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

  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
  2.  @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
  3.  @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
  4. ​ @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
  5.  @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
  6.  @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
  7.  @todorstojanov3100  And the interference pattern doesn't appear when you shine a laser on the wall without any slits inbetween.
    1
  8. ​ @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
  9.  @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
  10. ​ @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
  11. ​ @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
  12. 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
  13.  @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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19. Tricking AI to use profane language doesn't sound insane to me. Rather like someone's having fun. xD
    1
  20. @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
  21. String theory is walking around and eating people's branes?
    1
  22. String theory is eating my brane.
    1
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25.  @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
  26.  @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
  27.  @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
  28.  @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
  29.  @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
  30.  @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
  31.  @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
  32. I'd certainly purchase a theory of everything sunday morning assembly kit.
    1
  33. I think the profession scientist has prestige status, like doctor a 100 years ago.
    1
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38.  @Valeria-p8e7q  EXACTLY.
    1
  39.  @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
  40.  @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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43.  @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
  44. Does anti-matter have negative spin, too, compared to their pro-matter counterpart particles?
    1
  45. 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
  46. 8:00 if that's not "strong enough" for quantum entanglement, what is? What did they test in later experiments?
    1
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. Could be that light has something oscilating inside them in different frequencies creating wavelengths and colors.
    1
  50. 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