Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Professor Dave Explains" channel.

  1. Yep. Physics in particular hasn't been materialist since the early 20th century. We know that "matter" is just an emergent effect. Sadly almost everybody is still wrapped up in the false philosophical categories of the 18th and 19th centuries. We had modern physics for almost 100 years now and very few people have even noticed that is it NOT an extension of 19th century physics. Quite the contrary. The reason for that is our school system. We are still teaching Newton, which is 100% false at the ontological level.
    1
  2. What is off in a video that mentions "god"? The word "god" is already 100% off. As soon as you see that you can tell that you are dealing with a scam. ;-)
    1
  3. I have good news for you: you didn't inherit your Dad's mental disease. You will be fine.
    1
  4.  @diamondenchantmentx  The people who wrote the OT had no interest in the question "Where it all came from...?". They only had an interest in "Who is protecting us?". The OT is a political text in which religion is used to cause a cohesive tribal identity for the Jewish people. They key phrase is not "In the beginning... ", but "I am your god who brought you out of Egypt..." because the Jewish god differentiates the Jews from the Babylonians who believed in the Babylonian gods. The discussion about the scientific credibility of the Genesis account did not even exist until the 17th century, or so. It's a modern phenomenon that developed after the reformation.
    1
  5.  @karstentopp  I am sure you have evidence for that made up statement. Any day now, kid, any day now. ;-)
    1
  6. Yes, that was a lot of bullshit.
    1
  7. John Nash was a highly accomplished mathematician. Schizophrenia doesn't make all people who are suffering from it completely helpless. Some are functioning on a high level. Terrence Howard is clearly a high functioning actor... who simply can't keep imagination and reality apart.
    1
  8. Let me give you attention. ;-)
    1
  9.  @Quinellipe  The general initial response by everybody I know was to grab the protective equipment. I even helped a friend in a hospital to find some expired facemasks that were sitting around in a lab storage room. Dude, you need to lay off the psychoactive substances. You seem to be taking them in random order. ;-)
    1
  10. We all did. Titration is the seventh wonder of science. It's so simple that it can't fail, yet it always does. ;-)
    1
  11. People don't know what plastics are and they have absolutely no clue that there is an entire class of plastics that are, strictly speaking, proteins or at least very protein-like materials while other natural materials like cellulose are also polymers of a different makeup. You can basically reduce the entire "problem" to a lack of education.
    1
  12. We are at the point where we are getting confirmation that roughly half of our fellow human beings are mentally insane. This needs to be taken into account in the future or the democracy experiment will take a very dark turn.
    1
  13. There is a good reason to take his internet access away. ;-)
    1
  14. Please try to choose better science communicators. Hossenfelder is, for sure, not one. An example of a good science communicator is Dr. Becky.
    1
  15. Christians don't really believe in Jesus. That's just too hard an example to follow. They rather follow any mental turd that a preacher drops on them.
    1
  16. Your pastor is still a deeply dishonest person. He makes his living by forcing a religious lie on children. The only way he could escape that reality is by sobering up and becoming an atheist.
    1
  17. Even in a universe that is suitable for life we are just a chance byproduct. The mass ratio between the mass of the sun and the mass of the biomass on Earth is 1e15 or so. Life is, most likely, only an afterthought in the entire universe. Probably no more than one part in 1e16 to 1e20 or so (that's just my own rough range estimate). Intelligent life... oh, boy... 1 in 1e30 or worse?
    1
  18. @ You can't name either, can you? :-)
    1
  19. It isn't a probability density function. That's one of the few glaring mistakes that many standard QM textbooks are sharing. To get a probability out of the wave function we have to sandwich a projection operator inbetween the wave function and its complex conjugate that describes the spectrum of the measurement system (that formula is called the Born rule). If we work in a position representation AND we are measuring position with arbitrary resolution (which no actual physical system can do), then that projection operator happens to be a unity operator. It's a mathematical corner case of the calculus that gives us different quantum mechanical measurements that is being frequently misinterpreted as a property of the wave function. The SE uses a unitary operator to describe the dynamic, so the total integral over the wave function stays the same. That, however, is NOT about the probability of finding the system in some state of space. It's about the total number of individual copies in the quantum mechanical ensemble staying unchanged. We start with an infinite number of systems and we end up with the exact same number of systems.
    1
  20.  @leopoldmolitch4040  A sane person is not required to stay nice at the sight of endless insanity. Where did you get that "rule" from? Did you make it up yourself? And what are you gaining by discounting sanity because of the tone in which it is being expressed? Is that helping YOUR case? Hardly. At most you are beginning to sound like a troll yourself. Here, have some more attention. :-)
    1
  21. Not really.
    1
  22. Yes, that was complete bullshit. ;-)
    1
  23. Academia is primarily about teaching. If your problem is that we don't let anybody just teach any nonsense, then you are right. We do not. We have very strict requirements for teaching at this level... which are actually still not strict enough, if you ask me.
    1
  24.  @georgelionon9050  I don't know what "the science system" is supposed to be. There is academia that teaches and does research. Then there is the national laboratory system for physics that does only research. That's a much easier environment to work in as a scientist. Other countries have equivalents of that. In medicine they have teaching hospitals. Geologists are working for the USGS, which provides a public service relating to health and safety. Oceanographers might be working for NOAA, space scientists are at NASA etc.. Each of these have individual oversight and org charts. They are all, at the end of the day, striving for excellence and have to account to the US taxpayer. If you think that this isn't being taken very seriously, then you must be a Trumper who feeds on fake news.
    1
  25. In that case you weren't paying attention in science class. ;-)
    1
  26. It isn't behind a paywall. You can simply walk into a university library and find all the literature for free. I do agree that there are not nearly enough textbooks in the public library system, though.
    1
  27.  @stargazer7644  The rest of you get in the car or on the bus and you drive or take a ride to the nearest one. Society makes this material available for free, but it doesn't have to serve it on a golden platter.
    1
  28.  @wawawuu1514  The internet is NOT academia. Academia are universities and colleges. Plenty of them allow public visitors to their libraries. At most they ask you to pay an annual user fee on the order of a few ten to a few hundred dollars. Running a library is very expensive and books and journals get damaged by use. Librarians need to pay the rent and so we pay them salaries. Surprise. What these institutions will not ask from you is a per item fee that the publishers are making their money with.
    1
  29.  @wawawuu1514  Then none of this should a big deal. We are generating scientific knowledge worth tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars a year and we are making it available for non-commercial use for basically for free. If you want a commercial license, then academic institutions will charge you. Depending on what you want to license you may have to pay thousands or even hundreds of millions of dollars for it. This, too, is necessary because the exploitation of inventions is expensive, so if anybody without a commercial license could use it, then corporations would simply not use it... without exclusive licenses one simply can't make a business case for investing the additional product R&D cost.
    1
  30.  @kujojotarostandoceanman2641  It has been around for a long time. They used to call it "the Gaia theory". I wasn't much of a fan of it because it sounded like new age nonsense, but if you really think about it, no species can survive without a very large number of other interconnected species. Even the most primitive life relies on a chemical or physical energy source that is provided by abiotic processes (like fusion in the sun) and different chemical sources (and sinks for waste products). So, yeah, life is one of those phenomena for which the usual divide-and-conquer strategy of science only gets us so far. It is a complex emergent phenomenon and we have to learn to analyze its complexities.
    1
  31. Her publications on quantum mechanics are complete nonsense. That's on the public record. I kind of doubt your statement about her intelligence. She may have an ability to manipulate math formally, but she lacks basic understanding of what it means and, more importantly, she doesn't have physics intuition. That's simply not enough to be a good physicist. If you want to see what the top people in the field look like, listen to Witten and Arkani-Hamed. There is an alternative explanation... if she knows what all of this means, then she doesn't mind lying, which is at least a moral flaw.
    1
  32. If that was "the only problem", then she would already be disqualified from modern physics. It hasn't been running on "hard determinism" since 1905.
    1
  33.  @St37One  Relativity tells us EXACTLY why the universe is not predictable: we have constantly energy flowing in from spacelike separated regions of spacetime. The point in time when we detect this energy (aka "event") is the first (and the last time) this energy can be detected. Nature won't and it can't give us a "heads up" for future events in general. A macroscopic example of this is NASA's "seven minutes of terror" video. During a Mars landing the radio signals from Mars are delayed by something like ten minutes. The actual atmospheric entry sequence, parachute deployment and ignition of landing engines/crane deployment for the lander payload are all over by the time the signal arrives. The ground controllers have no way of influencing these events, but they make a world of a difference to the folks who built the rover: if something goes wrong, they won't have a job for the next five to ten years (well, they have to start over from scratch). If it succeeds, then they will have a toy on Mars to play with. This is an example of non-determinism. The local future does not depend on the local past and present at all. It can not be influenced by any means imaginable and it can't be predicted with any formula from physics. It is like this all over the universe all the time on all temporal and spatial scales. "What happens next" is simply not fully predictable.
    1
  34. We teach the single, double and n-slit diffraction function in the same lecture in first year university level physics. All of it takes maybe half an hour.
    1
  35. Physicists, chemists and biologist aren't saying anything about social problems. These are not our fields. We don't have the tools and we don't even have any interest in social problems. If you want cheaper housing for the poor, then you have to hire some architects and a construction company. The physics department does NOT design multi-story housing and we do NOT have earth moving equipment. You also need to stop drinking. It makes you delusional about the separation of roles in a modern society. :-)
    1
  36.  @holyvoltage2762  I didn't read it. Why would I? :-)
    1
  37.  @s1nd3rr0z3  No such thing. There is only evolution and then there are intellectually lazy fools. ;-)
    1
  38.  @circleo1992  What's the difference between a deist and a theist? One has a d and the other a th in the name of his psychotic break. ;-)
    1
  39.  @cjdvise  Yes, and if they had started with something other than Nigerian Prince scams, then you might be living on a beautiful planet approx. 800 light years from here now. ;-)
    1
  40. Sorry that it runs in your family. :-)
    1
  41.  @charliep.9107  Either way I suggest you keep your distance.
    1
  42. Rogan makes his money with this kind of shit. And a lot of money it is. You can't expect him to give up on the money. He is a grifter. ;-)
    1
  43.  @Puukko79  Have you ever been to a psychologist? They will try to make you feel better, not tell you theories of how your brain works. :-)
    1
  44.  @Puukko79  What about "psychology is not science" did you not understand just now? Are you suffering from reading recognition problems? ;-)
    1
  45.  @Puukko79  And now you are feeling sorry for yourself. A Jungian would tell you now that you need to grow up. I am not a Jungian. I am a Freudian. I will let you blame your Mom for not giving you enough attention. ;-)
    1
  46. And gravity and that earth is not flat. Every time that line comes up you are dealing with one of three: a troll, an idiot or a genuine conman. ;-)
    1
  47. There are no particles. Quanta are small amounts of energy. When we detect one we get a "click" in a detector. The "clicks", i.e. when and where these detectors absorb a small amount of energy seem random. We therefor start to collect statistical information (histograms) about them. In the limit of large numbers these histograms become probability distributions. The theory predicts these probability distributions as the product between a wave function, its conjugate complex and a Hermitian projection operator that represents the absorption spectrum of a physical measurement system (the detector). What happens is that almost nobody who makes these videos actually knows WHY the formalism looks the way it looks. For that you would have to read Heisenberg's matrix mechanics papers, where this is somewhat laid out in a language that still relates to physics and that will give you a bit of physics intuition about what is happening. A few years later a mathematician called von Neuman generalized the relatively straight forward physics and math in Heisenberg's papers to an abstract mathematical formalism that comes from functional analysis (the mathematics of linear operators and function spaces). At that point the connection to measured quanta of energy disappears from the textbooks and is replaced with a general notion of "quantum mechanical state". You also lose a sense that this "state" means the state of a quantum mechanical ensemble, i.e. an infinite repetition of the same experiment. Instead it starts looking like as if the wave function relates to an individual system. That is complete nonsense. It was never constructed that way, neither by Heisenberg nor by von Neumann. It's just easy to loose sight of the translation between physical measurements ("clicks") and mathematical formulas.
    1
  48. Electrons don't orbit. You are being deceived by images which do not represent reality.
    1
  49.  @phirah79  Science simply doesn't care about the lies called "gods". What it does is to lay bare the difference between an honest person called "scientist" and a liar called "priest", "preacher" etc.. The honest person provides ample evidence, the priests, preachers etc. only provide bullshit. Say it ain't so. ;-)
    1
  50.  @famenpamendetsroy  Show me one resurrected dinosaur. How about a common house cat that came back from the dead? Anybody in your family that got resurrected, yet? How about ANYBODY at all for which you have actual evidence? Nothing. Zip. Zilch. It's like the resurrection is a fairytale, like Little Red Riding Hood. Oh, wait. The resurrection is a fairytale. And that's OK. There is nothing wrong with fairytales. Where the lies start is when somebody claims that a fairytale is reality. :-)
    1