didn't expect to see you here haha. Greetings!

Same

Are you into physics

Yeah, he's an angry borderline personality disorder addled sperglord filled with vitriol and hatred of anyone who isn't a Marxist, so centre-right publications send him into a frenzy. Although he has the same disgust for you, and I, for not being communists mind you. For not dogmatically believing in feminism as our lord and saviour, and for ironically saying there are two genders when at 8:18 he counters his own arguments.

@@bashkillszombies You on the right video mate?

+WeeWeeJumbo British Mail readers are the type of people who don't realize the paper has an international audience. Ukip in print.

WashashoreProd Stateside, I think the New York Post is roughly equivalent but I'm not sure

WeeWeeJumbo A fair assessment.

Somewhere between the Post and the Enquirer, from my understanding.

/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI just saying

Yeah I got that a while ago.

..the problem are all about the moronic questions p. moriarty give to the public !!

He asks the questions I would ask

totally agree , its funny to see the scientust struggle to answer his questions

Very true. On my earlier viewings I did not realize it, but he is a skilled interviewer.

Hear, hear. FWIW: If I've had a little too much to drink it FEELS like I diffract when I go through a door.

Wait, you mean that's not normal?

I’m going to put that statement on a t-shirt.

Because he is not going fast enough

Tiny door*

If I were you I'd turn it into a game of sorts. A sort of off day every once in awhile where students try to present which articles are BS and which are founded in reality. It would be a great way to get the students to improve their BS meter accuracy.

STOP TEACHING THE KIDS WHAT TO THINK.. START TEACHING THEM HOW TO THINK!.. You Sir are a part of the problem =/

Rock Dodger Uh, that's exactly what we do in science education. We teach a method, and part of that method is critical thinking.

Alan Hunter Well instead of a day where the class just sifts through articles, and decides which are credible (many students wouldn't pay attention or participate). There could be a small assignment, where you have to find an article related to physics and discuss its accuracy in a small report. That would certainly develop the student's understanding of how science actually works.

***** You have no idea.. Seriously.. Your are as conditioned as the Teacher that taught you!

That's definitely how I read it when I clicked on the video.

And the question mark in ''Other opinions may exist?' Implying it is a fact, which it is, that Britain would be better off without the bloody daily mail. XD

¡Quantum! Physics woo?

Why its really matters is that it can change the perspective of voters an politicians, we have a lot of problem with that in Sweden where ethen the physics education at the university is controlled by genus "Scientists". The resertch getting dumber for every year.. also, look at the pisa result.

The very mentality that allows people to be seduced by woo like what's discussed in this video is what the true threat is. It's even more than what Moriarty says. You get nutjobs like Deepak Chopra who convince people of random crap like this by appealing to feel-good woo language like "spirituality" and misusing physics terminology (particularly quantum), and then people _do_ actually alter what they think and how they behave down to their entire lifestyle because of it. He's supported by Oprah, for crying out loud, and while this isn't necessarily the case in the UK, Oprah's influence in North America is incredibly vast, and thus incredibly dangerous. Following the line of Oprah, we get to Dr. Oz, and when you have that sort of absurdly heavy influence giving people legitimate medical information coupled together with pseudoscientific drivel, you get extremely dangerous, really fast.

It's also annoying to have someone find out you're a physicist and then have them get excited and try to talk physics with you--only to be presented by weird gibberish and stuff that obviously came from youtube videos about alien conspiracies.... and have the person try to argue with you sometimes.... LOL! That all comes from misinformation that they see/hear online. They're not coming up with this stuff themselves; they just didn't know that what they watched or read was a bunch of nonsense.

awww, it insults them?? Awww poor scientists, i hope i didnt make them cry

And: It gets to a point where they are taking naive people's money in droves. Sometimes not even naive like "I believe in astrology" but more above average intelligence "I have heard about quantum physics" people. And of course is sometimes use to justify astrology or homeopathy too. But I mean charity funded research claiming to "unlock the secrets of the conscious universe through math" or some bollocks

00Billy 'Particle' board physics :)

Charles Dahmital Actually the shelves bend keeps increasing minutely. Fluid dynamics and shelving. There's a paper that needs writing.

this is the funniest thing i've ever read

Hahaahaahhaahh

Looks like the wave is about to collapse at any moment.

well put, sir!

Reality requires math and is hard, feelings only require a wish.

Big oof

You spitting some truth man

@Shimmy Shai Then why do we have anti-vaxxers?

It's a time wasting diversion and polarizes society which is not helping to solve todays problems. If your not part of the solution ...

+Jack Traveller That video would not be allowed to be uploaded...

Maybe he did in another take.

I want to hear what he wants to say about his nemesis, Sherlock Holmes.

For real!

***** That's a fine analogy, but unfortunately his misunderstanding of quantum physics coupled with his gullible audiences creates widespread misconceptions about what our understanding of quantum physics actually is.

xct321 Well, he got so badly destroyed by Sam Harris and Michael Shermer that I almost felt bad for him. It's weird that he still holds on to these ideas even when the physicists claim otherwise time after time.

xct321 his consciousness already did

Ardy F what was it about?

Ardy F tell it anyway :DDD

It's Tao. Or Dao.

Yes, I started to read it years ago with great interest, hoping it would be right, but it just put me to sleep.

Lol!!

With words comes woo. With logic comes computers.

They explain how it works, and not if it works.

And multiverse. And simulation theory. And cats in boxes. And inventing teleporters.

I think 'measured' would be an appropriate phrase.

@@r_____________________ The issue with the word measure is that it implies gathering information without changing the information. Like measuring something with a ruler doesn’t change its length. But for example, you can measure the salinity of water by boiling it and measuring its boiling point, but in doing so you’ve changed the salinity in the water. Measurements of quantum phenomena are more like that than using a ruler. But that nuance is so easily lost.

@@ambrisabelle Yes, that makes sense to me. Are there any other words that can be used do you think?

@@r_____________________ I'm still in undergrad, but so far the word interacts looks to be more apt. It would completely change how we talk about the phenomenon, but I think for the better. When particles travel through free space, or simply an energy potential, their wavefunction stays reliable and predictable. It's upon interaction with other particles that their wavefunction changes seemingly instantaneously and unpredictably. And even then not every interaction results in this strange behaviour so it's hard to really pin down a word.

@@ambrisabelle I'm in undergrad aswell, even if it's for a completely unrelated topic lol! Thanks very much for the explanation 🙂

Why do we have Trump then?

damm...truth nazi allert.

@Siyovaxsh En-sipad-zid-ana Ultimately truth is for us to define, and this definition makes truth not a very useful concept. I definitely think people being more aware of the philosophy of science would be helpful though.

sounds like religious science...

thanks man

And all others that contribute / help with the videos!!!!!

Mattias Sollerman more details please :)

icegirl901 all i can say is, the cat wasn't pleased

Mattias Sollerman Instructions unclear; cat now exists on an infinite two-dimensional plane.

Mattias Sollerman Please, stop using cats in your thought-physics-experiments already. Please!

Mattias Sollerman You forgott the box again, didn't you

This kind of relativism is a plague on all kinds of science and philosophy though, its not JUST physics.

ikr! whaaaaavs

Ahhh Moriarty we meet again....

I don't want to see that because I'd misinterpret due to my lack of knowledge.

@@WorldOfDeepThought don't worry too much. When it comes to understanding a quantum effect/property of a system you don't necessarily need to know the mathematics (most of them are pure mathematical description of how the universe works). It will baffle you the same way it baffles many professionals in the field. The maths makes sense, but why the maths is the way it is at the quantum scale isn't that clear. Many equations and theories have been derived from physical experiments. We observed first... then we postulated.... (not everything though) . Check quantum tunnelling as well.

So? Did you?

oh no

When physicists chose to use the word "quark" they "stole" it from the IRISH author James Joyce.... and Prof. Moriarty should know that.

+Aditya C hmmm Of course, modern physics is far more accurate than the historic ones. I think the people feel that modern physics is weird and strange but classical mechanics isn't because at least for classical mechanics, interactions are intuitive and we've been growing up watching objects collide and interact with one another.

avicenna Agreed, but it isn't the same as spin in a macroscopic sense, which is what he was getting at. It does seem to represent a rotation of something, at least as far as the mathematics are concerned, but if someone takes their feelings about ballerinas and applies it to spin, they'll get the wrong answer. Not least because it's quantised.

avicenna I thought he meant "everyone" knows what the spin of an electron is (1/2), but when physicists talk about spin they really mean the projection of spin on the z-axis.

***** Sorry it took be this long to get back to you. I have been kept very busy with my own research and I wanted to give your paper a read. It was very interesting, and it also informed me a little bit better on your perspective on this. Yes, there seems to be something a little bit unsatisfying about non relativistic treatments of spin. After all, it is only in a relativistic theory where the spin statistics connection makes any sense (attempts by hapless authors to prove it in nonrelativistic QM notwithstanding). It seems that the very concept of spin is more readily understood in a relativistic setting, which makes your comments certainly understandable, no "lying to children" required. Coincidentally, I have recently read a few papers on Bohmian mechanics by Oliver Passon. As widely known, Bohmian mechanics has no straightforward relativistic generalization. There are a few models which, the author argues, seem to do the job, but depart from non relativistic Bohmian mechanics. Now, I personally don't think that Bohmian mechanics is correct, but nevertheless this to me indicates some unresolved tension between the nonrelativistic and relativistic flavors of QM itself -- much like what we have here. Taking the "particle" limit of a field theory is far from simple! At any rate, thanks for the reference. All the best to you as well.

MsZooper The projection on the z-axis of a particle with spin 1/2 can take two values: +1/2 or -1/2. What I pointed out in my OP is that, if one considers solutions of the Dirac equation (the relativistic field equation describing electrons), then spin admits a straightforward interpretation in terms of polarization states which are analogous to circular polarization states of the photon. It is easy to see a circularly polarized photon intuitively as something "rotating", even if it's not a billiard ball. Indeed, for reasons I won't get into here, a photon cannot even be localized in a small region like you can do with electrons (there is no photon wavefunction), which means that people were never seduced into thinking about photon spin states in a "billiard ball" sort of way. It helps that photons, being massless, are _always_ relativistic.

+Paul L Up or down?

Bill Nolastname I saw what you did there. Nice one.

As I understand it, it's a possible misuse of the term "observer". It's the interaction that produces the observable effect that matters, not the observation of the effect itself. This all comes down to which interpretation you accept - though this would seem to be the most likely.

Thank you very much for commenting! I am not a physicist (nor am I a mystic); therefore I am not very familiarized with conventions and interpretations. This is, indeed, a very interesting point, and one, that will indeed help on keeping new age enthusiasts away from scientific research appropriation.

Sadly,I think you're missing one of the best arguments in Phil's talk: what if the people in charge of the funding think this tot is worth putting money behind.

TPPMac1 yes, I posted when he showed the article

Ignorance has never really been a solution to anything in history.

A bit late, but I have a tiny bit of insight on this. When we briefly covered this topic so far, I remember you can find the spin of an electron at a given moment in an atom, because in a magnetic field, the spin of an electron is like angular momentum and has a corresponding magnetic moment - in a magnetic field this can add to the energy of the atom in the field. I’m excited to learn more about this though.

Dear Loadbyte and prof Moriarity I am answering here on my Google plus page, as your comments don't seem to be appearing on the youtube page. I don't know if that is your intention as the commenting system now is so appallingly confusing. I am fully aware of the meaning of the term and here are my objections. I realise most of them are utterly subjective and therefore susceptible to criticism 1) It is a revolting cliche. 2) It is a revolting cliche which is a verbose, inelegant and grammatically dubious substitute for an adjective, where a suitable adjective would be much more elegant and informative. 3) It is a horrible Americanism 4) It is a sport-related horrible Americanism, and what is more the sport in question is baseball, something I believe science should avoid unless investigating bat and ball kinematics. 5) It is a music related Americanism of a sporting Americanism 6) It is a bloody ugly, pondering phrase, in contrast to the subject matter of physics, which is streamlined, pointed, objective and free of cultural idioms. 7) It is not a scientific phraseology, and more appropriate to some media personality, such as Sara Palin, trying to get down with the kids. Whereas for someone who is in the highly venerable post of a professor in physics it's use just looks amateurish. You wouldn't catch Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose or Peter Atkins using the phrase ( please God! )

I have been asked on my Google plus page by Professor Moriarty to justify my dislike of the "left field" phrase. In case he intended to comment on youtube and was accidentally directed to my Google pus page I provide an answer here as well as on my page. The phrase "left field" is objectionable fort the following, mostly subjective, reasons: 1) It is a revolting cliche. 2) It is a revolting cliche which is a verbose, inelegant and grammatically dubious substitute for an adjective, where a suitable adjective would be much more elegant and informative. 3) It is a horrible Americanism 4) It is a sport-related horrible Americanism, and what is more the sport in question is baseball, something I believe science should avoid unless investigating bat and ball kinematics. 5) It is a music related Americanism of a sporting Americanism 6) It is a bloody ugly, pondering phrase, in contrast to the subject matter of physics, which is streamlined, pointed, objective and free of cultural idioms. 7) It is not a scientific phraseology, and more appropriate to some media personality, such as Sara Palin, trying to get down with the kids. Whereas for someone who is in the highly venerable post of a professor in physics it's use just looks amateurish. You wouldn't catch Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose or Peter Atkins using the phrase ( please God! )

"It is a music related Americanism of a sporting Americanism".. you should have absolutely not right to comment if are complaining about someone using the term "Left field", when you post crap like that...your fail

And given that your grip of English is very poor, you have no right to comment on my comment.

The problem with Quantum entanglement for how I understand it is: You have a twin. your twin brother gets slapped in the face. You also feel pain in your cheek.

Timothy Barth Yeah, I think there's a movie about those twins, I forget the name.

Your solution to quantum entanglement is very smart. In fact it was favoured by Einstein in his discussion on the entanglement (spooky action at a distance) with Bohr. As Einstein put it, it is like two gloves. A left one and a right one in two boxes. Open the first box and you will see the left one, then you instantly know the other box must contain the right one. Unfortunately for Einstein (and for you) experiments showed that this explanation does not hold (but it took fourty years to figure it out!).

Ronald de Rooij To whom were you speaking?

***** Observation is a measurement especially when it's a complex state and must interact with something to make it observable, so it can be measured. So, ipso facto, observation also causes the state to collapse, because when it's in an unobservable state, you must make it observable to measure it. The act of measurement is to make an observation. Ronald de Rooij In the Einstein experiment, you a presuming that one box contains the left hand or the right hand before then you open to find out, and there's no way to know which hand is in which box before hand; it this case the boxes contain both the right hand and the left hand, they're changing all the time; the only thing we really know, is that whatever one is, the other's the opposite. The problem is that neither box contains either left or right before you open it, it contains both, and only becomes what it is when you open it. This is instantaneous, and doesn't respect the speed of light, it's faster than that. That is what was proven. And therefore, I have not said what you claim i have said. And besides, I'm aware to the possibility existing of a Hidden local variable, which allows for the state to be undetermined until the moment of observation. That Hidden Variable is held in common with both boxes. It is both a time based state; and a phase based state. In the phase state, it is in a state of interference, which makes it unresolved unti one side interacts with reality, and the state is chosen. So, you weren't talking to me. Besides, I think deep down Einstein was proven wrong; but, he's also right. Because the Hidden Variable can occur in Zero Point Space, which every point has, it is the only dimensionless state that can have a phase state, that connects every other phase state in zero point space; it's how the universe stays synchronized. In the case of the two gloves. They occupy three points, one is an x,y & z coordinate in Spacetime for each box (2 points), and the third is Zero Point, in which they both hold in common.a phase relationship (the 3rd point). If we could know that state, we would automatically know the other states. I think this is how FTL and Transporters will work. Where matter in one place x1,y1,z1 has in common, matter in x2, y2, z2 then by placing a phase difference between ZP,x1,y1,z1 and ZP, x2,y2,z2 That the matter can be realized and placed into a real state by observing it in one of the places, or in this case, the machine fixes the e ZP (here) space to be phased out, and the ZP(there) space to be phased in. But, first both ZP states must be unobservable. The difference in phase between two ZP, is the difference between where it is in spacetime, and where it is not in spacetime (Time is constant).. Once it becomes unobserved here, it can be observed there. And so, we do that by modifying the ZP phase state of where it is, to the one where you want it to be. But, first we must find out how the phase differs from one point to the next. It takes little to no energy; but requires a huge computation, as every ZP from here, needs to be phased to every ZP there. I do have some vague ideas on how exactly to do this; but, accomplishing it will require is to resolve at planck levels for every planck width pixel which contains the object to be be moved. Perhaps this doesn't need to be done simultaneously; but, like a scanner, over time. And in a small enough time that it doesn't exist there long enough for chaos to set in, so probably pretty fast, and before things move much.

Funding. It's not like the corner grocer where he only gets funding from voluntary exchange. How many scientists would people fund if it were not for the enlistment of government force? Why does a scientist deserve the spoils of force, but a grocer must work hard to earn his funding sources voluntary support?

we love him. :-)