SCIENCE On QI! Funny And Interesting Rounds!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июн 2024
- Watch more QI @TheQIElves
SCIENCE On QI! Funny And Interesting Rounds!
Hilarious and fascinating science rounds, with clips featuring Brian Cox!
Comment your favourite round below!
#qi #science #briancox
![BETA SQUAD vs AMP FOOTBALL MATCH [OFFICIAL STREAM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ChEmvP52p0U/mqdefault.jpg)
God I love Prof. Brian Cox. The fact that he had an answer to the ewok question straight away was brilliant. It could have been complete bollocks but sounded convincing enough to me! Total package, smart, funny and he's not hard on the eyes either ;)
Except that he tricked you since he knows that the atmosphere is nitrogen and methane.
"Not bad on the eyes either". Please keep your superficial comments to yourself. Those kinds of comments directed at female guests are pathetic and I judge your usage exactly the same. Be better.
@@TheycallmeMrWonka jealous much? Seriously after thousands of years of men objectifying women, it's been what, 60 years since the Sexual Liberation of the 60s and already you want us to stop mentioning if we find someone attractive. Bahahaha! Sorry mate, maybe once we actually have real equality in the world I'll start worrying about something this trivial.
I’m afraid that on titan ewoks would go into a cryogenic state. Even if they were able to skin a wookie and wear it as a coat. It’s a giant freezer.
@@Peacefrogg Ewoks are smart and would only emerge from hibernation in Summer
AND, unlike TheycallmeMrWonker (I suspect a typo in the original), they're not so snide
Brian Cox slapping all archaeologists is some hardcore energy
Also, fundamentally incorrect and missing the practice by a wide margin
Two of Britains best, Stephen Fry and Brian Cox. These are the people who should lead the nation.
Agreed, both better than HI RISK ANUS
Yes yes yes.❤❤❤❤❤
at least better than the lesbian statue they have now.
@@a.akacic I have no idea what you are on about.
@@michaelmay5453 I believe she is referring to Sandy. I think Sandy is an excellent emcee, host, leader of the pack. She has a quick wit and I think she is very funny.
The Holy Foreskin….sounds like a Monty Python skit.
"That's no way to treat the elderly" was an amazing line
When someone does something nice for me at work , holding a door open or whatever, I say thank you for being kind to the elderly.
I love that , I will use it my self.❤❤❤❤
“I’m sorry. I don’t know why I laughed “😂😂 that was brutal
We need Brian Cox back on the show. And Ross Noble!
I'd watch a show of them with Brian just blowing Ross's mind and Ross talking about what pop culture character he'd like to toss.
@@Pagliacci_Rex"that's no way to treat the elderly."
Not sure Ross is essential beyong the tap room of your local
@@LoscoeLad I mean... a decent Tap room is where all the best surrealist comedy happens...
Sandi does not have the scienceboner for Brian as Stephen did.
Yes Brian Cox is really very special. I love him.❤❤❤❤❤❤😊
You have to love Brian Cox 😊 He's brilliant and cool at the same time 😅
and he was the keyboard player in D-ream
And the way he said "and so you'd need to be...furry" - just that slight pause, for scientific AND comic effect.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
underrated comment!
Genius!
Time flies - you can't - they go too fast.
Why not an apple? That would be a better echo for an arrow.
"when is the present?"
"just then. you blinked and missed it."
But when will then be now?
“Yeah, good luck with that” 😂😂
As a certified Pastafarian minister, I am a bit disappointed that he didn't get to say how "intelligent falling" is dupposed to work
'THAT'S NOT ROUND!' lol! 😂
brilliant thought provoking and hilarious. such a treasure of a show. its the one show i can share with my 79 year old mum.
That last bit about quantum entanglement, and Alan saying about making a copy of yourself. Funnily enough, that is essentially the basis of how transporters work in Star Trek. They break you down to the molecular level, record that information in the transporter, beam said information to the target location and assembles what is for all intents and purposes a copy, and the original you is gone.
Problem is that is not teleportation. That is deconstructing and reconstructing. The result is not the same person. What Star Trek is doing is more like the Prestige or what the X-men are doing in the newer House of X.
If it is not the same being/item, then it is not teleportation.
@@DarthPoyner Yes, continuity of consciousness is of paramount importance imo.
Actually, the real problem is Star Trek *isn’t real*. Sorry to be the one to break that bit of bad news to you. Deep breaths.
Now, who’s the woman who’s sitting in Stephen Fry’s seat in some of these clips?
I used to pass Michael Winner's house when taking my son to Holland Park. Sometimes you would see Michael eating at the Belvedere in the park. Jimmie Page was his neighbour and though I imagine Michael didn't like the noise, they were decent friends by all accounts. When Michael died, Robbie Williams bought the house and there ensued quite a feud between Jimmie and Robbie.
Excellent programme! Always fun, educational, entertaining & frankly, a bloody good laugh. Due to great guests & superb Hosts.❤😊
Brian Cox started talking and I immediately fell in love
Fax machine fantastic analogy
That bit about intelligent design would get you killed in America.
the only british show that I loved to listen during work days, Stephen Fry - an intellectual giant - as a host was prime time. rarely smiled so much as when listening his and Alan Davis' bantering.
I don't hate Jar Jar Binks, but I love that Stephen dissed him! 🐲
The thing with the table tennis rackets isn't unexplainable, it's university mechanics/physics. It's actually fun to calculate (or was when I was still able to do it).
Object usually have 3 main axis of rotation (in uniform objects that HAVE symmetry, they are usually the same as the axes of symmetry, I'll get back to that). 2 of them are stable, one is unstable. (Some objects have MORE axes, for example a uniform sphere has an infinite number, as does a wheel. One through it's axis, an infinite amount perpendicular to it, "in the plane of the wheel").
It has to do with the 'moment of inertia' of those axes. The one with the largest and smallest moment are stable, the one with the middle/medium one is unstable.
How do you define them? Let's just pretend (simplified) that the moment of inertia of an axis is defined by how far away it's mass is from the axis of rotation. The further away, the larger. Or, thinking about it differently, "how much force do I need to spin the object up along this axis?".
In objects with uniform density these axes are reasonably simple to find. Let's us a phone and assume it's density is uniform throughout (it isn't).
ONE axis is through the middle of the screen. Thats the axis of the largest inertia, the MOST mass is far away from this axis, it's stable and you can spin it that way. On the table tennis racket, that's the one through the red and black sides.
ONE axis is through the charging port. That's the axis with the smallest inertia, it's also stable. On the table tennis racket, that's the one along the handle.
The third one on the phone goes through the 'sides' (e.g. power button on many phones). That's the instable one. You can not rotate your phone along that axis (i.e. 'flip it'). It will always flip on you and you will catch it with the screen to the back. On the table tennis racket, that's the one Sandy (badly) points out at 28:40, using her fingers (".. that you don't think will come into play").
Same works for bricks, etc.
UNLESS (and they missed that) if you throw it such that it flips TWICE, not ONCE in the air. By the time you catch it THEN, the screen will be up again.
On wheels, etc, symmetric objects in a special way (think 'round') the medium and the small axes have the same moment of inertia, i.e. there IS not 'middle' one. That's why you can spin a wheel perpendicular to it's axis just fine.
(Sorry, some smart-assery here, but I just think it's very interesting)
Thanks. I thought it must be some such sort of instability.
What I did find surprising was the fact that a table tennis bat can be 'any size you like'. Obviously a bigger bat makes it easier to hit the ball, but it will also have more mass and inertia, so there must be an optimum size. (I thought there must be a regulation specifying thickness, or mass per unit area, to prevent someone making an extra-large bat from super-lightweight high-tech materials. But apparently not. So evidently there must be an optimum weight and too light a bat must have its disadvantage too - maybe not enough momentum to impart the necessary impulse to the ball.)
I find your description intriguing. As I read, I got smarter. Thanks!
Absolutely Hysterical!
This is so much like a chaotic classroom. How hilarious.
I had this on in the background, but my head whipped up at 'which moon' because i knew Ewoks kicked into lakes of liquid farts was coming.
And was instantly disappointed
ruclips.net/video/5r_TlPwZOvU/видео.htmlsi=vXP7FWCyA2h3nfaH
The rooms were actually "tossed" into the lakes of liquid farts which caused Brian Cox to lose it altogether. That clip should have been included...
What did the Pope's librarian say about the rings of Saturn? He said
They're not as impressive as Uranus:)
The cloud chamber the Americans were selling as safe reminds me of school. During one lesson we all had a small cloud chamber and a radioactive source to play with. I now glow in the dark 😁😁😁😁 Seriously I found it facinating.
Well, we've been doing that for ages. Remember Red Dye no. 3?
It's wonderful listening to two great minds 😅
QI is basically a middle school substitute teacher in a half-empty class of kids who are not really in the mood of following.
And to think that some berat others and seek to put them down by sneering at them saying 'you act as though you're the centre of the universe'.
At school in the early '70s we were given trays onto which were poured pools of mercury and we were encouraged to explore its properties by rolling it around and poking and prodding it with our fingers. I don't think any of us came to any harm, although an ex tried on occasions to tell me I was insane! Cats can teleport. I used to sit and watch my cat walk past me through the living to go out multiple times, but not back in. No windows open, no other door, and both exit doors from the living room were in full view - she had to walk past me to come in or go out. I never did work out she did it.
The date that this episode first aired will go down in entropy!
The Ross Noble/Ewoks clip should’ve run longer. I know everyone watching this has seen it, but I do so enjoy the “chucking Ewoks into a lake of farts” nonsense.
banal crap
@@LoscoeLad You shouldn't have turned around. He told you.
The mayor of Idaho? hahaha
"To make it statistically relevant, you would have to have an awful lot of relationships."
That´s a very elegant way of calling someone, let´s say, promiscuous.
Your present is not my present. I really like presents, but i love the fact that i’m continually time-travelling at 1 sec/sec from my point of view. So as soon as you’ve said the word present, it’s the past. Even though some presents last..
Your present is my present if I decided I liked the look of it, and swiped it!
@@flyawaytodie the best present is one you can share..
"i’m continually time-travelling at 1 sec/sec from my point of view."
It is, if I'm also travelling at 1 sec/sec. We're in the same frame of reference.
The present is the difference between now and now but always referred to in the past tense.
@@squiremc such an elusive gift.
Alan's face 😆 3:13
Time is the ever ongoing destruction of the present.
Or the proving of the past. A more positive atitude, surely?
Many many years ago the Chairman of Belhaven Brewery told me that Belhaven Brewery was at the centre of the known brewing universe and he appeared to know what he was talking about.
A friend in college had a gas station at 5th and pine in Wallace Id. Very close to the center point.
Great content and presentation. 🇦🇺
Leave it to us Americans to make safe and instructive science sets.
So in the last part I am not sure what the chinese experiment was. There is such a thing as quantum teleportation and there is such a thing as entanglement. Entabglement however cannot be used to transport informatiin and at least mathematically we understand it quite well. Esentially particles have states and a two particle or multiparticle system can have a joint state.. We call that state entangled when the probability of a particle being in any given state depends on the the other particles states. In the easiest example we have two particles that each habe two possible states. If particle A has state 1 particle B has to have state 2 and vice versa. So if you measure particle B in state 1 you know particle A has state 2 but there is no information transported because particle B being in state 1 and particle A being in state 2 is absolutely equivalent.
But you can have information in the form of a message be transferred this way.
Let me give an example, we have two quantum entangled particles, one on earth and one on the spaceship travelling proxima centauri, when it arrives at proxima centauri, the state of the particle will change (how to do this /shrugs) and thus the people of earth will know that the spaceship arrived, instead of waiting four years for a message.
This is how we can beat the speed of light transmission but the meta-data (meaning of the state change) will be outside of the entangled particles.
I have the answer to the question 'What can be found at the center of the Universe'...
That would be my wife...
Prepare the basement couch, because that's where you'd be sleeping
We dob't have one... if we had I woulds have for the past 20 years...@@bororobo3805
I have a follow up question on the photon. Was the change instant or did it take the time light would travel.
Did anyone else notice that Sandi kept trying to cut in with "Thank you for watch- " in between Stephen's bits? It happened at least twice.. 🙂🙃🙂
This channel has stolen a load of clips from the official QI channel, and isn't very good at editing them together.
2:58 Talk about lord of the rings !
at the exact center of the universe you'll find the likeness of johnny vegas...tbh...i wouldn't be disappointed xD
nah, he'd definietly want to use your starship
Johnny wasn't wrong: we observe the universe from a platform orbiting Sol, so Sol being the center (more or less) of our orbit makes it the center of the observable universe.
Well in all truth .. it wasn't GOD who did intelligent design .. it was his underpaid STAFF
Poor old Johnny getting laughed at, but he is not wrong.
We can "observe" a different part of the universe every night of the year, which depends on our rotation of the sun. So the centre of the observable universe is the centre of gravity (barycenter) between the sun and the earth which is really close to the center of the sun.
29:13 but the question should be are you when you arrive at the other end?
I mean, the Pope's librarian theory isn't all nuts. If you think about it, Christ was really well endowed. Actually, he was hung like this \____O____/
The dustbin at 23:30 - is that the dustbin of history or of science?
Alan Davies is like James May
"SHOW US THE ROUND THING"
If you believe in intelligent design, then you must believe in intelligent design warranties. All designs and warranties have an expiration date. And yours is by Tea Time tomorrow. I got a peak at it up in the old man's shop yesterday during the cricket match. Nice knowing you. Don't make any long term plans. 😂
12:16 Stephen Fry looks exactly like a 1970's Michael Parkinson.
Quantum entanglement as mainstream entertainment, only on Qi.
Holly's comment about a fax machine isn't that bad an analogy. You have the original in one location and a copy in another. How this would work for even a photon is beyond my grasp, and to teleport anything bigger would have to be hundreds of times more difficult, assuming one could do it at all.
Technically No partly because quantum entanglement doesn't work like that.
usually entangled particles have the opposite spin and thus cancel each other to spin 0
The state of the entangled particles are opposite to one another, so changing one will automatically change the other instantly
If we had the power/energy to be able to transmit the "Data" that makes up a human using quantum entanglement, say by having 2 transmission pods filled with entangled particles. We would have to destroy the human or whatever we were sending so as to send anti human data to the entangled pod to reassemble a human?
The question is, would it still be the same human or just a "facsimile, clone, or copy" which then makes us contemplate what actually is a human?
If the quantum states of every atom in your body are somehow preserved, and not only your body but your present consciousness is teleported as well, there would be no "copy", both would be "originals" (if the source doesn't get destroyed in the process)
In the same way that it makes no sense the concept of original or copy if a digital file has the same cryptographic hash.
@@xantiom Alas, in order to measure the quantum state of the original using one member of an entangled pair, you must necessarily destroy that state in the process. The resulting measurement can be used to arrange an interaction with the other member of the pair that reproduces the state of the now-gone original in an arbitrarily distant location. Quantum teleportation can't be used as a duplicating machine.
@@Lamster66 Bell's Inequality lets us know that entangled particles don't work the way the banana example tried to show it. Messing with one of them doesn't "immediately change the other". Their states are correlated in an unintuitive way that's impossible to demonstrate with any classical objects. Measuring either of them will give a random answer, but the answers will match up when you check them against each other. There just isn't a way to use quantum entanglement to send information.
@@alananderson2616
Is it that there isn't because we don't know how or just because it isn't a possibility.
I suspect it's the former over the latter.
Am I the only one freaking out about the banana
It's a misunderstanding that quantum entanglement transfers information, the instant change on the other end is faster then light, but no information is being shared, just a change on both sides.
A way of looking at this is imagine if both sides have a closed shoebox, when 1 side opens it and observes whats inside, the act of observing determnes wether its 1 or 2 shoes, and at the same time the box on other side changes to that same result of 1 or 2 shoes, but they also have to open to box to observe the result on the other side.
My explenation is probably missing some stuff, this stuff is difficult, but in short, since no information is being transfered, no laws of physics ie speed of light, are being broken, it would lead to all kinds of time paradoxes with instantaneos messages over vast amounts of spacetime being able to travel back in time to before the message was send in the first place, the universe will not allow it.
Is there some reason we could not agree ahead of time that some specific action is to be taken when we see the change on the other end? Similar in idea to saying "once I turn on the light and you see it, you then press the button" (whatever that button happens to do), such that you can send a message of "press the button now" long distances at the speed of light. Only this time, it moves faster even than that.
Or is there something inherent to the process that prevents this? Or do we even know the answer to that at all yet?
@@riluna3695you can only see the light being turned on at the speed of light.
You can't use entanglement to send a message faster than the speed of light. Any measurement of an entangled system is random and unpredictable.
To confirm that measurement would require communication between both parties using conventional methods.
Yawn...This is a comedy @@riluna3695
@@riluna3695 because the other side has to open the box to see what changed, its just randomness moving faster then light.
The inherent thing that prevents it is that information cannot travel faster then light.
Your specific example would translate to something like morse code, but you are forgetting the act of observing matters then, the only time we see if its randomly 1 or 2 shoes is when we open the box, and a closed box tells us nothing so theres no way to signal with it.
And again, this would create time paradoxes over vast spacetime, the universe simply does not allow this, any faster then light travel is nothing more then fiction.
Since you are intrested enough to mess around witht the concept you will probably like this:
ruclips.net/video/BLqk7uaENAY/видео.html
That vid explains it much better then me, and that channel is on another level for theoretical space civilisations and other cosmic phenonema, highly reccomended.
have you ever noticed that we have trust stephen. show me the round thing
Einstein didn't 'overturn' Newton's gravitational model, he merely said when you go fast, Newton's model doesn't hold.
Ben Goldacre looks like Milton Jones.
Even foes the eyes thing
Sure lets have an episode on the universe and one of the guests happens to be an astrophysicist....
Regarding the very first part with Brian Cox: Time doesn't exist. It doesn't affect us, we don't affect it. It is merely a measurement from one point to another on a path we can't visualize without it. Time is not a physical thing, it is an abstract idea, just like numbers in general. Numbers don't exist. They are merely what we use to measure. We watch too much media regarding time travel, because people are really believing we might be able to do such a thing someday. Even just the simple fact that they think time slows down the faster you move. It doesn't. Time doesn't do anything. The object is still aging like we are, we just don't understand how to measure the time difference with the added stress of the speed. The speed is affecting the instruments.
Are neutrons stars ever that round though? Unless the thing collapsed with zero angular momentum, it would still have some centrifugal forces forcing out of round. My answer is the new kilogram standard silicon sphere.
Actually Stephen Fry is probably wrong . Neutron stars spin so fast that they are not spheres at all they are oblate spheroids.
Also I like the Buddhist definition of the present. any action whose karmic effects are still present is still in the present.
Vortex cannon = Square air out of a round hole
Ross Nobles mind is more complex than the Universe. Toss away Ross :) Also 22:15 also 23:03 also 23:43
Which episode is this from? I'd like to purchase a copy as well as the appropriate book of QI that covers the foreskin topic. As an atheist, I really want to add it to my collection. Thanks.
27:20 Veritasium did an episode on this.
Sea anemonies are venomous not poisonous. They belong to the phylum cnidaria which to you and me means jellyfish.
Silicon Spheres may come close in roundness.
that's not teleportation, that's entanglement. we could send information, but not teleport.
Sending information is impossible, this is one of the biggest misunderstandings of this phenomena.
@@xantiom by information i mean the spin state of the particle. my apologies for not being more specific. i didn't mean sending a video file. if you had say 100 particles in a row and had their spin states logged, you could almost create a morse code.
@@phenel I meant exactly that. I have a quantum spin, you got a quantum spin. I read my spin, and I know you have the opposite one.
You on the other hand have no knowledge of anything, only I know yours by inference based on what I see on my side.
You can't verify anything because it has been read.
There is no information exchange in pure entanglement.
Teleportation on the other hand can be used for secure communication, but it is not FTL.
@@phenel that's wrong
@@phenel you can't send any type of information solely based on entanglement.
Question, if anyone knows, why is the Scanian flag to the left (our left) of Sandy? I know she is danish, and that the dabed used to own the location Scania, but anyone know the reason they have the flag there? I assume thats it and that the colors arent twisted, yellow/red flag
You all ever get so PO'd at an ad before a video that you forget it's an ad and you've already started writing out a snarky retort before realizing. Crap. It's an Ad. No one watching this QI video is even going to know what the heck I'm ranting about?
Ha! Yes! I was just thinking that about an ad preceding the clip which touted 30 beef-sticks for a dollar. First thought: "Eww... is it really beef?" Second thought: "I'm gonna rant about this!" Third thought: "Pointless. Grrr."
Phil Jupitus is a gift
Did he pay you to say that?
30:50 ER=EPR
Size DOES matter!
27:05 Call bullshit as you could easily throw it in a variety of different ways and with varying degrees of power that would easily flip to red.
You need to flip it in such a way that the handle comes back to your hand so you can catch it.
Indeed, you need to flip it such that it 'rotates twice'. But with ONE rotation, no, it won't work.
Cox - it’s a wig !
What’s a wig
Turn your headphones up
Of course nuclear testing is one aspect, but fossil fuel burning would also skew the numbers. The carbon in the atmosphere is now "pre-aged".
Religious fanatics are not only Americans. My son was taught Creationalism as being a fact (not a theory) at a Lutheran primary school in Australia in the mid 1990's. I lodged a complaint with the school Board, with nil result.
Table tennis bats not rackets.
Johnny Vegas was right.
So What's a conspiracy theory?
God can't be that intelligent if he created us cos with us lot he most certainly fcuked up somewhere along the line.
23:35 They actually do have the foggiest idea.
31:00 Is a form of duplication but the copy feels what you feel.
Brian Cox was on an episode with Sean Lock. As much as I found Sean funny, he showed a side of himself I absolutely hated. He was openly antagonistic towards Brian's responses. He went into complete underachiever mode and ridiculed whatever Brian said in what looked to me like complete anti-education anti-science outbursts. I almost didn't watch this video because I thought Sean might be in this. I never saw Brian Cox on QI after that; I think Lock probably put him off of going on.
Get a life
Can you ID the episode? Someone has been updating the "List of QI Episodes" Wikipedia article and there is no episode with Lock and Cox.
It started in 2003 and ran alphabetically from A B C ectera. So not too difficult to work out.
@@insidiousbeatz48Such a moot reply. What do the letters have to do with the guests? Go ahead and work it out yourself, Brian Cox shows up in two episodes, Lock in several others, but there's no episode listed with both of them.
And you must obviously realize my first comment wasn't directed to you.
The excerpt below is from A.C. Gilbert’s autobiography: “The Man Who Lives In Paradise” Rinehard & Company 1954.
“The most spectacular of our new educational toys was the Gilbert Atomic Energy Laboratory. This was a top job, the result of much experimentation and hard work. We were unofficially encouraged by the government, who thought that our set would aid in public understanding of atomic energy and stress its constructive side. We had the great help of some of the country’s best nuclear physicists and worked closely with M.I.T. in it’s development.
There was nothing phony about our Atomic Energy laboratory. It was genuine, and it was also safe. We used radioactive materials in the set, but none that might conceivably prove dangerous. There was a Geiger-Mueller Counter. It was accurate; a carefully designed and manufactured instrument that could actually be used in prospecting for radioactive materials. The Atomic Energy lab also contained a cloud chamber in which the paths of alpha particles traveling at 12,000 miles a second could be seen; a spinthariscope showing the results of radioactive disintegration on a fluorescent screen; an electroscope that measured the radioactivity of different substances.
CAN ANYONE REMEMBER FREEDOM?
that would have been an awesome kit, but wasted on most kids.
The OED definition of theory is contrary to my understanding. It need not be generally held. Science has been driven by single people or groups having theories ahead of popular understanding.
A theory within science is different to a theory you have in every day life.
A scientific theory is a collection of facts backed by evidence and includes laws.
Science is driven by trying to prove things wrong.
Eliminate and get closer to fact.
josephine brand : ooooohhhh Michael Winner ooooohhhhhh oooooo hhhhh my husbad She's such a one trick pony.
who's the pretty black haired lady?
whoa!!!!!! there's 2 of them
Correction: The earth isn't smoother than a billiard ball.
Actually, if you shrank earth to the size of a cue ball it would feel just as smooth.
@@swapshots4427 to our fingers, absolutely.
@@monty3854
If Earth were scaled to the same size as a billiard ball, which one would be smoother?
@@JaniceLHz A billiard ball is around 3 times smoother at the same scale.
@monty3854
(Next time, I will remember to ask for evidence or sources.)
From an internet search, including a 2013 article by Dr Dave found at billiardsDOTcolostateDOTedu, you may be right.
I am again disappointed that QI presented 'facts' that were inaccurate.
I was about to lose it when he said that americans were land grabbers Before he corrected himself and said the english were 2. actually by a far margin, they were the most.