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

  1. Said it once, saying it again. Bad science will cause mistrust in good science.
    17
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. ​ @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
  5. 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
  6. Just like on youtube with clickbait.
    6
  7. 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
  8. Media doesn't focus on high quality research. And many not so deep into science focus on media.
    5
  9. Weeeeell... they do exist because people overlook some presmises.
    4
  10. 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
  11.  @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
  12.  @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
  13.  @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
  14. Exactly. Bad science will only cause mistrust in good science.
    2
  15.  @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
  16. I rather listen to a video than watch it, while falling asleep. Works quite well.
    2
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. ​ @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
  20. "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
  21. 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
  22.  @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
  23.  @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
  24. 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
  25. "Scientists knew for some time Mercury is shrinking. New is that they found it's still shrinking." Geniuses at work.
    2
  26. Who complains most about education? Pupils.
    2
  27. That multiverse thing sounds like some scientists have no idea what to do.
    2
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. ​ @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
  32.  @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
  33. I think some people hate the truth, that's why they those that say the truth.
    2
  34. 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
  35. The school bus is completely empty! Must be at least a 3 on the funny scale.
    2
  36.  @Diamonddavej  you posted this everywhere, didn't you. OMG. Well... ok, so can I.
    1
  37.  @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
  38.  @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
  39.  @hotbit7327  don't think that's true. I heard and I'm reading something different.
    1
  40.  @blakehelgoth5247  The censoring here makes it hard to give you an answer....
    1
  41.  @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
  42.  @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
  43.  @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
  44.  @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
  45.  @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
  46. 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
  47.  @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
  48.  @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
  49.  @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
  50.  @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