You've ever seen? How is it that you have seen quantum particles when no one has ever seen inside an atom? What the hell are we talking about here? Giving thing's names that for all that we know don't even exist!

That’s because at a fundamental level it’s simple laws that give rise to complex behavior

@@PeterMilanovski The reason scientists can say that quantum particles really exist is because we observe things in nature to confirm it. The iron in your blood was created in a supernova explosion billions of years ago. You need the models of QM to see why that's true, and there is plenty of observable evidence to back it up. Someone in the future may come up with a more precise model, but that won't negate what we know today.

@@smithrs it is claimed that the iron in our blood came from a supernova explosion, but can we say for certain that this is where the iron came from? As far as I'm aware, it's a hypothesis that was developed by someone somewhere sometime who didn't bother looking for alternatives to explain the existence of iron! For all we know, that iron in your blood could have come from the fusion process that takes place every single day naturally around the planet! Laymen call it lightning and don't bother to understand why it happens and what happens when it does happen.... We know from confirmed fusion experiments that even with a single type of gas molecule that is being excited by high voltage, we find various elements that have been fused to the anode that were not present before the experiment... You might have heard of the sapphire project and there are plenty videos here on KZfaq. I would suggest having a good look at what these people have done and pay close attention to what they have found.... Always remember to keep an open mind, question everything even if it appears to go against the current understanding of science because this is exactly how the current understanding of science began life in the first place...

I don't know scientist had seen the atoms or not...but the theories seem to be nonsense

Why i don’t understand both currently how do i get to this level

@@finesse9892 Start with Physics: the Physics of High School Chemistry (electron orbitals, etc.) is more complicated than High School Physics. Read through "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" to get a good overview of the subject from an undergraduate level. They are still very worthwhile even after all these years. www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

Douglas Strother where did you learn logical understanding of math from that seems to be a struggle point for me

@@douglasstrother6584 electron orbitals don't exist! If you can provide imperical evidence that they do, then you would be the only person in the world that knows for sure... So unless you have something to show, you are wasting your time posting here! It's also possible that what you have been taught is a lie...

@@finesse9892 Good ol' High School Euclidian Geometry turned-in mt Math Light bulb. The constructions and proofs created my "AHA!" moment.

There's no need to watch these or any videos regarding this.. The time to take interest into this field is when an actual device is developed that can see inside an atom, to which no one has ever done so yet... This is just junk science at the moment...

@@PeterMilanovski you do know what ur talking about, don't you m8?

@@PeterMilanovski atleast there is attempt to understand here. Thats the important thing we need to understand while learning. Dr. David Goldstein wants us to think. It is good if theories are proved wrong. But it seems this is the beat explanation about matter at this moment. So please donot confuse other learners with your baseless criticism!

@@PeterMilanovski you have chosen the most easiest path i.e to reject it. Please read the papers by Max Plank, Einstein, Neils Bohr, De Brogle, Heisenberg and Schrodigner first and later you can say it is junk!

Douglas Strother it’s They order of majors in college

According to the video, it appears he starts talking around 1:30, so if it's out of synch, it's by 15 seconds.

And the "Annenberg Media" logo animation lasts about 15 seconds at the very beginning, but the audio with the normal music and sound effects starts during that, so maybe that's the problem. If anyone else has any ideas...?

UPDATE: On my iPhone, this same video in the KZfaq app has no Annenberg intro animation and everything appears in synch as it should be.

I'm on a PC and the audio is out of sync. It annoys the hell out of me. Wish it could be fixed because these videos are quite good.

Fermions (half-integer spin) are governed by Fermi-Dirac Statistics: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics They condense so that only a small fraction of them have available states into which they can be excited. Electrons in a metal is a typical example.

Bosons (integer spin) are governed by Bose-Einstein Statistics: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics They condense into a single quantum entity. Superfluid helium is a traditional example.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

l je o

@Graafschap 139 Hundreds of thousands of peoples died at the hand of the inquisition, and even though you might claim it was nothing but the medieval trend, let me remind you that well into the 19th Century the Inquisition was still executing people for their beliefs! Let's not brush that aside lightly

@Graafschap 139 I really don't know why you're trying to put here the casualties of the WWs 1 and 2 to the mix... I'm not claiming (nor anybody is) that all deaths, or even the majority of the deaths of history, were caused by the church, I'm just saying that the church had its fair share of ideological killings through the ages, and that should be neither denied nor ignored...

@Graafschap 139 Also I'm curious why you say that my first statement is "very false", care to explain why? I might add that I was born and raised in a country where inquisition was huge and consequently its a very studied and discussed subject, so I'm quite interested to know about your sources

It's a visualisation because no one has ever seen one! Don't you think that you would have been shown a real video or at least a picture of an atom and what's inside it?

@@PeterMilanovski , did you even watch and listen to the video?

@@JivanPal I did watch and listen... But I was waiting to hear and see the real thing, not a computer generated graphic! The fact that no one has shown a real image just proves that what we are all being told is nothing more than an idea that someone had for which they have no proof for which is why they need to generate a computer graphic.... And people like you and me look at it and take it as fact... But no one knows for sure! We take it as fact because we want it to be real.. we all want the next big discovery.. we love to imagine what it is going to bring but so far, quantum science has brought nothing! I have heard that this or that is because of quantum mechanics.... If they really knew that! That would mean that they really understood it and using quantum mechanics to develop the next big discovery in technology should be easy but they don't understand it.. Don't just watch videos like this and believe just because someone tells you to... Be a little more subjective and question it, what are you really being shown and told, did they show you a real image or video? Or was it all just empty words and computer generated graphics?

@@PeterMilanovski , if you listened, then you would've heard very early on in the video that it is _impossible_ to literally see things which are so small, and why. If you want to know more, I suggest you look into how an electron microscope works, and why no better technology exists, at least not currently. I have studied this stuff at quite a high level, I do not merely take things as gospel.

Yup. That made me question the validity of his meaning for the word FACT.

I thought Goodstein made his argument clear. We promote certain ideas to the status of facts when they prove themselves to be true over time. Ben Franklin was the first person to stay lightning was caused by electrical charge. The fact that lightning rods did in fact work was convincing evidence. Even though our modern understanding of electrical charge is rooted in QM, we still give Ben Franklin credit for discovering something true about the Universe.

oh man. shame you didnt have any evidence you could do so before jumping

@@benschmitt7035 There was some theoretical evidence :D

Electrons can't share if they don't exist!

What's your point? All science eventually breaks down into philosophy? He states "they are among the best established facts in human knowledge" at the time this was recorded. So there's two possibilities here. You're saying Dr. Goodstein didn't know what he was talking about and was just wrong or new information has come to show those theories were wrong. I think you're missing the point. F=MA was among the best established facts in human knowledge at the time of Newton and has been proven over and over as fact because it STILL works to this day. That there's a deeper or different understanding with relativity doesn't make F=MA wrong. It means it works within certain limitations or conditions. That some even deeper understanding may come along doesn't make Relativity wrong either. It's been tested, it is an "engineering fact used in the design of machines" as he put it. Maybe I misunderstand your point but your point almost makes it sound like it's impossible to really know anything about anything and facts don't exist because eventually something comes along to negate it. I don't accept that. Even if your philosophy is that there are no absolutes in this universe, there are still facts within certain frames or reference, within points of view. Of course , if there are no facts, then what you just said about relativity or evolution should be taken as.... an opinion.

@@hifiandrew My Relativity comment was just to establish that it cannot be proved right, as per the quote. But my evolution comment was to demonstrate that a theory CAN be proved wrong, as per the quote. Though evolution, as a theory, is easily broadly interpreted and so can never be finally disproved, but the individual experiments done have disproved all theories of specific functions of evolution. For example, the theory that epigenetics can lead to evolution was proved false when they found that the traits were not inheritable and tended to revert. This disproves his claim that a theory can never be disroved. But he may have only been speaking of umbrella theories, as Relativity and evolution are, and not more specific satellite theories, like epigenetic evolution (proved false) or the law of rotating bodies (proved true). My point is that his statement can be proved untrue unless he is speaking only of a particular type of theory (umbrella).

You have no idea what you are talking about. If a single cell divides with a single mutation, that newly divided cell with that single mutation IS a new creature. Mutations always revert? This is completely bogus. Most of your post is so vague that it's meaningless. What checks and balances are you talking about? Forced mutations by recombination get rejected? How do you explain GMOs? Working with organisms that have been modified in laboratories is common. "They still cannot produce a new creature no matter how many cells they force to mutate." You have NO idea what you're talking about. Early methods for genetically modifying organisms go back to the early 1970s. It seems to me that you don't know the details of what you're talking about, which is probably why you are being so vague. My guess is that you don't want evolution to be true because you believe is some kind of supernatural explanation.

An atom is a thousand times smaller than the wavelength of light so you are being shown graphic representations of atoms.

@@dreamdiction You are mistaken. Besides light, we have other means of photographing atoms. The atom was first photographed in the late 90's. (Not graphically depicted.) It was first digitally tracked in 2012, they can watch copper atoms move on its surface. The other month they finally took a photo of the floating atoms in the structure of titanium and how perfectly aligned the atoms are. (Even their orbitals are hinted at.) We cannot see into atoms, but we can definitely photograph them. We can even follow the path of light. We are beginning to control quarks, so soon we may actually be able to see into nucleons.

@@Dismythed Wow - you really swallowed the science fiction grant funding applications. I was waiting for you to say they had photographed photons haha.

@@dreamdiction I see we have a conspiracy nut. I didn't say we photographed photons. I said we can follow the path of light.

@@Dismythed You obviously know nothing about science if you think falsifying results for continued grant funding is a "conspiracy theory". 73% of scientific papers cannot be replicated because the results were fictitious. This is known as the "replication crisis" and it has been the leading methodological problem in science for over a decade. "The 'reproducibility crisis' in science has become big news lately, with more and more seemingly trustworthy findings proving difficult or impossible to reproduce. Indeed, a recent Nature survey found that two-thirds of respondents think current levels of reproducibility constitute a “major problem” for science." Nature Magazine: 25 May 2016 Physics World: 06 Jun 2016 Following the path of light is not difficult, I do that every time I drive at night. If you think light particles called photons exist, tell me what shape they are? and what is their diameter? Don't tell me that photons are wave-shaped because that is the same as saying photons don't exist.

Nonsense

How scientific. "ooga booga"

don't forget to stone you neighbor to death if you see him working on the sabbath...whatever the fuck that is ... I dont have the words to "frame" how idiotic your comment is

We understand the cullender worlds were framed by the word of his noodly appendages. Fsm. 11 : 22

supernatural nonsense has no place in science

Sean Powell You misspelled ridiculous Mr. Smarty Pants.

+Sean Powell Even so-called "facts" may not be so. Don't be a shithead whose thinking is swayed by the limits of our human language to convey meaning.

My fact is: youtube commenters without a professor title have a knack for showing even deeper stupidity.

Mostly, the Inertia Plane. Plato's Aether Field Theory! There are 1836 positrons in a proton. Quarks? Neutron = Proton + e- + Neutrino (Ve) >(Vm and Vt).

I've wondered this 3rd Quark, also. Up, Up, Down = Space. Down, Down, Up = CounterSpace. Space and CounterSpace are opposites. Is it one Quark changing or is it the entire set flipping? Just thought of this, thanks.

It doesn't make sense to you. EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN

@@phencyclidine5456 Please see the paper I wrote how all can be explained by photons create electron positron pairs. I've posted it twice but it's been remove. See my KZfaq Channel.

That you think evolution as currently defined (by whom? you?) is tested true or false by basic math, and that's something you understand but you think a leading physicist in 1985 wouldn't understand, has eliminated any interest I had in listening to anything else you have to say.

Anyone who has a grasp of basic math knows? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? It's really easy to just say things like that but without explaining it means nothing. Are you trying to allude to the second law of thermodynamics? You can't just say something vague like 'basic math proves evolution wrong' and expect anyone with more than half a brain to be convinced of it. It boggles my mind how idiotic the arguments against evolution get. There's basically no detail in them, just a vague assertion about it being 'obvious.' You need to do better than that, but my guess is you can't because you don't have a clue about the details.

Fair enough. I am speaking about the improbability problem. The evolution of even a single, small protein, under better than ideal circumstances, is so mind-bogglingly improbable that it is well beyond the improbability threshhold. No adequate solution has ever been proposed. "Deep time" isn't anywhere near deep enough. To better illustrate the point, let me point you to two videos. They're purely informational, and all I am asking you to do is watch. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gLdjm7idupbagmg.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jZePfqiHxqndkXU.html There's your detail. And I am confident that when you are done, you will understand why I used the word "Obvious". Or you could remain ignorant. No skin off my nose.

It is observed and verified repeatedly. That biological evolution happens _is_ a fact. The theory of evolution explains that fact. If you somehow (likely through religious brainwashing) don't believe that evolution is a fact, then you are simply wrong.

Well you're invited to REFUTE that theory with FACTS.

Evolution is "The Ebner Effect." Read and weep! Electromagnetic Field, Aether Field.

I guess you'll enlighten us with what? A book of fictional stories some ignorant people wrote thousands of years ago about "god?"

@@phencyclidine5456 You're Amazing. To quote Voddie, “The Bible is a very reliable collection of historical documents, written by eyewitnesses to the events, while other eyewitnesses were still alive. The events which the authors wrote about was divine, rather than human in origin, and were guided by the Spirit of God (Voddie Baucham, Why you can believe the Bible, Sept 11, 2104) First, “The Bible is a very reliable collection of historical documents….” The Bible consists of 66 books, written by 400 separate authors over 1500 years. The collection of documents that we now know as the Bible has been and remains, without a doubt, the most accurate source of historical evidentiary documents in the history of humanity. No other single document comes even close. Every single archaeological dig in the Middle Eastern world has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible. For example, up until 30 years ago, there was some debate as to the historical fact of Pontius Pilate. However, an archaeological dig in Lebanon uncovered proof that Pontius Pilate was indeed the governor of Judea during the time of Christ. The Bible has been carefully written and rewritten several thousand times, and yet there are only about 60 words in the entire Bible that have been questionably translated for more than 2000 years. No other historical document known to humanity has that kind of accuracy. Moving on, the Bible was written by authors who were “eyewitnesses to the events, while other eyewitnesses were still alive.” This is notable for two important reasons. First, as Peter said: For we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16, KJV) The authors of the Bible were not making up a “cunningly devised fable” but were eyewitnesses to the events that they wrote about, or they were interviewing eyewitnesses to the events. Peter reaffirms his eyewitness encounter to the events of Christ, his life and ministry, his crucifixion on the cross, his death and his resurrection. In Corinthians, Paul outlines the number of people that Christ personally appeared to and put the count at over 500. We have many other places throughout the Bible that discuss eyewitness accounts. Luke, for example, interviews many of these eyewitnesses to ensure that there are historical documents (which we know is the books of Luke and Acts) that would give testimony to these eyewitness accounts throughout the ages. Not only are these eyewitness accounts, but the authors wrote these accounts while other eyewitnesses to the same events were still alive. That’s important because it is noteworthy that we can find no historical evidence that other eyewitnesses disputed any of these eyewitness accounts. This can and often does occur in a court of law when the judge and jury are trying to find the truth. But in case of the Biblical eyewitness accounts, again, we have no evidence of any contradiction among the eyewitnesses to these events. Finally, let us take note that the events that these authors wrote about were not merely human events; instead, they chronicled divine events. Clearly, the authors knew what they were writing about were “acts of God”, not merely chronicling some human story, although humans certainly were involved. But first and foremost, the authors of the Bible knew they were chronicling divine events and were guided in what they wrote by the Holy Spirit; the Spirit of God.

Watch it: www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/v/evidence-for-evolution Although I suggest you watch the whole playlist as a starter, then look for other references, texts, articles and other videos to fill in whatever it is you don't understand. You don't seem to be familiar to what the Theory of Evolution means you can fix that if that's what you like.

"Theory", and a mental capacity exceeding that of a chipmunk.

Evolution is basically trial and error in nature. Whatever doesn't die gets to potentially pass on its genes. That's all evolution really is.

@@BobBob-kv4si Exactly. Evolution is a passive editing process, rather than a forward-looking process of design. Scientists often use teleological explanations when talking about evolution, but those explanations really don't illustrate how evolution works.

you don't know what you're talking about

the Bible and Koran are what led to people being burned at the stake in the first place.

@@hifiandrew Forget about being burned at the stake, they will be dumped in hell too, so what?

@@hassandiallo5326 combating made up beliefs and superstitions like your imaginary hell is partly what enlightenment is about via science. That's 'so what'

@@hifiandrew you are so enlightened, a man can have sex with another man, well done

nonsense