No you are wrong.

I think he peaked at eleven, but is down to fewer. There are a couple he ditched that are still around, like Visual Politin EN, a russian propaganda channel. A couple others failed and are gone.

And Simon also has his Blaze channels where he shouts, jumps around and waves his arms a lot.

@@livinginvancouverbc2247Since his second kid he doesn't do the Blaze standing. Nor does his space heater talk to him. But we have a mix of writers and two editors now, and stories of his son's giant dump.

@@DimBeam1 oh, ok.

Take my damn like

I was thinking the same 🤔

But even with this fact, to whom the joke is on is uncertain. 😊

Sometimes that's not a bad thing, with any knowledge comes power. Just imagine if most people understood things like this, how many would blow their selves up or those next to them?

​@@infigrins let's not confuse knowledge with recklessness...

I think Simon's writer(s) deserves a lot of credit he or they aren't getting.

I try to imagine footnotes by Richard Feynman. I sure wish Simon could have interviewed Richard.

😂😂😂😂hahaha thats awesome!

Or Heisenberg "Compensators"

@@TheIronSaviorShould have said "if I knew that, I'd be a theoretical physicist with a Nobel prize".

"That's still uncertain"

I was going to mention that, but to my memory, it was called the Heisenberg Compensator in the episode Relics.

It is very good, though I feel he should have emphasized how it is more or less an exaggerated version of how things do actually seem to work based on the math even though it started as a joke. Like with Einstein a lot of early thinkers on quantum physics made a lot of breakthroughs sarcastically

I learned a classical analogy - To know the speed of an object you need to measure how long it takes to get from point A to point B. IF A an B are close together the uncertainty in the speed gradient is higher, in an instance you have no gradient. If they are far apart you don't know where the object was doing exactly the average speed you measure. This is not entirely accurate, but is a good starting point before learning about quantum weirdness.

“I am the danger” - Heisenberg

@@bencollier9423I don’t like it. HEP has nothing to do with observers, it’s that the thing can’t physically exist in known states of both observables at the same time. Which why the uncertainly in position has nothing to do with the actual velocity. Even at zero velocity.

I just got to it….it’s pretty good, but if you really want to understand it, you need to use complex waves, not real ones. It simply doesn’t work with out a complex phase. But still, it was well done.

That’s true ! My dad, who got into relativity late in life, couldn’t quite accept the idea that there wasn’t a universal "now". I was exposed to the subject at an early age and am quite comfortable with the concepts involved. Hoping to get there with the quantum mechanical view of reality

​@Riin_Rio your dad sounds awesome

Bunch of nonsense, better check Medium story about burning time (like by Cherenkov effect) lab experiment from 50s, when the speed of light exceeded, and the next outcome from that on what was instead of Big Bang: BURNING TIME IN LABS AND IN GALAXIES Galaxies, Not the Big Bang, Are Birthplace of Matter

👍

Thank you, I hope wonderful things happen for you on wednesday

​@@NupetietPeculiar specificity there 🤣

Heisenberg’s uncertain cat named Schrödi.

Well, that's where Einstein comes in. But what is dark matter?

Does it matter? ​@@racamacafo8069

​@@racamacafo8069 YES

@@racamacafo8069 No one knows for sure yet. But we're working on it.

The universe is indeed expanding, and in a sense, parts of it are expanding away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. This doesn't violate the laws of physics, particularly Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that nothing can move through space faster than the speed of light. The key here is "through space." The expansion of the universe is the expansion of space itself, not objects moving through space. The speed at which galaxies recede from us is proportional to their distance from us, a relationship described by Hubble's Law. For galaxies far enough away from us, this recession speed exceeds the speed of light. This doesn't mean these galaxies are traveling through space faster than light; rather, the space between us and those galaxies is expanding so rapidly that the light from those galaxies takes increasingly longer to reach us, and beyond a certain distance, known as the Hubble length, the space expands faster than light can traverse it. So, in summary, the universe's expansion does lead to galaxies moving away from us at an effective speed that exceeds the speed of light, due to the expansion of space itself, not because objects are moving through space faster than light. This concept is a cornerstone of modern cosmology and is well-supported by observations and theoretical models. Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The statement that dark matter and dark energy are "place-holders" rather than hypotheses might not fully capture their role in physics and cosmology. Both dark matter and dark energy are indeed hypotheses proposed to explain observations that cannot be accounted for by our current understanding of the universe. For example, dark matter is hypothesized to explain the "missing" gravitational forces observed in the rotation curves of galaxies, which cannot be explained by visible matter alone. Dark energy is proposed to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe. These are not just placeholders but are based on a substantial body of indirect observational evidence. Scientists are actively trying to directly detect these phenomena and understand their nature. Matter Travelling Faster than Light: The clarification provided in the argument about matter not being able to accelerate past the speed of light is essentially correct and aligns with the theory of relativity. It's accurate that no massive object (something with rest mass) can reach or exceed the speed of light in a vacuum due to the relativistic effect of mass increasing with speed, which would require infinite energy to achieve. Expansion of the Universe and Speed: The analogy given to explain how objects can have superluminal (faster-than-light) recession speeds due to the expansion of the universe is helpful but needs a bit of precision. While it's true that due to the expansion of space, distant galaxies can recede from us at an effective speed greater than that of light, this doesn't mean they are moving through space faster than light. Instead, the space itself is expanding. This distinction is crucial to avoid misunderstanding how the speed limit of light works in relativity. The analogy of the car, Earth's rotation, the solar system's movement, etc., serves to illustrate that speeds can add up depending on your frame of reference, but the expansion of the universe is a different phenomenon where space itself expands. Relativity of Speed: The final point that speed is relative is fundamentally correct and is a core principle of Einstein's theory of special relativity. The speed of any object is always measured relative to some other object or frame of reference. However, the universality of the speed of light in a vacuum remains constant in all frames of reference, which is a unique aspect of light's speed and not applicable to speeds under non-relativistic conditions (like the movement of cars or planets). In summary, while the argument presents a generally correct view of certain complex astrophysical and cosmological concepts, it blends some analogies and explanations in a way that could be misleading without careful distinction between the phenomena being described (e.g., expansion of space vs. movement through space). So, no, the video is correct.

Up until about my early 30’s, long long ago, I thought there was an actual cat in a box and that’s it. That’s how it was explained in our 8th grade science class. No one touched on it after that. Then watching a series on the universe on discovery channel or history channel they talked about the radioactive substance but again that was it. This is the first I heard of the hammer and poison even after I learned there was no actual cat after listening to Neal Degrasse Tyson explain it.

​@@brianbishop4753 You're right about there not being a cat. The animal in question is actually a skunk, and he's really ticked off, so you had best NOT open the box to look. 🤪😱

@@halibaitor lol! I’ll leave it closed

As the James Webb Space Telescope has recently proved.

Quantum physics is complicated and NON INTUITIVE, Simon. But YOU'RE Weird!

Our realistic goal is not to control the universe, but predict it.

Not bad, I enjoyed this video, and I appreciate that you didn’t associate the decreasing speed of light to climate change.

@@bryanpetersen1334 You just did associate it. Why?

you might be interested in "A Subway Named Mobius" is a 1950 science fiction short story by American astronomer Armin Joseph Deutsch." about adding a new connection to the subway system that results in trains going into another dimension...

And when he watches one of his own videos, things get REALLY complicated.

The actual principle is that particles don’t even exist, just wave functions. People think QM is “weird” because they expect it to answer questions about “particles” but the theory really only describes wave functions.

@@AdrianBoyko They're more like interaction probability blobs than waves. Until they hit something, at which point the probability of one of the interactions becomes one and the others become zero, which looks exactly like a particle, which is defined by already having been a single possible interaction. Symmetry would request that interference would make them stop being probability blobs, but that isn't how that works. The fact that there is a non-uniform distribution of probability is what makes it look and act exactly like a wave, so in that sense you're right: They do look and act exactly like waves until you force them into a particle-esque interaction by observing them.

@@bramvanduijn8086 They NEVER look like a particle. What kind of particle has an INTRINSIC constraints on position & momentum?

@@AdrianBoyko The uncertainty principle is concerned with the confidence intervals of a measurement, not the particle itself. What measurement device doesn't have intrinsic limitations on accuracy?

@@edwoodsr The uncertainty principle has nothing to do with measurement devices.

Cop: Dr Einstein, do you know how fast you were going ? Albert: Depends how fast YOU were going.

Heisenberg and Schrodinger are driving down the road when they get pulled over by a cop. The cop asks Heisenberg... "Do you have any idea how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies... "That is uncertain, but i know where I am." Heisenberg's answer makes the cop suspicious so he tells Heisenberg to pop the trunk and walks to the rear of the car. The cop looks in the trunk and yells... "Hey, did you know there's a dead cat in here?!" Schrodinger yells back... "Well I do now!!!"

Not exactly knee-slapper

@@user-tt4jz3tm6tbecause they told it wrong. They mixed two different jokes. Poorly

A few days later they get pulled over by another cop. "I clocked you doing 80mph in a 65mph zone", says the cop. Heisenberg replies "Great, now we're lost".

We have 1 of those. She self-observes and collapses her own wavefunction at will. She's the emobidment of the felinopic principle.

True, cats have a 9 dimensional internal symmetry that’s unobservable.

It wasn't at all good and things most certainly are not particles and waves at the same time. That idea - "wave-particle duality" - is a long obsolete (but regrettably still prevalent) misconception arising from what was quickly understood to be an untenable interpretation of [the nature of] the quantum state (aka "wavefunction"). Ironically, Schrodinger himself used his cat to debunk it in his famous 1935 "cat paradox" paper. In fact even earlier, in 1928 in a lecture to the RI, he pointed out an even worse problem with the naive "quantum state as physical wave" ideas characteristic of some of the first attempts at interpreting QM. Similarly, the idea that superposition means "and" - e.g. that the particle _is_ in two (or more) places at once - is simply wrong. If it were true then it would also be true of classical objects! Classical mechanics can be written in the exact same Hilbert space and operator formalism as quantum mechanics ("Koopman-von Neumann classical mechanics") - superpositions included. Interference between the superposed components of vector states ("wavefunctions") and nonclassical correlations (entanglement) are the two phenomena that quantum physics exhibits but classical physics does not.

@@Verlamian all i know is if i roll a pair of dice down a craps table, it can be thought of as a wave of probabilities until they come to rest and the point is determined and the tumbling wave of probabilities collapses

So it was just a maths class.

​@ryanharkin9893 What, do you think physicists just sit in a cafe philosophizing about cats in boxes?😂

@@Ryan_Harkin yes, like all physics classes... Math is the tool that lets you do science.

sounds like you spent the entire chemistry class going over the first week of a physics quantum mechanics course. physicist quickly found "easier" ways of computing quantum mechanics than the differential equations you were probably grinding on.

yes, just like other classes are just reading classes.@@Ryan_Harkin

An IRL cat would have tried to escape. This would have put the detector closer to the radiation source, thus making the cat more likely to die, moved the detector and source farther away, making the cat certain to live, or knocked over the poison, killing the cat.

Furious is the correct state, but rather than a cat, the animal is actually a skunk. I advise NOT opening the box. 🤪😱

The speculation is about going around the light speed barrier. Most of it hinges on some variation of multiverse concept. I don't really care how we do it, but if we don't we're not going to the stars. At least not quickly. And I also think there would be a psychological effect. Finally found a barrier we cannot pierce. So I very much hope the science hippies figure this one out - warp, wormholes, Einstein-Rosen bridges, interdimensional. Whatever.

In Quantum Mechanics, the cat can be both dead & alive at the same time. In General Relativity, cats have 9 lives.

Research requires reading and we are all bias.

Those people would have to expand out of their Facebook groups first…

@@UnicornsPoopRainbows LOL

Yes he read aloud at an incredibly fast pace.

Its like on a small enough scale of information only for scientists things work differently on the macro scale for regular people then?

​@@TrollCapAmericaIt's weird how I understood your comment with no trouble after the first read, but it increasingly loses its meaning with subsequent reads.

True. Cat lovers are probably not happy with Schrodinger.

I love that, and it's actually kind of true.

@acollierastro has a great video explaining that misunderstanding

‘Dark matter’ is the result of a gap theory, because they have no actual idea how else to interpret their data…

Of course he has not. He talks too fast.

Because most people's brains aren't capable of understanding such concepts. That's not on them (or you). It's the limited nature of human biology. Who has hit the genetic lottery and who hasn't (the overwhelming majority of humanity). It's like trying to explain the size of our sun compared to the largest stars in the universe. When talking about sizes of that scale with no actual visual (or anything close to it) reference, It just doesn't compute.

these concepts took months if not more for those who came up with them for them to understand them. So of course it will take time for any one that is expose to them for the first time some time to understand them. Also some people may not want to understand them because at the end of the day most people just want to make money and that is their main interest. I agree with you that not all can understand these concepts. As a 14 year old I observed life in the following manner 1. Why do I need information if I can do mathematics and solve problems from scratch. 2 Adults are like children who play with other things. 3 I should be fine because I can do mathematics and play football. I can outdo those children who play football better than me because I can do mathematics better then than them; and I can outdo the children who do better mathematics than me because I can play football better than them. Einstein would never have been able to understand this. Can you?@@AnthonyJ504

Is it frustrating because they don't understand? Or because you don't understand it enough to be able to explain in a simplified way that they can understand?

@@josemv25 Probably both.

I know this is a mind twister but what we observe is mental images, that's everything we experience, matter, space, color, motion, as an appearance, we can't actually directly observe "out there" . Phenomena and noumena. Not like we are staring out through a window, more like a sensor. A camera would be the closest and we only have what's on the screen, it's 100% mental images as representations, not 1 to 1 of 100% external, not even 50/50. This is crucial to understand. So easy to just ignore the implications. The brain is an object. May be hard to believe but noumena (thing in themselves) are unobservable/unmeasurable, non-existent, can never be experienced except as phenomena, in the medium of consciousness. That would be what we call "real". And no I'm not saying reality only exists in our heads, that's what materialism states. Easy to see why we make the inference of an external reality based on appearances. This is a metaphysical assumption. "Realism, in philosophy, the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them."

@@Animalis_Mundana Eh, this isn't really true. We don't observe mental images. Our experiences and perception are mental images, but the things we observe may or may not be. You confuse observing something with perceiving something. The only thing we know about the reality outside our mind is our perceptions. And those perceptions can be and generally are heavily distorted.

@@DBZHGWgamer All experience is mental, regardless of whether or not anything extra-mental causes or informs it. We can only ever directly interact with and experience mental experience/phenomena. We have direct, empirical evidence mind exists and that is the only thing we can have such evidence exists, even in principle. What we actually experience as “reality” is thus necessarily, entirely mental (again, whether or not anything extra-mental causes or informs it.) Thus, “mental reality,” the mental world that we all live in, is not a theory; it is an undeniable fact of our existence. The only relevant question is if an additional, extra-mental “world” exists that our mental reality interacts with in any meaningful way. Since mental reality is an experiential and logical fact, it does not have to be supported by argument or evidence any more than “I exist” needs to be supported. The proposed existence of extra-mental phenomena that interacts meaningfully with mind cannot be empirically experienced as such. Thus, this proposition requires rational argument and/or evidence to support it. All evidence that is gathered can only be experienced as mental phenomena and thus is necessarily congruent with mental reality theory, otherwise it could not be experienced mentally (if it can be experienced mentally, it necessarily can be generated mentally.) All rational arguments for the existence of an external physical world originate and operate entirely within mind and strictly obey the rules and principles of mind. As per #’s 1, 8 & 9, such argument can only ever be about mental experience using mental capacities, following mental rules in making any argument, reaching a conclusion contained entirely within mind. Given all the above, there can never be, even in principle, evidence gathered or rational argument presented to support the existence of extra-mental reality that can distinguish it from mental reality. Thus, belief in an extra-mental reality is necessarily irrational because (1) it cannot be directly experienced, (2) no evidence can be gathered that can distinguish it from mental reality, and (3) no rational argument can be levied in support of it that does not innately rely upon that supposed “external world” being entirely consonant with, indeed subordinate to, the entirely mental nature of logical principles and processes. the saddest part is people think I'm trying to tell them the world isn't real or that it's fake or "all just in their head" because they equate their mind/consciousness to arise from the brain/matter, that the outside is more real than the inside. As if they are automatons or zombies or something, that's why they fear death so much and consider matter to be more fundamental than the inner self that would be immersed in space-time and that's it. Ask any person what they imagine soul to be, how they think it's said to exist(or even if it does)and I guarantee you they will tell you it's some invisible energy inside our bodies that control us like a ghost in a machine and that either they go up to heaven in space or go to the center of the earth or some crap for eternity, or more common they float off into non-existence, poof. Non-existence is unimaginable. That was never what the soul was, it's psyche. It's like they're starting off "out there" observing concensus reality directly without the medium of consciousness at the center of awareness. To me it sounds like they are really saying they think they are fake. They can't even fathom consciousness being fundamental and everything emerging from it because they don't have the self awareness to actually contemplate what they are actually experiencing, as it is. In fact materialism states the world we experience is inside our heads but also says there's another abstract reality out there that our senses pick up and the mental images we perceive are electrochemical images, a reconstruction of some concrete external reality "out there", it really does double, inside and outside, seperated but still miraculously 1. Even you think the representation is 1 for 1, you admitted it.

Rotate your socks after each wash so the stretched out toe goes on the pinkie toe. Then I don't know where the other one is, I just know it must be one with the opposite stretch and so it could be anywhere. So yeah, I guess I know it's somewhere. I never go out without two.

@@WaywardVet Well, he never stated he put the right sock on the right foot. It seems to be more of a decision that the remaining sock must be a lefty. If I'm always right, I can't be wrong.

@@preppen78 😆

Thats an illustration of quantum entanglement, not superposition.

That is a description of the "hidden variables" interpretation, which has been disproven by Bell's Theorem.

Yup. If you watch the recent Kurzgesagt video on "the last thing that will ever happen," they talk about how quantum tunneling in dead stars will... eventually, cause them to implode.

I would say more like "You look out the window, counting how many cars pass by in an hour. You write down the number after the hour is over. Then you see the second question on the exam: Where is the first car now? So you hop into your timemachine to find out. You hop into your car and follow the first car around. You fail the first question on the exam because there is now 1 car more."

Why thank you!

Yes and no. It’s based off of data we’ve gathered, but it still includes several interpretive elements or conclusions that are not so definitive. There’s still a lot we don’t know even what we don’t know in quantum physics that will have an effect.

@@Nathan-vt1jz True, but at that point he'd be writing a textbook, not a simple and succinct explanation.

@@Nathan-vt1jz the problem is the more precisely you identify the theory the more it’s place in the big picture becomes uncertain. The universe is conspiring against us all!

SR & GR are theories. Dark Matter and String Theory are hypothesis. Anyone who thinks he has "found dark matter" is a fool, regardless where he got his multiple PhDs from. Dark matter has been postulated in the early 1900s, by Caltech odd ball Fritz Zwicky, around the same time Hubble started looking at the Universe via the largest telescopes that could be constructed in the early 1900s, using the most advanced ideas and technologies. And while the Hubble's observations have been distilled into a "Hubble Law" gas become actual basic, testable science --- which concluded roughly that the farther away a galaxy is away from the Milky Way/Earth, the faster it "moves away from it" ... with the "Hubble Constant" saying, at the best estimates, that, in general, for every megaparsec or ~3.26 light years that a galaxy is away from Andromeda, it is "receding" from it roughly 70 KM per second --- Dark Matter and these other Ether or Planet Vulcan things (that are SUPPOSED to be needed to explain this or that cosmological or astronomical issue)... are still 100% assertions. Think about it: If "Dark Matter" is supposed to be the SCAFFOLD --- the 95% or so of gravity that's needed, in addition to normal/Baryonic matter's mere 5% ---- that forced the COALESCING of matter, so molecules could form from atoms... to allow the formations of large things and structures like stars and galaxies, local clusters, super clusters, and sheets of super cluster structure filaments that extended hundreds of millions of years, or billions of years.... why, AT THE SAME TIME, go on to say utter nonsense like, "but galaxy" X or Y doesn't seem to have dark matter? If one or two galaxies didn't need these invisible hands to grab hold onto them, to "keep them in place, to allow their FORMATION IN THE FIRST PLACE... WHY ON EARTH would any other galaxy need this imaginary Zwicky-proposed stuff? How do we know it's not Black Holes, or what's included in General Relativity, or other large-&-presently-unknown structures... that's keeping galaxies & large structures of the Cosmos... from "flying every which way into the darkness of space"? Every major, regularly shaped galaxy has at least one major central black hole and millions to billions of star-sized ones around it... enough to distort space-time tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of light years around them... And all the irregular ones ---- e.g. the Large and Small Magellanic clouds --- have hundreds of thousands to millions of star sized black holes, too, from supernovas and/or neutron collisions. Why shouldn't such natural existences be more than enough to nail down matter in and around a galaxy, so it wouldn't go "flying every which way" into the darkness of space? The Sun and Earth are roughly 25,000 light years from the Milky Way's center and its large black hole. We aren't going around and around the Milky Way because we were given free tickets but could get off the ride any moment we wanted to. Instead, we are STUCK where we are, 25,000 light years away from the Milky Way's center --- as per Einsteins GR --- because we are in a "gravity well" created by the central black hole of the Milky Way. The Sun/Earth is orbiting around the Milky Way at roughly 230km/second. If we want to go "flying every which way" into space, we need to be almost TRIPLING our orbiting speed. THAT is why stars don't flying every which way from their galaxies.... Some invisible hand like this 95% extra gravity from Dark Matter (faulty calculations based on faulty hypotheses: it's what Freeman Dyson's old boss, Enrico Fermi told him)... has nothing to do with it...

Unfortunately most English speakers get the difference between theory and hypothesis wrong. Outside of science, anytime someone uses the word “theory,” they almost always mean it as a hypothesis.

Exactly, i think PBS Space-Time had a video on that recently. If you know the momentum, in this case could be the speed of light, it will be pretty much impossible to have an observer flying along with the particle/object to determine it's location. And vice versa, it is just not possible to measure both at once as the physics involved go way beyond our capabilities.

@@Games_and_Music it goes beyond the fundamental principles of being able to measure in the first place. It’s like trying to measure a single gravaton

No, everything here is wrong. It’s not data or measuring that makes the HUP, unless by measure you mean apply an operator to a state.

His explanation isn't really accurate. A scientific theory does not have to be proven to be a theory. A scientific theory attempts to explain and predict a natural phenomena. A scientific hypothesis is an idea that can be tested and falsified.

Yep he's incorrect. Evolutionary theory was no less a theory the millisecond prior to emperical verification. Theory describes the a complex attempt at a descriptive framework. A framework which may or may not be correct or verified. He's basically trying to tell the millions that study inflationary, string, multiverse theory or many other unverified theories that it's just a mere hypothesis. It's far more than that and it's HE who is using it incorrectly. I assume he's trying to head off the 'oh evolution is JUST a theory' crowd. But there are already good responses to those folk without denying common and expert parlance. Imagine part of quantum theory is found to be wrong. Was only part of it a hypothesis all along. It's just silly: theory describes the framework not the epestemic status.

Good points. One thing regarding the 1st one: Not only the group velocity slows down due to the induced EM fields but also the phase velocity, thus the light itself (combined wave) slows down. The group/phase velocity doesn't appear slower but is slower. Unless you are defining light differently this means that light does indeed slow down in a medium. If I remember correctly, there have been many experiments done, namely foucault experiment that showed light travels slower in water than through air. Looking Glass Universe has 2 part video where she talks about the math/theory as well as conducts a basic test that one can do themselves too confirm the phenomenon.

@@jappp3105 you don't know much about carpentry I see. I bet you use Butt joints in all your woodworking.

@@jappp3105 Birds aren't fake and they have arms that we call wings because of the way they work.

@@RockBrentwood whilst I appreciate the suggestion, using short hand uses the same fine motor skills as long hand when it comes to writing things down. Typing is the way to go for people with Dysgraphia like me.

I'd be more crude. Gravity is a theory... test it .

@@cropduster123 none that were affordable and convenient. The most advanced recording technology of the day was a cassette tape and portable cassette players were a banned item at my school.

Cats like boxes so it's a win win

Everyone’s happy 😂

one problem with using dogs for experiments is that dogs can't go into MRI machines............ ......But cats can.

Let's not be too hasty on scrapping Schrödinger’s cat experiment. My neighbour's cat is volunteering, let me know, I will pay for travel and living expenses. Anywhere.

There is no such thing as a cat problem.

I better not check, I just might be in Thar.

Theory is used colloquially as hypothesis. Unless you are talking science there's no reason to correct somebody using the word theory.

A quote by Inigo Montoya comes to mind: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Have you considered that maybe when scientists use scientific terminology differently from you, perhaps they're not in the wrong, and you should reconsider your understanding of the terms? It seems funny that you're talking about correcting experts on their own fields of expertise without doing anything to recognize how that's at least questionable.

@@volkris It never occurred to you that I AM a scientist? I am intimately familiar with the 'terminology' scientist use. I was sharing some of my experience and recognizing someone for having a similar experience or, at least, pointing out that such experiences occur. Would you like to add to the discussion by sharing some of your experiences in physics, astronomy, mathematics, engineering, biology, or any field of scientific research? Or teaching, perhaps? The truth is that most 'scientists', with perhaps a few exceptions, know the difference between 'theory' and 'hypothesis'. It's the rest of society who seem to confuse the two which leads to a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding, and students having to be corrected. In creative writing, poetry, literature, the arts in general one can use artistic license and get away with stretching and redefining terms. In science precision is paramount. Everyone must agree on the definitions of terms and measurements or there can be no accurate testing and reporting of findings. You can't arbitrarily decide a word means something else because you feel like it should. If scientists in New York decided to use the term "velocity" instead of the term "direction", scientists anywhere else on earth would, at best, be confused by their experiments, HYPOTHESES, and results. They don't get to change the definition of the terms simply because they're 'scientists'. It's possible to have different terms with similar definitions, like 'speed' and 'velocity' but when engaged in scientific research the terms must be specifically chosen and defined and used consistently for their experiments and data to be reviewed and/or FALSIFIED by other scientists. 'Theory' and 'hypothesis' have very specific and EXCLUSIVE meanings. ESPECIALLY to scientists. The 'scientific method' doesn't START with a 'theory'. It, hopefully, concludes with one that brings us closer to understanding the universe in which we exist. A scientist wants one of two outcomes: either their research leads to or validates a 'theory' OR it is falsified or it falsifies an existing 'theory'. Before the research begins is the 'hypothesis' stage. The 'educated guessing' stage. The hypothesis can exist in a vacuum all by itself. The THEORY can only exist where observation and tested data validate it.

@@leandercarey Oh it definitely occurred to me that you might be a scientist, one completely unfamiliar with the way we use that terminology in our field.

You're welcome, and glad you enjoyed!

He also needed to explain a law though, e.g. law of thermodynamics.

The real issue comes down to two points: 1. There are more hypotheses than there are theories. 2. It is much easier to speak or write theory than it is to speak or write hypothesis. And that, I assure you, is an untested fact.

With all due respect to @ThatWriterKevin, what is given here it is more laymen's definition than a scientific one. A hypothesis is a testable proposition, while a theory is a model for a phenomena. Experiments are used to test hypotheses. Theories have as a purpose to predict the outcomes of observations. If you wanted to, you could hypothesize that string theory will never be modified to successfully predict current observations, though the outcomes would be either wait longer, or the hypothesis is wrong. Presentations of 'Simulation 'Theory' I've seen thus far lack a model. Most models are given as mathematics to be evaluated to compute the prediction. Thus 'Simulation Theory' indeed is not a theory. Nor is the statement 'We are in a simulation.' a hypothesis, as there is not enough information for the statement to be tested. Thus it is correctly called 'speculation'. (No insult to Mr. Babbage, Konrad Zuse, Ed Fredkin, Dr. Wolfram, or Dr. Bostwick' intended .. actually Zuse and Wolfram both posed finite automata models, but didn't say where we would find them. Mr. Babbage asked us to imagine a 'divine legislator' which was before computers, and he went on to invent the modern computer architecture, so his meaning seems clear enough. Still he didn't say how we access this computer to test if it is there.)

A lot of people were taught theories "graduate" to become laws. TED-Ed has a video titled "What's the difference between a scientific law and theory?" because it's so common. Simply, a law answers WHAT and theories answers WHY.

This is most of the times the case

There is a problem with calling math not a science. It is both a science and an art. An art of science if you will. It is also a part of formal science. So it can be considered its own category, but it is generally used to create scientific theory and laws which in the literal definition of creation is what one does in art. Mathematics is the backbone of science, and in turn the backbone of some forms of art mainly architecture. Consequently the study of mathematical equations is a scientific adventure. This is a long-winded form of saying that math falls in the middle of a Venn diagram between art and science. Conclusively making math both an art and a science.

It’s not about the universe knowing it’s about the interaction itself not the information, obviously the cat is either alive or dead but the interaction of observation having an “effect” is what’s important

@@NotWithMyMoney Did you not watch the video? People think that the experiment, the cat in a box experiment is meant to be real.

@@Alacritous who? What people? It was ALWAYS a thought experiment based on the data. Who are these people?

Why does it have to involve dead animals?

The universe knows in advance if the (let's change the name we love cats) Putin within the said box is in fact Dead as you say the universe already knew this ( sorry Carl Sagan says it the best ) millions, billions,millions, billions, billions and millions of years ago. Speaking of millions and billions, we made a cake with hundreds and thousands on top, we're hungry you hungry too

If the vial contained crack, the cat would still be alive twitching like a crack-head. lol

Theory in casual conversation....nothing nevermind. Lol

Right. Causality incorporates all energy, matter, and information. The bundle of goods that make “the world go round.” Just don't be the guy at the party who explains physics around the punch bowl 😂

It might be hard to find!

He's on a TRILLION channels!

For example conspiracy theories. And if I get told one more time that ‘scientist’ x proves conspiracy theory y but deep government covers it all up to suppress knowledge of z… I’m either going to scream, implode or explode. I would try and do all 3 at once but hey science.

This is great 👍

But they're not particles, they're wave-like probability blobs.

We can measure the speed of light inside our solar system, but we are not able yet, to measure the speed of light outside our own solar system. You could be right about smoothness of the space. We need to send outside our solar system more probes like Voyager , to do measurements and have more data to compare. But to do that we need to be more unite and stop killing each other.

Meowrr. 😆

Not even coin flips are 50/50

Well that’s not the point at all. The problem is the unitary evolution of a radioactive atom, which is weird. If I have a carbon 14 made today, and you have one that is 1,000,000 years old..who’s is more likely to decay first? The half life is thousands of years.

I haven't seen any evidence that Shroedinger didn't take it literally. I believe it's a legitimate theory as well. It is one of the many worlds theories where Universes branch off into two separate time streams like a cell divides in mitosis. I think we see that every person has their own reality from not just their point of view but in their individual interpretation of information. I think it's likely there are many things that can't be proven but are nevertheless true. There may be many things which we can prove for ourselves but not to another and yet these things may also be true for all.

People are not stupid for not understanding quantum physics. Nobody fully understands much about quantum physics. It always has the potential to evolve.

@@georgehh2574 The cat is both alive and dead is stupid. The author of that statement knew it was stupid, so did the man he sent it to. It was not intended to be serious. You don't need to know quantum physics to recognize absurdity. Or, at least I don't need to.

@@jimbrogan9835 Well yeah, no shit. I wasn't just talking about the cat thought experiment, I was talking about quantum physics broadly. Even if it's not an explanation of theories, it still concerns quantum theory, so I assumed you were calling people who are out of the loop as stupid.

.........nah

True, and her daughter and her daughter's husband both used hyphenated last names. But most textbooks say Curie. I guess in a video you have to keep it simple. But you are right. It's "skwoh-dov-ska" for anyone out there who wants to say it.

@@Bacopa68 most textbooks are incorrect then :) Maria Skłodowska-Curie is as simple as it's gets :)

@@marekjakubicki5795 I agree, and we do learn in the US that Marie S-C did name Polonium because she was a Polish nationalist.

@@Bacopa68 let's just admit that this bit is just accepted casual racism Westerners have towards Central and Eastern Europe, when literally unpronounceable names like Schroesdignerbergs or Heisengburgelander are considered "normal" but Sklodowska is "exotic". (No, I am not installing another layout to cross the "L")

Except that it's complete nonsense. (See my post from a few hours earlier)