skip to Main Content

Brian Cox – Everything Is Connected To Everything

Via

Dieser Beitrag hat 117 Kommentare
  1. This is a perfect example of logic based on the principle that matter is „all cause.“ the basic fallacy of modern science. Presently defined as, „unlimited or incalculably,“ and (correctly) regarded as only relative (true) it has yet to be given a basic definition. Prof. Cox gets it right, but only as based on a false datum that all space is defined by all particles.

  2. The Pauli Exclusion Principle means particles cannot have the same quantum state, not energy level. As quantum state includes the idea of location, „Professor“ Cox’s thesis would seem to be utterly wrong.

  3. There are surely 3 million billion billion electrons in your hands Brain that have changed their energy levels, they aren’t way off somewhere in another galaxy like you imply. Stop trying to wow the public with shitty interpretations of physics.

  4. @conorordan The point is they are not nessecarily the corresponding energy levels as the ones found in the diamond. Should one shift to the level equal to an electon found in andromeda the one in andromeda has to shift.

  5. @apawstate Yeah, except that „world famous“ has no correlation to competence at physics, rather than competence at entertaining the general public who are ignorant of physics.
    Being world famous isn’t required to discredit a wack misinterpretation of concepts that are fundamental to even an undergraduate course. Regardless, there are indeed accomplished physicists who testify to this. Eg. motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/brian-cox-misunderstands-locality-pauli.html#more

  6. @apawstate then you’ll love Sean Carroll’s Discover Magazine article: „Everything is Connected“ (you can search and find it online). Also look up „argumentum ad verecundiam“ while you’re at it.

  7. @apawstate then you’ll love Sean Carroll’s Discover Magazine article: „Everything is Connected“ (you can search and find it online). Also look up „argumentum ad verecundiam“ while you’re at it.

  8. @apawstate then you’ll love Sean Carroll’s Discover Magazine article: „Everything is Connected“ (you can search and find it online). Also look up „argumentum ad verecundiam“ while you’re at it.

  9. @apawstate Random? You have no idea who these commenters are. „World famous“ has to do w/ being on TV. Many physicists who are widely respected in their field and who have written books as well, have weighed in on this, and some are more respected than Cox in the halls of physics. An equivalent would be psychologists weighing in on Dr. Drew’s comments on TV. Being on TV involves image & the ability to state things in a way an audience can understand, but it doesn’t mean they’re 100% correct!

  10. @apawstate Random? You have no idea who these commenters are. „World famous“ has to do w/ being on TV. Many physicists who are widely respected in their field and who have written books as well, have weighed in on this, and some are more respected than Cox in the halls of physics. An equivalent would be psychologists weighing in on Dr. Drew’s comments on TV. Being on TV involves image & the ability to state things in a way an audience can understand, but it doesn’t mean they’re 100% correct!

  11. @apawstate Random? You have no idea who these commenters are. „World famous“ has to do w/ being on TV. Many physicists who are widely respected in their field and who have written books as well, have weighed in on this, and some are more respected than Cox in the halls of physics. An equivalent would be psychologists weighing in on Dr. Drew’s comments on TV. Being on TV involves image & the ability to state things in a way an audience can understand, but it doesn’t mean they’re 100% correct!

  12. @apawstate Random? You have no idea who these commenters are. „World famous“ has to do w/ being on TV. Many physicists who are widely respected in their field and who have written books as well, have weighed in on this, and some are more respected than Cox in the halls of physics. An equivalent would be psychologists weighing in on Dr. Drew’s comments on TV. Being on TV involves image & the ability to state things in a way an audience can understand, but it doesn’t mean they’re 100% correct!

  13. not all atoms in the universe changed, just the ones in his hand that went to lower energy levels so that the diamond ones could go to higher energy levels. for what i understand of thermodynamics thats how it works.

  14. not all atoms in the universe changed, just the ones in his hand that went to lower energy levels so that the diamond ones could go to higher energy levels. for what i understand of thermodynamics thats how it works.

  15. not all atoms in the universe changed, just the ones in his hand that went to lower energy levels so that the diamond ones could go to higher energy levels. for what i understand of thermodynamics thats how it works.

  16. not all atoms in the universe changed, just the ones in his hand that went to lower energy levels so that the diamond ones could go to higher energy levels. for what i understand of thermodynamics thats how it works.

  17. not all atoms in the universe changed, just the ones in his hand that went to lower energy levels so that the diamond ones could go to higher energy levels. for what i understand of thermodynamics thats how it works.

  18. @Gonzaga78 You should be in the top comments because that is exactly the truth, there can’t be 2 electrons in the exact same state, but just for specific atoms, not for all the universe.

  19. @Gonzaga78 You should be in the top comments because that is exactly the truth, there can’t be 2 electrons in the exact same state, but just for specific atoms, not for all the universe.

  20. @Gonzaga78 You should be in the top comments because that is exactly the truth, there can’t be 2 electrons in the exact same state, but just for specific atoms, not for all the universe.

  21. @Gonzaga78 You should be in the top comments because that is exactly the truth, there can’t be 2 electrons in the exact same state, but just for specific atoms, not for all the universe.

  22. @Clarice007 His point is the diamond (or anything) doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When heats it up with his hands, he’s simply exercising the fact that nothing exists and nothing can be manipulated without everything else existing and being manipulated at the same time. Think of it this way: when you walk down the street you don’t walk with your limbs swinging in a blank space. You are a part of the environment which surrounds you, leading all the way to the edge of the universe.

  23. @Clarice007 His point is the diamond (or anything) doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When heats it up with his hands, he’s simply exercising the fact that nothing exists and nothing can be manipulated without everything else existing and being manipulated at the same time. Think of it this way: when you walk down the street you don’t walk with your limbs swinging in a blank space. You are a part of the environment which surrounds you, leading all the way to the edge of the universe.

  24. @Clarice007 His point is the diamond (or anything) doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When heats it up with his hands, he’s simply exercising the fact that nothing exists and nothing can be manipulated without everything else existing and being manipulated at the same time. Think of it this way: when you walk down the street you don’t walk with your limbs swinging in a blank space. You are a part of the environment which surrounds you, leading all the way to the edge of the universe.

  25. @Clarice007 His point is the diamond (or anything) doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When heats it up with his hands, he’s simply exercising the fact that nothing exists and nothing can be manipulated without everything else existing and being manipulated at the same time. Think of it this way: when you walk down the street you don’t walk with your limbs swinging in a blank space. You are a part of the environment which surrounds you, leading all the way to the edge of the universe.

  26. @Gonzaga78 What are his hands attached to? Where is his body? Where’s the room? Where’s the building? The city? The Earth? The solar system? The galaxy? It’s finite energy, but it’s all interconnected.

  27. @Gonzaga78 What are his hands attached to? Where is his body? Where’s the room? Where’s the building? The city? The Earth? The solar system? The galaxy? It’s finite energy, but it’s all interconnected.

  28. @Gonzaga78 What are his hands attached to? Where is his body? Where’s the room? Where’s the building? The city? The Earth? The solar system? The galaxy? It’s finite energy, but it’s all interconnected.

  29. @Gonzaga78 What are his hands attached to? Where is his body? Where’s the room? Where’s the building? The city? The Earth? The solar system? The galaxy? It’s finite energy, but it’s all interconnected.

  30. @EggofTreachery you dont even understood what i said. the moment when energy is transmited from his hand to the diamond only the atoms in his and and diamond are afected. of course later the diamond will transfer energy to the air until both reach the same temperature. but it doesn’t happen all at once like he says.

  31. @EggofTreachery you dont even understood what i said. the moment when energy is transmited from his hand to the diamond only the atoms in his and and diamond are afected. of course later the diamond will transfer energy to the air until both reach the same temperature. but it doesn’t happen all at once like he says.

  32. @EggofTreachery you dont even understood what i said. the moment when energy is transmited from his hand to the diamond only the atoms in his and and diamond are afected. of course later the diamond will transfer energy to the air until both reach the same temperature. but it doesn’t happen all at once like he says.

  33. @apawstate He is wrong. That’s the thing about science – it doesn’t matter who says it, if it’s wrong then it’s wrong. You should never believe something just because somebody „smarter“ than you said that it was so.

  34. What is wrong about this is that he uses the term energy level instead of quantum state. For example, a helium atom can have 2 electrons at the same energy level, but they have a different angular momentum. So the quantum state isn’t the same. So he is not completely wrong either, but IMO he over simplified the Pauli exclusion principle.

  35. @LLUZION I know that energy level’s, spins, velocity etc make up quantum state as a whole. What else? Since you so openly critizised him using the term „energy level“ and basically accused him of not knowing anything about particle physics, you must have some extensive knowledge on this subject. Please, do share.

    Just so you know, quantum mechanics can’t be explained by hand motions and nice words. No one understands it enough to summarize it to a couple sentences. Not even Brian Cox.

  36. @apawstate *facepalm* I take it you’ve never heard of an appeal to authority? Nobody is infallable and nobody is above criticism.

    I like Brian I really do what he said is wrong. He over simplified it to the point that it was simply innacurate. He doesn’t deseve the amount of crap he’s been getting though, trying to describe quantum physics to laymen isn’t something I envy.

  37. @LLUZION He’s not an idiot. Furthermore, you’re an asshole, because you’re accusing him of making a statement which he most certainly did not. Get the fuck out.

  38. Brian is just making things easy to understand for people like us dont know the ABC of physics .. he just renamed Quantum Numbers as Energy levels cuz everyones familiar with it … im sure he knows what he is saying .. so STFU 🙂

  39. @lkampy10 exchange ‚energy level‘ with ‚quantum state‘ at 0:22 and he’s correct. He dumbed down quantum state to energy level for the general public…

Kommentare sind geschlossen.

Back To Top