General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Sabine Hossenfelder
comments

Comments by "" (@nightmareTomek) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

Said it once, saying it again. Bad science will cause mistrust in good science.
17
I think the way people describe quantum mechanics is the problem, it's always mystified and sci-fi like, and math tools are interpreted like they're real. Like the wave function and it's collapse, it's just probability of to us yet unknown information. The cat is never really dead and alive at the same time, it is only for our calculation because we haven't yet looked in the box. And the same that goes for the cat also goes for things like wave particle duality.
11
Hahaha! xD Nice idea. Albeit I don't think it's true. Particle physics is way too complicated to call it determined from the big bang. I think people have chosen to not use their brain to save on energy, and thus their brain has a lack of training and this is irreversible - only now they have no choice. I have deliberately thought on this when I was young, and chose differently. Now I have an advantage: I can reason people to death on how dumb they are.
10
@zachbuschman3105 I never see in experiments single particles going through multiple slits, or single particles creating interference patterns. Often people say they're firing one particle, but are firing multiple. They also didn't tell us for decades that they're measuring light with a polarizer, but a polarizer primarily changes light, the measurement is rather a side effect, but they omitted to tell us this. So now I'm trying to spark conversations to remove this mysticism and seperate theory math tools from theory results grounded in reality.
8
Similar story in the psychology sector with psychologists being rather sick themselves than knowledgeable, the pharma profiting from sick people and prescribing rather than treating, and the education system prioritizing adapting their students to a work ethic rather than cultivating intelligence.
7
Just like on youtube with clickbait.
6
I realized more and more people are spotting these inconsistencies with physicists mystified and unclear language. Like they don't tell you they're measuring light with a polarizer, which primarily changes the light and the measurement is rather a side effect. If they're so misleadingly unclear about this, what else have they omitted clearing up? I've come up with my own understanding. First of all we also see an interference-like pattern from just one slit, a different yt physicist has shown it. So that means a particle going through both slits is kinda nonsense. Then the single fired particles only change direction and you only get the interference patterns after a wave of particles, just like they demonstrate it with water, which is also a wave of water molecules. And that's where I think the wavelike behavior comes from, not from a single particle. I think it's just quantum mechanics math that for calculation purposes reduces a wave to a single particle and creates something abstract but nonexistent, the same way infinities and singularities and even square roots do, which create an additional result that can be outside of reality. Then how does water create circular waves and an interference pattern behind the slits, even if it's just one slit? The only explanation that seems logical is that the molekules bounce off the edges of the slit and disperge their energy among other molecules in the wave. Which is why the wider the slit the less visible the pattern is.
5
Media doesn't focus on high quality research. And many not so deep into science focus on media.
5
Weeeeell... they do exist because people overlook some presmises.
4
I've read some studies myself where their conclusions didn't align one bit with their numbers, so instead they concluded socially acceptable statements. Some of those studies were on vaccines.
3
@user-rw8fp7ue4y What they REALLY omit telling you is that the "sensor" changes the light and THAT makes the interference pattern disappear. Because they're measuring with a polarizer. They use a lot of confusing mystified language, which is very misleading and more sci-fi than reality. The truth is rather simple and frankly a bit boring. They polarize the light in a certain direction and the interference disappears. That's all. There's no alive little photon dwarfs that hide under their hat when they see you looking at them.
3
@johnrowland9570 You can define "free will" however you like. That's why you can always make an absurd and dumb argument how you think we have no free will. Particle physics injecting itself into psychology claiming "well there's science on that" is one of the stupidest things I've heard Sabine say. Or maybe she wants to test our critical thinking, in which ofc we have none - but that definitely wasn't determined at the big bang. We don't even know for sure that the big bang is real, up to now it's just a theory. On the other hand 600 years ago we knew for sure that the earth is flat. People were saying that Columbus is gonna sail off the edge.
3
@zachbuschman3105 It's fine if it's integral, but doesn't mean it has to be real. I think there should be a distinct separation between tools in the theory which we use for example to calculate, and results of the theory that are real. I suspect we have blurred the line too much, things that were originally just calculation tools have been pepped up with mysticism and we believe this is how the world really is. Superposition, entanglement, probability waves, wave particle duality. Just as an example, for the wave particle duality I lately figured that it's the quantum mechanics math which reduces the wave to a single particle which then allows this single particle to travel through multiple slits in the double slit experiment, until measured of course. But it's not something that really happens, it can only travel through one, this is just a calculation tool. In reality a wave is always comprised of multiple particles. Yet the wave function predicts where the particle lands and the result is correct and reality.
3
Exactly. Bad science will only cause mistrust in good science.
2
@Diamonddavej Aren't you employing a lot of bla bla bla to justify making a different conclusion over what the numbers say? Just like the study did, blabbering for 60 pages? Sabine showed this bla bla bla, you can pause. Of course if you're biased towards their conclusion, checking it won't amount to anything. The numbers Sabine showed were the summary, the result, the data combined, so it's the most important metric. They marked it all as statistically unsignificant (orange color, also in the video), as well as writing just above it that all the individual findings have a high uncertainty. And all articles omitted to mention this, this is pretty damning.
2
I rather listen to a video than watch it, while falling asleep. Works quite well.
2
I think photons aren't waves at all, just particles. Waves are comprised of multiple particles and I suspect it's quantum mechanics math that reduces the wave to a single particle for calculation purposes, and just like square roots create an additional result that can be outside of reality, that too creates a state that isn't reflected by reality. I've never seen someone show a single particle go through both slits or exhibit wave like behavior, they only talk about it. When they shoot individual particles to create the interference pattern? It still appears only after a bunch of particles, a single particle isn't enough of a wave like behavior to form the pattern. But the sci-fi minded physicists or science articles jump on the mystic math and interpret the hell out of it. I mean they don't even tell us that when they measure light they do it with a polarizer, but a polarizer primarily changes light and only measures it as a side effect. So what else are they omitting to tell us? I suspect quite a lot.
2
Never liked String Theory or dark matter for that matter, both are backwards explanations, tailored to fit what we see, not derived from what we see. Why does it have to be strings and not sheets? Dark matter I thought was supposed to be a placeholder for what we don't know is going on, including an incomplete understanding of gravity. But it turned into a fictional substance, an aether 2.0 so to speak.
2
@krautsky The whole gist is "don't stop improving your mindset but never change into something that isn't improving". They shortened it in expecation everybody would know what they meant, and you chose to focus on what they didn't spell out.
2
"In the 1800s, Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician, advocated for handwashing to reduce the spread of childbed fever, a deadly disease in maternity wards. His efforts faced strong resistance from the medical community, leading to his loss of his job and subsequent commitment to a mental asylum where he died." This is baiscally the same with Sabine now. People haven't learned and are as unwilling to admit mistakes as they were then. I haven't heard them bring forth a good argument yet either, just personal attacks. Professor Dave for example, how he lowered his argumental quality down to a flat earthers level to dunk on Sabine. "Bad English in this latter, must be FAKE!" 🤦‍♀ I also don't like physicists attitude, many phrase things like we can't be mistaken with out theories about dark matter, the birth of the universe or the singularities in a black hole. Clearly the data shows otherwise. There wouldn't be alternative theories like MOND or Timescapes, if dark energy would be established like a fact.
2
Nice sound. But do you know the Theory of Everything by Ayreon? Even if you don't like the music, as a physicist this is a must-know.
2
@blakehelgoth5247 I think it never does. Losing the quality when observed is probably just quantum mechanics math like square roots giving an additional result which can end up being outside of reality. Because they measure light with a polarizer and omit telling you this, because a polarizer primarily changes light, so yeah, it changes when being observed, but not by being observed. I think the math reduces the wave to a single particle, but in reality a wave only consists of multiple particles. Haven't seen them show how a single particle travels through both slits either, or how a single particle shows a full interference pattern. They're using a lot of mystified, fantasy like language to describe whats happening and more and more people are are criticizing this.
2
@Nexii801 Then what do you think on my take? I got that one by being sick of the mystified and misleading language some physicists use. Like when they omit telling you that they're measuring light with a polarizer, which changes the light. Or when they said light sends information back in time in that quantum eraser delayed choice experiment a few years back. Who knows what else isn't science but fantasy? I came out with my own understanding. First of all we also see an interference-like pattern from just one slit, a different yt physicist has shown it. So that means a particle going through both slits is kinda nonsense. Then the single fired particles only change direction and you only get the interference patterns after a wave of particles, just like they demonstrate it with water, which is also a wave of water molecules. And that's where I think the wavelike behavior comes from, not from a single particle. I think it's just quantum mechanics math that for calculation purposes reduces a wave to a single particle and creates something abstract but nonexistent, the same way infinities and singularities and even square roots do, which create an additional result that can be outside of reality. Then how does water create circular waves and an interference pattern behind the slits, even if it's just one slit? The only explanation that seems logical is that the molekules bounce off the edges of the slit and disperge their energy among other molecules in the wave. Which is why the wider the slit the less visible the pattern is. So light is a wave of particles, but particles aren't waves. That doesn't mean it exludes particles from having wave like properties. Like electrons kinda bend the electric and magnetic fields around them while traveling, but they're (probably) still particles. They've done the double slit experiment with electrons as well and they make an interference pattern.
2
The way Einstein came up with relativity I find quite unique, how he imagined that light within a moving object must have the same speed for the ones inside the moving object and the static ones outside of it, although clearly the length of the path changes. I think similarly one day someone will come with a unique understanding of all the 4 forces and bring them in correlation with each other.
2
"Scientists knew for some time Mercury is shrinking. New is that they found it's still shrinking." Geniuses at work.
2
Who complains most about education? Pupils.
2
That multiverse thing sounds like some scientists have no idea what to do.
2
I don't care for Zuckerberg. But he's most definitely wrong. He's just trying to excuse his product, and those excuses are so riddiculous it baffled even the lawyers. I've heard about and read studies already decades ago where they found abrupt declines in happiness the moment people went on social media. Reasons include that because of social media the real life exchanges decline, as well as there not being any emotions in written communication and thus messages are seen as more toxic or hostile. And girls seeking validation of course. I read a study that women get depressed if they relocate into a country where there's less eye-contact. Just because they're looked at less. So when they post pictures online while being new and having no audience yet, what's supposed to happen? Exactly. And a lot of women report exactly this experience.
2
I refuse to accept that particles are in 2 places at once. It's just a mathematical artifact in our standard model, a way to calculate things. The wavefunction collapse isn't an update on the particles position, it's an update of our knowledge about the particles position. After all this particle moves faster than our brains ability to think.
2
Then how about one more? Hear my take. First of all we also see an interference-like pattern from just one slit, a different yt physicist has shown it. So that means a particle going through both slits is kinda nonsense. Then the single fired particles only change direction and you only get the interference patterns after a wave of particles, just like they demonstrate it with water, which is also a wave of water molecules. And that's where I think the wavelike behavior comes from, not from a single particle. I think it's just quantum mechanics math that for calculation purposes reduces a wave to a single particle and creates something abstract but nonexistent, the same way infinities and singularities and even square roots do, which create an additional result that can be outside of reality. Then how does water create circular waves and an interference pattern behind the slits, even if it's just one slit? The only explanation that seems logical is that the molekules bounce off the edges of the slit and disperge their energy among other molecules in the wave. Which is why the wider the slit the less visible the pattern is. I found that one after being sick of the mystified and misleading language some physicists use. Like when they omit telling you that they're measuring light with a polarizer, which changes the light. Or when they said light sends information back in time in that quantum eraser delayed choice experiment a few years back. Who knows what else isn't science but fantasy.
2
@williamstephenjackson6420 😅 thanks, and I wish I could. I'm quite proficient in math, I'm even teaching my daughter tricks that I'm quite confident noone else will ever teach her. But I had other troubles at school and there's just too much to catch up and to fight through and to apply for and to sit through. This will never work. Doesn't make me less interested in physics topics though. My life story rant...
2
@thealienrobotanthropologist Science to entertain is what I call pop-science. Also these scientists don't want to throw out their theories because in their mind everything is so well established. Like dark matter that we still haven't found.
2
I think some people hate the truth, that's why they those that say the truth.
2
That delayed choice quantum eraser, some physicists, including Sabine, have cleared this up. There's no going back in time at all, it's just a mystified language to make it sound exciting, but it's misleading and in reality something else is at play. I came to think that this mystified language is everywhere, and finally photons aren't even waves, a wave is made of several photons. They can't show a single photon exhibiting wave like properties, it can't be done. They also can't show a single photon going through both slits, I bet this is just quantum mechanics math that reduces a wave to only a particle, just like square roots give you an additional result that's sometimes outside of reality, and everyone just believes it at face value. When water forms an interference pattern after the two slits, they also don't go "a water molecule goes through both slits and is a wave". No, the water molecule just changes direction upon going through the slits, that's all. And it looks more and more to me like light is doing exactly the same.
2
The school bus is completely empty! Must be at least a 3 on the funny scale.
2
@Diamonddavej you posted this everywhere, didn't you. OMG. Well... ok, so can I.
1
@Diamonddavej Aren't you employing a lot of bla bla bla to justify making a different conclusion over what the numbers say? Just like the study did, blabbering for 60 pages? Sabine showed this bla bla bla, you can pause. Of course if you're biased towards their conclusion, checking it won't amount to anything. The numbers Sabine showed were the summary, the result, the data combined, so it's the most important metric. They marked it all as statistically unsignificant (orange color, also in the video), as well as writing just above it that all the individual findings have a high uncertainty. And all articles omitted to mention this, this is pretty damning.
1
@Diamonddavej on top of that, I've found a few comments by now saying they phrased the study in this way to get government fundings.
1
@hotbit7327 don't think that's true. I heard and I'm reading something different.
1
@blakehelgoth5247 The censoring here makes it hard to give you an answer....
1
@blakehelgoth5247 I'm trying to unmystify this sci-fi language that they're overusing and misleading us with, but I still haven't figured it all out. I suspect this:
1
@blakehelgoth5247 The reason for the interference pattern with light is the same reason as with water. Photon particles don't have wave properties, a single particle is just a particle, what makes a wave is multiple particles just like with water. I never see them shoot a single particle through both slits or a single particle make the whole interference patterns, it can't be done. When they say they shoot a single particle, theres some trick to it and they end up shooting multie anyway, because multiple dots are required to make the interference pattern.
1
@blakehelgoth5247 So I started thinking it's just the math in quantum mechanics which treats the wave as single particle to be able to calculate. They then say it goes through both slits, but it's not what happens in reality. Just as for example square roots are giving you an additional result that can end up outside reality. Then there's the fact that both water and light make an interference like pattern from just a single slit, meaning the fantasy saying that a single particle goes through both slits goes out the window.
1
@blakehelgoth5247 They've done the slit experiments with electrons as well and apparently lately with buck balls, which are essentially carbon balls, right? This is the first time I hear about buck balls, so I don't know how exactly they conduct the experiment, but I think all these particles, water, photons, electrons and carbon balls should behave the same way. When a single particle of anything passes the slits, it changes trajectory maybe due to some electro magnetic forces or maybe they just bump into the edges of the slits, but it seems to have a higher chance to change into specific directions and a lesser chance for others. A bunch or a wave of particles creates the interference pattern of hot spots.
1
@blakehelgoth5247 I think this makes more sense than what these textbooks are saying about particles being a wave. They aren't waves, they form a wave together. But that doesn't exclude particles from having wave properties, like flying electrons bending the electric and magnetic fields around them.
1
We're essentially taking a risk of 50% that the bomb doesn't blow up, and afterwards with a 50% chance we get the information that the bomb was live. And the dud bomb lets light through? :body-blue-raised-arms::face-orange-raised-eyebrow::face-blue-wide-eyes:
1
@zicho1st probably for the same reason as why water creates a pattern as well. You have multiple particles, then you have wave like behavior. But they don't assign wave like behavior to single water molecules and shoot them one at a time through a slit. And single carbon atoms don't have wave properties either.
1
@todorstojanov3100 I don't think a new model is needed. Quantum mechanics is fine for now. The problem is our understanding of it, which, as I said, has been misled through mystified sci-fi language. Like the delayed choice quantum eraser sending information back in time. Or entanglement sending information with speeds faster than light. None of this is real, in reality entanglement doesn't send any information anywhere, it's just updated on your sheet of paper. And omitting facts, like I said, not telling the measurement is done with a polarizer. The measurement isn't a problem at all, the solution is even kinda boring. Which is that they're not measuring the light at all, they are changing it, polarizing.
1
@todorstojanov3100 And, to simply the math, a single particle is given wave like properties, so that calculations become doable, but that's not what's happening in real life. It isn't a model, rather just the calculations of it, though we treat it like a representation of reality.
1
@todorstojanov3100 That's at least what I'm finally starting to understand after years of wondering what the hell is going on with these weird effects that everybody explains differently and nobody has a complete grasp on. And I'm not the only one to realize.
1
@todorstojanov3100 And that's quantum mechanics, right? It is immensely successful in it's predictions, that's why I said the theory is fine. And isn't the double slit experiment part of quantum mechanics? Then so is the wave particle duality. At least that's the impression a google search gives me. But I distinguish between a model and the math behind it, and together they're a theory. That's just high level complaining about definitions. Anyway you can't conclude from the math onto reality. On paper you can divide an atom by 2 and somewhere later you gonna multiply by 2 again, but you can't cut a real atom in 2 without something unexpected happening. But that's what they're doing with quantum mechanics, they don't say each light photon is assigned wave properties in our model, they say that the model shows light is a wave and the model shows particles travel through both slits at once. Mystified language in one form or another, at one this is gonna end up being wrong just because of the language, not the model.
1
@todorstojanov3100 Thus the result is that constantly videos release about how we misunderstood the double slit experiment. This isn't the first one I saw this week.
1
@todorstojanov3100 You've now like a robot repeated the default textbook definition several times that I am arguing against. I think you're not even trying to listen. Bye.
1
@todorstojanov3100 All who don't listen are under the impression that they do. You're partially listening at best. After 3 comments you agree with one thing I said in the beginning, the other you ignore and respond with textbook definition for the 3rd or 4th time. I wanna spark people's skepticism about this matter. It's fine if you're not interested in that, maybe someone else will read this thread. Have a nice day.
1
@todorstojanov3100 And I said in the other thread where we met, "certainly not the particles with each other. You're right. They must interfere with something in the slit, because obviously the single fired particles change trajectory."
1
@todorstojanov3100 🙄🙄 Because they're fired one at a time? If that's even possible, honestly. "certainly not the particles with each other. You're right. They must interfere with something in the slit, because obviously the single fired particles change trajectory. And not randomly either, after multiple particles a pattern emerges. I don't know what they could be interfering with. Maybe they bump into the edges. Or there's some sort of field, electro magnetic or even nuclear that's acting on the light, and differently depending on the particles properties."
1
@todorstojanov3100 And the interference pattern doesn't appear when you shine a laser on the wall without any slits inbetween.
1
@todorstojanov3100 Remove the obstacle with the slits and keep firing single particles. No interference pattern, no for this experiment relevant self interference. The particle could still interfere with "itself" if they're not really exactly fired one particle at a time. Do they measure the energy that hits the screen and creates dots to make sure? After all they're misleading us with how they "observe" the light and disable the wave like behavior with the observation.
1
@todorstojanov3100 Again, then how come both light and water make an interference like pattern when traveling through a single slit? The way they measure I'd love to see and them explain, just to make sure there's nothing fishy going on. I've seen videos with these dots on the screen having different intensities, yet even the bright dots only hit one spot. Fishy, fishy.
1
@jaysalbhatt2501 Whaaaaat?? Noooo!!! XD I'm a mathematician! These are people who are driven by becoming successful instead of creating something. I see basically the same mindset in authors, game developers and movie makers, it's what causes inferior products. They are inspired by the success of someone else and that's what makes them go into the field. They don't have the passion for the project, activity or product itself. They just want to replicate the success. Often it leads to the product being just a ripoff of the original thing that was so great.
1
@mw-th9ov aren't the numbers she showed enough? If they're statistically irrelevant, then they're irrelevant. What's more to say? I've read some studies myself where their conclusion is completely off to what their own numbers say, but they simply needed to conclude something that was socially acceptable. The IMO biggest German neuro scientist frequently analyses studies together with his team, although not in the majority, but still in many of those studies he finds flaws upon flaws upon bad conduct. Veritasium once made a video about how science magazines have to publish sensational findings instead of the boring but truthful ones. This isn't a meme, it's reality. And people who try to discredit Sabine, like Professor Dave, I've never heard such dumb arguments out of his mouth. Sure, it's easy for him to pick on flat earthers, but when tackling complex issues he suddenly starts employing flat earth style arguments himself, so that I not only have to call him a mo _ _ _, but also a fraud.
1
This still looks like detector 3, when switched on, retroactively disables some of the particles that went the other way to the interference pattern screen.
1
@DavidByrden1 Mhm yeah. After digging deeper, I also have the impression the detectors aren't actual detectors, but filters or polarizers or something that interacts with the photons. And there is no "other way" either, I think, photons aren't going one way to the interference pattern and a longer way through the detectors. It's just the latter, and thus no time traveling either.
1
The 3 interactions, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear interactions, how do they play out in different gravitational fields? Are they also slower when close to a massive object?
1
I think it's not physics, but sci-fi. Travel along invisible strands of time? I have a much, much simpler explanation, or theory, which goes like this: physicists are misleading us with mystified language. Photons are particles, not waves, what makes a wave is a bunch of particles. How do I reason? First of all we also see an interference-like pattern from just one slit. So that means a particle going through both slits is kinda nonsense. Then the single fired particles only change direction and you only get the interference patterns after a wave of particles, just like they demonstrate it with water, which is also a wave of water molecules. And that's where I think the wavelike behavior comes from, not from a single particle, but a bunch. Noone has tried to measure a single water molecule either, or shot single water molecules through slits, yet there's also an interference pattern. I think it's just quantum mechanics math that for calculation purposes reduces a wave to a single particle and creates something abstract but nonexistent, the same way infinities and singularities and even square roots do, which create an additional result that can be outside of reality. Then how does water create circular waves and an interference pattern behind the slits, even if it's just one slit? The only explanation that seems logical is that the molekules bounce off the edges of the slit and disperge their energy among other molecules in the wave. Which is why the wider the slit the less visible the pattern is.
1
You see, they didn't tell us for decades that they are measuring light with a polarizer. A polarizer though primarily changes the light, the measuring is rather a side effect. They also were fantasizing about a lot of other phenomenons, like light sending information back through time in the delayed choice quantum eraser double slit, or honestly all this multiverse from black holes and pleasant to look at super symmetries and even dark matter has some dubious undertone. They don't tell you dark matter doesn't mean matter which is dark, but it originally included dark matter being a simple wrong deduction out of a lack of knowledge. But over time it manifested itself as something that's real. So why do we have alternative theories then like MOND or timescapes?
1
@MTWAResearch 1. then show me. I haven't seen it, only heard people claim it. What I see is single particles building the interference pattern one dot at a time, not a single particle making the whole pattern. Whenever they claim they to do what you say, they end up showing what I say, they claim they show an interference pattern with a single photon but then they don't shoot a single photon at all, but multiple. That's my whole problem with this mystified language, for decades they didn't tell us they're measuring light with a polarizer. A polarizer primarily changes the ligth, the measurement is rather like a side effect. They omitted important facts. Or the delayed choice quantum erasor double slit, 5 years ago physicists were saying light sends information back through time. This is a sci-fi understanding of physics, not reality. A mystified fantasy language that is misleading the public and makes physics look like something uncomprehensible and unobtainable. More and more people start noticing and criticizing the way we talk about it. Quantum superposition is just a math tool, in reality the particle isn't in multiple places at once at all, but we're facing the problem that we don't know it's exact position, so we create a probability map and calculate with it, this is what makes our results make sense. Same goes for entanglement, how many physicists claim it shoots information at speeds faster than light? Only once in a while a physicist comes along and takes out the bs, there's no information actually traveling anywhere. I even suspect that the wave function collapse is something that occurs on paper, you have a long function with many terms, but as soon as you measure the particle many of the terms equal to zeor and the length of the function expression collapses to just a few terms. Wouldn't that be interesting if I turn out to be correct on this one?
1
@MTWAResearch 2. I'm not talking about a purely classical particle model. I'm talking about the quantum mechanics model with erased mystified language. We don't understand how it works because it has been mystified. 3. "it proposes that" means you haven't proven it. Then it's a theory or hypothesis. And we have way, way too many rather random sounding theories about it, many border on science fiction. It can be a well thought out fictional work that internally makes perfect sense, yet still be a bandaid for the problems that arise from a mystified language with quantum theory. 4. go ahead and test it, as long as it doesn't swallow billions of dollars. Maybe it will bring clarity. But how many past theories tried it and didn't? I simply think our focus is wrong. We should try to unmystify quantum mechanics, work on our phrasings so that we understand the theory completely. And that's what I'm trying to do right here. Not make theories on top of one we don't fully understand. I've been criticizing the way people talk about physics for a while now, but lately I made a jump forwards and I've seen more and more people do the same. Quantum physics isn't the only topic that's being mystified. I wish I could be a physicist, then again I might be as annoyed with progress as Sabine
1
Tricking AI to use profane language doesn't sound insane to me. Rather like someone's having fun. xD
1
@mojojojo6292 I mean, they did it with simple water as well. Where's the dark water? Oh, it's in my kids swimming pool.
1
String theory is walking around and eating people's branes?
1
String theory is eating my brane.
1
I like this, I've been thinking for a while now that we're interpreting quantum mechanics the wrong way. The results of the wave function are real after the wave function collapse, probably we measured something somewhere and a bunch of terms have disappeared from the equation and now particles have exact positions and values. Before the collapse the wave function isn't real, but as you said only describes probabilities of our state because we lack information. Take our famous double slit experiment. The wave function treats a particle like it's going through both slits, but this isn't real. Only when we measure the particle, it stops going through both and only goes through one slit. The misconception is that by measuring we remove the interference pattern. But that's actually not true. The polarizer is what removes the interference pattern, not the measurement, but the problem we face is that a polarizer is the only tool we are measuring with.
1
Galaxies moving away from us faster than light speed? I think the explanation is way simpler. If you see a spaceship pass by at close to light speed, according to relativity time flows slower for those inside. Right? But what if you're in that spaceship? Then it looks to you like earth is passing at the speed you're flying plus, or rather multiplied with the inverted time dilation, meaning since you're slower the outside must look faster and so with enough speed the outside could look like it's moving beyond light speed. So that would mean we, with our solar system and our galaxy, are moving at quite high speeds ourselves. I don't buy these explanations that if we see from earth time running slower on the spaceship, that they also see time running slower from the spaceship in all directions. Sure in the direction behind them, yes, but not all directions, that doesn't make sense to me. Einstein derived his theories from logically thinking about how light must move. But I doubt these pop science videos are really understanding how things really work or that they limit their explanation to only what they understand. The team behind timescapes theory is making a map of different time speed areas in the universe. I think their result is gonna be quite interesting.
1
@axle.student do you realize that you sound like a flat earther but with the universe? You got a lot of random claims that are yet unheard of and you jump all over the place with topics, like random thoughts of someone in a bar.
1
@trentostgaard Well. First of all, I wonder how they actually prove that space itself is stretching, or whether it's real. Like Dark Matter, they say with absolute confidence that it exists and there's evidence for it, yet there are alternative theories coming up to explain the phenomenons we see, that we wouldn't need if it weren't a theory but a fact. Their evidence isn't something a police detective would count as evidence but rather hints.
1
@trentostgaard Same with space stretching. After all, the red shift comes from galaxies physically moving away from each other, if they're not, then how is the light red shifting? And if they are but space is also growing, how could we distinguish how much each effect contributes? Or is this just word salad that confuses more than explains and reality is just space being space, not moving and only the distance between galaxies growing? Like they were saying that when you enter your car the space shifts and you can exist the car at a different spacetime, so spacetime is squeezing or stretching to bring you to your destination.
1
@trentostgaard if you hear the ambulance and it's moving away from you, it also gives a lower pitch, but people don't go saying the street is stretching.
1
@trentostgaard With the spaceship I implied that they would send signals or have a giant clock mounted on their side, didn't think it required extra mention. You described an object appearing slower due to it moving away. Not what I meant, but fine, then how about an object moving towards you, does time speed up?? But they are saying that an object traveling perpendicular to you also shows time dilation, because for you the light bouncing up and down in the ship seems to travel a bigger distance than it looks to someone on the ship, who'd be the stationary observer for that light. So to cancel this out, time must tick slower. One question already would be whether they actually are slower or just appear slower, do they come back to you showing you a clock then that is behind your clock when you were originally synced up? If they were just looking slower, time would have to catch up somewhere, like they'd have to appear faster than you when they hit the breaks, which sounds nonsensical since the spaceship would have to shrink to make the distance the light has to travel up and down smaller. If they are actually slower and perpendicularly passing earth, then earths movement should appear faster to them, because if it's not, time would somewhere need to catch up again. By the way if they are slowed due to speed and then also appear slower due to moving away, these are 2 effects stacking onto each other. So in other words, when you sit on earth and see the spaceship at a distance at relativistic speeds, yet you see their giant clock ticking not slower but faster, you should be deducting that it's rather you who is moving. And that there's an absolute zero where time moves the fastest. The vertical lines in these cone diagrams. At this point usually people don't address my question, but just respond with the textbook answer that's incomplete, and then proceed to tell me that I'm supposed to relativity in some special way.
1
@trentostgaard btw there's a game by some students called a slower speed of light. You collect orbs there and light speed changes until it's at walking speed. Everybody should check it out. Anyway when you have collected some orbs and then move backwards away from something, it appears redshifted, but when you move towards something, it appears blue shifted. Don't think there's any space stretching involved, the space is only growing as in the distance is growing. I want a proof that it's not just growing but stretching as well.
1
@trentostgaard Whenever you want. "this wouldn't line up with the idea that the further away galaxies are simply moving faster and faster away from us in proper motion, instead it tends towards that the space is expanding" Why not? Doesn't make sense to me. I've read up a bit on this and the elaborate answers basically all say it's indeed just words to confuse, that space isn't moving at all, only the space as in the distance between the object is growing larger, but no actual stretching. I've been complaining about the mysticism surrounding science explanations for a while now, everything is kinda filled with fantasy language which actually makes it harder to understand, not easier. This is just one more area where it's used. And they're not assigning their sigma values to their word definition changes.
1
I'd certainly purchase a theory of everything sunday morning assembly kit.
1
I think the profession scientist has prestige status, like doctor a 100 years ago.
1
So what about earth's resources, if the population should be growing? Will that make us meet a sudden population decline somewhere in the future?
1
Very good video, I'm also quite annoyed how physicists talk about universes or symmetries of our universe... And how in popular science everything is phrased like a fact, as if we knew already everything. Well, 600 years ago humans "knew" the earth is flat. They also did not consider being wrong.
1
I'm certain free will exists, just that it itself is made of particles. Particles with complex interactions that make then chemistry with complex interactions that creates a machinery or program called free will and responsible for decision making, which then itself has a wide variety of application cases just like a computer program. Sure, it's input are ultimately more particles. The system is still too complex for us to understand whether or how particle's fundamental randomness impacts it.
1
Yeah, particle physics projecting on philosophy! Yo heard that, boys? Your decisions have been decided at the big bang. And people say there is no God. I guess every channel needs to make a bad video. Maybe it's a test on critical thinking?
1
@Valeria-p8e7q EXACTLY.
1
@boonheeliew2488 Dunno if I found the correct research. But the first one you're shining a laser through a double slit and then another from an angle to see if the first lasers interference pattern changes? Shouldn't that have been done like 200 years ago? Also looks like a school project. Was it one? The answer is obvious, I guess, though verification isn't bad. And then you have something against the irritating naming conventions, yes? Like interference suggesting light interfering with light although in reality it doesn't interfere with each other while traveling through air, but the patterns on the wall interfere. Good point actually.
1
@SkorjOlafsen You got a good point there. But not just on the web, articles and science magazines do the same clickbaity things, or should we call it buy bait? Did it work though, did it make people more interested? Now people start to realize how misleading this language is.
1
Gotta agree. Listening to some youtube channels alone makes it sound as if we knew how to travel back in time or how to create white holes, most sounds like sci-fi and I lost trust in it as well.
1
Indeed, finally it makes sense. How many times did I post on the other videos that there must be something missing there in their explanation, and they just responded "but no, physics is weird". Ouf. Not to say that I completely understood Sabines explanation... I think I need to watch it a few more times.
1
@Weberbros1 Can't find your comment, maybe you can copy it here? I disagree with Sabine, too. I wonder if she's just trying to test our critical thinking (in which obviously society has none) when she's claiming "the science says we have no free will", while she's projecting science onto philosophy.
1
Does anti-matter have negative spin, too, compared to their pro-matter counterpart particles?
1
I'm annoyed how most science channels have this mystic fantasy approach to physics. They still mention time travel with the double slit experiment. Their speeches sound like it's not just theories but like we in fact know everything. Endless talks about how the mass of the black hole is in an infinitely small space and it weren't just a mathematical phenomenon. They worked on String Theory for like decades? Adding and removing dimensions, until it aligned with real physics. They should write novels or work on superhero movies.
1
8:00 if that's not "strong enough" for quantum entanglement, what is? What did they test in later experiments?
1
I would love to see some followup videos on the double slit experiment. Because within all these confusing phrasings I have gained an own understanding how this works. First of all we also see an interference-like pattern from just one slit, a different yt physicist has shown it. So that means a particle going through both slits is kinda nonsense. Then the single fired particles only change direction and you only get the interference patterns after a wave of particles, just like they demonstrate it with water, which is also a wave of water molecules. And that's where I think the wavelike behavior comes from, not from a single particle. I think it's just quantum mechanics math that for calculation purposes reduces a wave to a single particle and creates something abstract but nonexistent, the same way infinities and singularities and even square roots do, which create an additional result that can be outside of reality. Then how does water create circular waves and an interference pattern behind the slits, even if it's just one slit? The only explanation that seems logical is that the molekules bounce off the edges of the slit and disperge their energy among other molecules in the wave. Which is why the wider the slit the less visible the pattern is. Physicists have always used this mystified language, not long ago they were claiming the delayed choice quantum eraser double slit experiment is sending information back through time. But they don't tell you that they're "measuring" light with a polarizer, which primary changes the light and measuring is more of a side effect. Would love some clarification without mysticism or other bs.
1
They'll write it on your grave, if that helps. Don't expect it sooner, the original experiment was in 1800. Wanna hear my take? I don't think photons are waves at all, not at all! A wave is only comprised of multiple particles, which goes for light and electrons as well as water. Water also exhibits an interference pattern after a double slit, even after a single slit. But they don't go shooting single water molecules through the slits claiming that a single molecule goes through both slits, do they?
1
Could be that light has something oscilating inside them in different frequencies creating wavelengths and colors.
1
I think dark matter was just a placeholder initially for what we didn't see or know, this could have included a mistake in our model. But some treated it like the real thing and made it into a substance that can't be spotted.
1
@todorstojanov3100 You don't get the pattern by shooting a single particle or molecule. What you get is just a single dot, one impact. For the topic it doesn't matter what the photon does after hitting the screen or whatever there is at the end. Whenever they say they fire just one particle and there's an interference pattern, they actually fire multiple particles, maybe it's just one at a time, but the interference pattern doesn't appear from a single dot. This is the confusing, mystified language I'm talking about. Just like when they omitted telling us for several decades that they're measuring light with a polarizer. A polarizer primarily changes light, measurement is only like a side effect. But they are treating it like photons were tiny dwards that hide under their hat when you come closer to take a good look. This mystified language is misleading, it's not even how the experiment was conducted originally. A bunch of particles, or a wave of particles are needed to see an interference pattern. Thus I also said that an individual particle doesn't go through both slits, not that the whole wave can't. The wave being reduced to contain only one particle I believe is a math trick in quantum mechanics that make calculations possible, but doesn't appear in reality. Just like square roots give you an additional result that sometimes is outside of reality.
1
@todorstojanov3100 certainly not the particles with each other. You're right. They must interfere with something in the slit, because obviously the single fired particles change trajectory. And not randomly either, after multiple particles a pattern emerges. I don't know what they could be interfering with. Maybe they bump into the edges. Or there's some sort of field, electro magnetic or even nuclear that's acting on the light, and differently depending on the particles properties.
1
If we can build this machine for real, then we can speculate about the real answer. For now it's just sci-fi fantasy and we can use a fantasy answer.
1
I wish I were a physicist. Got lots of ideas without the need to invent new theories. Instead I would like to unmystify quantum mechanics because it has been mystified with sci-fi language which leads to us being so confused about it.
1
I still don't get why there's an interference pattern visible on the photons that go left when you measure the photons that go right way later by detector 3 (or 4). Shouldn't it just stay a blob no matter what happens? Does detector 3 retroactively disable some of the photons that went the left way?
1
@OrbitTheSun What? I don't understand a thing. I think the actual problem is that after the 2 slits the light is never split into 2 directions the way graphs are showing it, and thus the information cannot travel back in time because there's nothing to travel to. And these measurement devices actually don't measure the light at all, they polarize it. The entanglement isn't shared information, it's that we can calculate something about one particle if we know the value the other particle has. Essentially it's nothing more than a phase shift. The delayed choice doesn't mean timetravel, but just that the light waves from the 2 slits are put back together and then randomly split and the measurement is delayed. Everything is just a bunch of imprecise explanations.
1
This singularity thing in black holes annoys me so much, but especially pop science can't stop with it. But isn't it obvious that it's a mathematical artifact when we apparently know that the neutron stars get smaller when they absorb mass, and at one point they turn black? Why is the main assumption that they suddenly implode instead of that they just keep getting smaller?
1
Maybe the gravitational force (erm, gravity isn't a force, right? ) isn't stronger, but turns into a spiral itself at great distances? Dark matter was invented without being found, still sounds to me like people making too many theories and everytime these theories stop predicting the observations, they make these theories more complicated. But what do I know, I wish I were a physicist.
1
This is a human mindset, "either you agree with our methods or you have to be reeducated", somewhat religious or cult like, and even science hasn't gotten rid of it. I'm not even surprised.
1
I LOVE THIS VIDEO!!!! xD I'm still waiting for that super-exotic rainbow-particle. It's more rare than a shiny pokemon. I think these scientists are trying to imitate the geniuses which invented particles but which actually have been found. I see the same in art, where people try to replicate the success of an artist by reusing his best ideas and making them much worse.
1
I think we misunderstand it because it has been mystified with sci-fi language. We need to unmystify it first, but it's not wrong at it's core. What is wrong are the theories built on the mysticism, they're bandaids to our lack of understanding.
1
These fundamental particles merge or split in other fundamental particles. Is that information "obtainable", with the uncertainty principle an all, if we don't even know the position of these particles? How could we know that particle a hit b instead of c?
1
I see it this way. Building blocks make mikro organisms, those make us, if our numbers grow so much that the earth can be seen as a thinking organism that lives for a billion years, you could probably scale this thinking even further.
1
Omg he sounds like a flat earther with all his erm ehh ahm ehm err hmm aerhm hrr ehm hrhh.
1
Maybe you find that on the dark web.
1
It's not just that it's slow, it devolved into the sci-fi realm, fantastic stories about multiverses, white holes and supersymmetries. Maybe it has always been this way, but most of the time these people called themselves authors and not scientists.
1
I'd love cities to turn off the majority of lights for a few hours at night. But people are way too afraid for that.
1
Her haters hate that about her. Prof Dave for example, he's so stoooouuupiiitd.
1
Probably it hasn't. I wonder if you'll ever get an answer. I think I saw somewhere that the interference pattern gets weaker with wider slits. And recently also that a single slit also produces an interference like pattern, just way weaker. I'd also like to know what'll happen when the edges of the slits are rounded off. Because since water also shows waves behind the slits, I suspect it's water molecules interacting with the edge somehow, either having their trajectories altered by some nuclear forces, or just bumping into the edges and then dispersing the new energy vector among the other particles in the wave.
1
It's like the US justice system being like the Russian arms production system, full of corruption. Similar story in the psychology sector with psychologists being rather sick themselves than knowledgeable, the pharma profiting from sick people and prescribing rather than treating, and the education system prioritizing adapting their students to a work ethic rather than cultivating intelligence.
1