Reply to: Path integrals on BBC2

[Doggy Styles]

My A-level physics teacher was a serious christian, and somebody once asked him in class how he could ratify the two. His answer was that the more you go into physics, the more you realise how little we understand about the universe. Which is a fair point, but it's still a bit of a leap from "I don't understand it" to "a magical being must have done it".

I wish I'd done physics at university, rather than boring old computer science. A friend of mine did physics at Cambridge, and still ended up as a software engineer, so it might not have made a lot of difference to my career.

I only meant understanding what god is, or would be if he existed. He might be a product of as-yet undiscovered physics.

It seems the more you know, the less you know. Which might make sense to a quantum physicist.

[d000hg]

...guitar solo...



On those occasions, according to Feynmann - you're wrong!

I liked what someone said on the letters page of New Scientist this week, regarding wave particle duality. An electron is neither a wave nor a particle. It is an electron.

I can't remember the term, but Hawking talks about how it's meaningless to talk about what an electron IS, only what models explain it.

[original PM]

...guitar solo...



On those occasions, according to Feynmann - you're wrong!
I liked what someone said on the letters page of New Scientist this week, regarding wave particle duality. An electron is neither a wave nor a particle. It is an electron.

Or alterntaively I was right and wrong at the same time

or I was right until I thought about it and then the wave form collapsed

[NotAllThere]

...guitar solo...

I did my dissertation on QED and Feynmans Sum over Histories stuff..

Fascinating!

ALso currently reading Cos's new book - The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen

sometimes I think I understand it and sometimes it is elusive like a mote in the corner of my eye...

On those occasions, according to Feynmann - you're wrong!

I liked what someone said on the letters page of New Scientist this week, regarding wave particle duality. An electron is neither a wave nor a particle. It is an electron.

[VectraMan]

It's easier to understand the possible existence of god than some of that stuff.

Sorry, don't start, just saying like.

My A-level physics teacher was a serious christian, and somebody once asked him in class how he could ratify the two. His answer was that the more you go into physics, the more you realise how little we understand about the universe. Which is a fair point, but it's still a bit of a leap from "I don't understand it" to "a magical being must have done it".

I wish I'd done physics at university, rather than boring old computer science. A friend of mine did physics at Cambridge, and still ended up as a software engineer, so it might not have made a lot of difference to my career.

[Doggy Styles]

It's easier to understand the possible existence of god than some of that stuff.

Sorry, don't start, just saying like.

[original PM]

I did my dissertation on QED and Feynmans Sum over Histories stuff..

Fascinating!

ALso currently reading Cos's new book - The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen

sometimes I think I understand it and sometimes it is elusive like a mote in the corner of my eye...

[Doggy Styles]

He didn't explain that bit. He went from saying not all electrons can be at the same energy level in an atom (and gave the analogy of the audience not all being able to sit in the front row), to all electrons in the universe can't be at the same energy level therefore they magically communicate.

And what about that infinite number of parallel universes?

Or is that a different theory?

[Sysman]

Well, it was



He only had 5 minutes left, after all...

This could be my walk home depending the consumption of beer. The planked constant?

There's some complex weave theory in there too.

Not to mention a bit of Hennessy uncertainty

[VectraMan]

I couldn't get my head around the bit where he said that no 2 electrons in the universe can have exactly the same energy level (Pauli Exclusion Principle). He said that if he warmed up the diamond he was holding, therefore changing the energy of the electrons in it, then this led to instantaneous changes in all electron energy levels in all atoms in the universe. WTF??? Or did I misunderstand that wrong?

He didn't explain that bit. He went from saying not all electrons can be at the same energy level in an atom (and gave the analogy of the audience not all being able to sit in the front row), to all electrons in the universe can't be at the same energy level therefore they magically communicate.

[bless 'em all]

This could be my walk home depending the consumption of beer. The planked constant?

[Cliphead]

I couldn't agree more old chap! I can barely watch ancient history programmes anymore without getting into a tizz.

Much as I love history programs I prefer to read what would be uni course content. I have an interest in Roman history (who doesn't), I did latin at school and that got me interested.

More recently I read Prof Mary Beard's Pompeii and still correspond with her about questions I have about that particular time and a very knowledgeable lady she is and I'm grateful that she takes the time to answer my questions. What do we get on TV? A 'dramatised' version based on froth (not the BBC program the book was based on).

I prefer to read Pliny although already translated as I can't do that.

[Gibbon]

I don't care who delivers the content as long as the science isn't patronising and aimed at children. Cox I'm indifferent about, the only time I got stay up late as a child was when the Sky at Night was on and learned a lot about astronomy from Patrick and his books which I could get from the library. So I ended up doing astronomy at uni but got sidetracked into IT.

Anything that might get kids interested in science / maths is valid but the beeb have lost the plot along with other program makers who seem to assume that the raw subject is too difficult for most to understand and so dumb down the subject and in some instances turn it into short soundbites. Does this lead to contributing to a short attention span of the audience? I think so but it's anecdotal at best and I can't quantify that.

The culture of x For Dummies doesn't help either, fully embrace a subject and explore or forever be bound by the summaries of wiki and Google searches.

I couldn't agree more old chap! I can barely watch ancient history programmes anymore without getting into a tizz.

[Cliphead]

I don't care who delivers the content as long as the science isn't patronising and aimed at children. Cox I'm indifferent about, the only time I got stay up late as a child was when the Sky at Night was on and learned a lot about astronomy from Patrick and his books which I could get from the library. So I ended up doing astronomy at uni but got sidetracked into IT.

Anything that might get kids interested in science / maths is valid but the beeb have lost the plot along with other program makers who seem to assume that the raw subject is too difficult for most to understand and so dumb down the subject and in some instances turn it into short soundbites. Does this lead to contributing to a short attention span of the audience? I think so but it's anecdotal at best and I can't quantify that.

The culture of x For Dummies doesn't help either, fully embrace a subject and explore or forever be bound by the summaries of wiki and Google searches.

[Sysman]

So it's not just me that finds him irritating!

Not just me either!