handle anymore.it means u are ready for being englightened(probably wrote wrong spellings)
I can't think of why someone would be offended by this and dislike it. Other than a religious nut.
TheTyphoon365
I'm a catholic, and I don't find this video offensive. Probably someone of low intelligence, or some arrogant pricks who think they know everything.
Because you're not a religious nut, Strawman
Maybe they think it was poorly produced.
Glad to see that I'm not the only one confused by general relativity. I could never wrap my head around the fact that the speed of light is absolute, but the passage of time is not.
Just having a quick look through the comment section it would seem we're in a never-ending loop of debating the same things using the same words every day for ever and ever and every words for the using things debating same..... Seriously guys, there's the classic 'religion' vs 'non-religion', 'god', 'bible' and even 'what does mean' thrown in for good measure! Don't go there! There be dragons!
Slay the dragon - unless you live on Pern; then you can ride one.
Jamie Carroll If you cant handle it, then you shouldn't be on the internet.
Jamie Carroll Don't feed the trolls!
At least we aren't getting out heads chopped off anymore for saying the earth isn't flat. We've come a long way. Maybe our kids or our kids kids won't have to put up with this nonsense anymore.
Watching this video has really made me appreciate the ingenuity of Schrodinger, Einstein, Planck, Dirac and all the other great minds of that great period. It begs the question: what makes someone more intelligent than another? Genetics, Early education and upbringing, pleasure, or an entrenched, perhaps verging on an obsessive, desire to know; that is, character and/or the will of the individual?
"classic things like quantum mechanics"
XD
Great video. Lesson to us all.
I would love to see some (If not all) of these guest star on "The Big Bang Theory" show! I think they have such awesome personalities and knowledge that they could/would be a huge contribution to the show!
Physics can be explained by one simple equation. The gravitational constant multiplied by the electric constant times the magnetic constant. G(F/m)(H/m) = 7.426157905 x 10^-28 m/Kg. It is what the quantization means or implies that confuses the physicists. Sometimes the final outcomes or measurements of time quadrants or other physical manifestations are not expected and often confusing. The events create a paradox or paradigm.
the darkness of the human mind confuses me. Maybe there is real dark-matter there!
with a bunch of tangled strings.
pett pette get ready for this: potentially most of the matter in the universe is dark matter, or anti matter
The British Empire Will rise again I dont really think its anti matter, I mean its a potential candidate but it doesnt make sense to me. Dark matter and dark energy are transparent meaning theres a type of particle that is moving at the speed of light or maybe even faster which is impossible technically(The only known candidate for this could be neutrinos or anti neutrinos). In my opinion dark matter and dark energy are somehow connected with the higher dimension theories and the superstring theory and M theory. Because dark matter doesnt neccessarily have to be matter, like m theory says, gravity is seeping or being absorbed by higher dimensions, thats why the EM force is way stronger. Either that or it is anti matter or it can be literally another type or sets of laws of physics and particles and structure when it comes to dark matter and dark energy.
infinite regression (usually of beginning of time or size). You can keep peeling a layer back, asking what causes this? But what caused that cause etc. etc.
Interviewer: so besides that nothing confuses you?
Physicist: no, absolutely not.
Interviewer: so tell me, what happened to "Old Zealand"?
Physicist: _confused demonic screeching_
3:27 Give this fearless bloke a round of applause ladies and gentlemen....
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🙌
I find almost everything about physics confusing and frustrating, lol. I am far from a physicist I just love science.
What makes physics difficult is because a new foundation in thinking has to be made; a new foundation for each topic in physics. Physics requires visual thinking and lots of philosophical mind experiments. It is understandable that physics is difficult because NOTHING in physics is common sense. It took me half a semester of self study to develop a feel for kinematics and dynamics. However, now that we got into the topic of thermodynamics, I have to develop a new foundation because I can't picture solid object in my head anymore. I have to start from scratch. Its easy to learn topics but no one will understand them right away. It takes lots and lots of thinking. Recently, I figured out where to begin when trying to understand heat (and other topics) and that is starting out with diffusion. Why do they spread? If they are the same temperature, how will it look? These are the kinds of questions that could lead to success in physics.
i also used to struggle with physics alot, then i learned calculus...
Its fascinating how humble they are to admit that they simply don't know.
I watch rick and morty, enough said...
This is amazing and comforting, in case anyone feel dumb, by just watching this you know not only you struggle through process of understanding but even top scientist do! which make you rethink what it means by entering the world of physic. Everyone is learning so don't get mad if you can't solve something, cheer up :D there always room for improvement ja?
Women.
"classic things like quantum physics"
Well that's a confusing thing right there.
And this is exactly why I said there was no hope in holding an intelligent conversation with you. Thank you for proving my point.
I would like to see Sheldon Cooper's answer. lol
Smart, knowledgeable and humble
At least I got a superficial understanding of women when I tried to cope with quantummechanics.... Essentially they both are the same.
I've finally figured them out. Unfortunately, now I'm old.
Nah, on quantum mechanics, I can at least do the math and get useful results. People are _hard_.
I would LOVE to have a beer with any of these people. My brain would melt and it would be totally worth it. :D
Feminism?
I've seen quite literally dozens of video about it, but I can't understand why there is no edge to the universe!!
The hardest subject in science is Womanology, If you can completely understand a womans mind. Then there's no limit to what you can understand.
Wow, that really original
Man-ology too. However, I don't think I'd ever be able to understand that field of science. Men are confusing, and so are women.
Is psychology a fundamentally doomed science? Tune in next century
Seeker296 Technically psychology not quite "science" as their biggest controversy was 50% of their research were a fraud. Unlike psychiatary and neuroscience.
Your best video yet. And I really enjoy all you other vides too!
These topics are easy. General relativity, string theory, quantum mechanics, the list goes on. I covered them all in my younger years.
PikachuTatoo 1 or 2 university classes = an introduction. Complete understanding of the hows and whys is beyond everyone.
Nick Steele Where did you get the idea that games are 6 dimensional?
And this is why you fall into the category of people who don't truly understand any of them.
Dunning Kruger in action ladies and gentlemen
Adam Taylor. True, but let's also remember to apply the Principle of Charity. It is true that superficially, all those topics are easy. I doubt if many topics exist that are easy in depth.
In essence it is the same thing, the Higgs field has an energy carrying particle (i.e Boson) which interacts with a particle which is going at the speed of light and then deflects it, and since the particle has a certain amount of energy part of it goes from momentum into 'mass' which is really just a state of temporary rest (that is why photons are restless), and so you are 'slowing' a particle. But yes (like I said in an earlier comment) if photons had mass they could not travel at C.
From Merriam-Webster: "a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions", And you sir defined irony as : " irony is use of words to express something other than literal meaning" but that definition is not the same as I accused you of, I said that you accused me of doing something that you, yourself is doing. And THAT is IRONIC.
And these are the experts.
That's like asking a drummer what do you find challenging about music?
And they reply, "I've always had a hard time with rhythm."
That is a false equivalency. They will be experts of their subfield of physics, no one is an expert on every part of physics it's too big a subject.
yeah there are a lot of confusion especially in quantum mechanics. I often find it difficult to find answer to many of the questions by me
Special relativity and the general specifically .... I face a lot of "vague" things or ideas in it . It's very simple as it seems however it's brilliance fascinates me.