Brian Cox and the BBC productions have singlehandedly created in the uk and the world a new love and appreciation for science and its many, many wonders to a vast, appreciative audience of people who may not have ever considered science or known little about it prior to these programs. Bravo!
at the very start of the video i had a little chuckle;
how mathematicians and scientists humour can come from someone scientificaly inept making a simple but law breaking mistake on a seemingly logical equation.
i dont know why, since im not very smart myself, but i always find logical humour to be the funniest :D
@JohnGaltx64 You should read the posts before you reply to them, that's usually a good thing to do. He asked if you could take photographs of atoms, I said you could with en electron microscope. And to answer your question, we have mange to get several images of electrons also, this one is recent: goo(.)gl/Lwcy8
No, that's not a picture of an electron. That's a picture of a charge distribution. You will never be able to see an electron through any means. Research the Uncertainty Principle. And the only other way to read your statement is to say that you can use electrons to take pictures of atoms, which is also not true. You are seeing an image of how the electrons interact with the atoms, not the atoms themselves.
@JohnGaltx64 Now you're just being a moron on purpose. When you take a picture of a coffee mug, you don't take a picture of the actual mug, you only record the photons that are reflected off it. When you take a picture of an atom with electrons, you bombard the atom with electrons and record all electrons that come in return, and calculate the reflection point. It's the exact same thing. And second, an electron IS A CHARGE DISTRIBUTION, it's not a classical particle like a billiard ball.
......you've never studied physics in your entire life, have you? I suppose that's why you upload bullshit videos like this. The part where Brian Cox says that all the electrons in the universe shift when he heats up the atom? He violates: domain of validity for QM, relativity, and information theory.
But...of course...you're just going to ignore that and keep pretending we can see electrons, aren't you?
@JohnGaltx64 Well, it depends what "to see" means for you. Electrons can not hit the ipRGC in the eye and generate a signal that is interpreted by the brain. Because they are only sensitive to EMR within the 1.8-3 eV range. But this biological process has no bearing in a picture, which we were talking about. An instrument or device can use whatever radiation it wants to generate a picture, in this case beta radiation. In the link above they used electric charge to generate a picture.
I honestly have to say...that was a very good presentation. Many of you whom responded had strong and valid questions/theories...but some of you must have totally wasted your own time when all you could comment on was how he looked and how it wasn't presented with your favourite people. Some of you learned absolutely nothing at all and it was really pointless you even commented. Keep up the good work Professor.
i thought that it was not electrons being fired through the slits but photons? thats what i saw when i watched this experiment on horizon, and individual photons being fired one at a time. Am i missing something here, have they done it with both electrons and photons and the same thing happens?
@simabah If you want a "Theory of Everything", you'd need one picture that describes the small world, the large world and the extremely small and the extremely large - and their behaviour. You also need all the forces acting in these worlds. We've come very far now, we just can't explain the extremely small world, and we can't make gravity into the picture with the rest.
I think Dr Cox failed to mention the strangest thing of all regarding the double-slit experiment: the observer problem. That when a person, trying to detect which slit individual electrons go through, disrupts the interference pattern; that the electron, as if "knowing" it's being watched, stops behaving like a wave and acts instead like matter again, resulting in two lines on the screen corresponding to the two slits. That is the weirdest result of all, the implications of which are unsettling.
@Deeraise It's only strange and unsettling if you decide to interpret it in some special way to begin with. The only mechanism of observation we have is visible light, photons. So if you want to observe the electrons as they pass the slits, you'll have to "bombard" them with photons. In so doing, you are providing the electron with another particle that in can interfere with instead. Without photons, it has to interfere with itself (which give the strange pattern).
@iasedu "The only mechanism of observation we have is visible light, photons. So if you want to observe the electrons as they pass the slits, you'll have to "bombard" them with photons. In so doing, you are providing the electron with another particle that in can interfere with instead. Without photons, it has to interfere with itself (which give the strange pattern)." where did you get this info??? i was in agreement with Deeraise's comment, you are the first i've heard an answer from.
@iasedu touche salesman! Is that indeed why the interference pattern gets interrupted when one tries to measure it? I certainly wasn't intending to allude to some mystical or spiritual interpretation - superstition isn't my style. But I am admittedly ignorant with respect to quantum weirdness. I enjoy learning about it to no end, but alas, I'm a biology student and nothing more. That explanation makes perfect sense however! I guess the wave-particle duality is the weird part, and nothing more.
@iasedu well yes and no... If you put a detector on one slit, the electrons going through the *other* slit behave like particles again. Feynman has a wonderful description of that in the Auckland lectures (also on Youtube)
Everyone else has covered just how awesome this video and Prof. Cox is. They are. But I'd like to point out how cute Jonathan Ross looks, just completely riveted watching the lecture.
i love the part about everything being connected! and i always thought that those hippies who said "we are all connected" were just smoking some good shit!
@gogochriso as he proved, electrons in the atoms escape out of their orbit when applied to by a slit, when that's happening it's orbit keeps moving further and further away, until the orbit moves so far that the atone no longer exists.
Can someone explain that to me in more detail, where he says the diamonds atoms are exploring space, and there's a finite chance that the diamond could not be in the box
@gogochriso if u pay attention to the equation part again, he says the time you would have to wait for the diamond to randomly move outside the box, is 600 BILLION TIMES the current age of the universe. im pretty sure thats longer then the life span of the universe. basically its impossible. dont worry about it too much.
@gogochriso They must explore space in order to "Know" what is going on in all the other atoms to be able to apply the exclusion principle. Everything is exploring everything else, constantly and instantly. Things could happen in the universe that mean that diamond cannot be in the box anymore or it would be defying the exlusion principle. Chance of it happening to all of its electrons at once is tiny but if the diamond were tiny, chance increases.
I am very surprised to hear how profoundly misunderstood Dr. Cox is concerning the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Perhaps there is some experimental data that I am not familiar with. The principle states that the discreet emission spectra associated with the excitation states of alkali metals are identical to the filled states of noble gasses. Therefore Pauli advanced the hypothesis that these energy levels were in fact "containing" electrons, and could only hold one per state.
@Iridium237 The PEP is often defined as: "In a closed system, no two electrons can occupy the same state." This is because no two electrons are allowed to be identical, they have to be distinguishable somehow.What you mention is one of the early experimental data to support the model, it has later been generalized. (One can think of the universe as a closed system)
a single helium atom has a radius of 0.000 000 062 mm...it would be in a box, then, of 0.000 000 063 mm...it has a mass of 4.002 atomic mass units and Planck's constant is 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s. Anyone care to tell me how long you'd have to wait for a single helium atom to jump from its box? i cant figure it out.
@Annon91 wow cool thanks for that. That is an incomprehensively long period of time, given the minute scale we're talking about. I appreciate your time- this is how youtube comments should be used rather than that endless and inane bickering.
@lughanodlum 1.660538921(73)×10−27 x 4 is mass in kg x 0.00000063/1000 for your box in meters all divided by 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s simplified thats:
so...according to Heisenberg, the smaller the cell we lock the world's most dangerous criminals in, the larger the chance they won't be in there next time we check? The fact that the universe is constantly expanding only makes things worse- there are more places for them to be other than where we want them.
@TonyisepiC There are class C stars, so-called "Carbon stars", were the spectral analysis show a very high abundance of carbon. This is stars were all the oxygen has been consumed into CO2 - halting fusion processes and leaving carbon to form freely. These stars have all the right conditions for diamonds to form (in planet sizes), so by statistics alone, there should be many diamonds flying around.
Good job brian. I have great respect for you as a scientest anyway, but i love how you explained what is a very hard subject easy to understand for regular people and fun. Great job mate!
@kernowchris will it make it worse if I tell you its Plancks constant ? :) To be honest if your a person that has a constant named after you you are so far beyond us mere mortals in your ability to understand things that im glad you discover constants and not things that change, that way I can just write down the number and know it.!
@Dannnytrules Quantum Mechanics is the mathematics describing motion and interaction of subatomic particles. Quantum Theory is the the implications. You could say that Quantum Theory is 'evolution' and quantum mechanics is 'natural selection'.
@Dannnytrules Quantum Mechanics is just a subset of quantum theory, QT contains also Quantum field theories such as QED (Quantum electrodynamics), QCD (Quntum chromodynamics) and the electroweak interaction which unifies the electromagnetism and the weak interaction in a single theory, you can add to that quantum gravity theories that are trying to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity in a single theory which are string theory then loop quantum gravity.
Well I'm not going to spark any debates or try and tell Prof. Cox he is wrong, simply because I know I'm not smart enough to do so. That was awesome to watch and made the whole idea a little less daunting. I wish I'd tried harder in physics at school. I could have done so much better. Great upload, thank you.
Physics was defined by processes which could be described mathematically and manipulated such that new technologies could be developed. Modern physics is not about processes but mathematical manipulation of abstract structures. If you QM theorist about processes they start talking about multiple universe and 11 dimensions and measurement makes reality. The interpretation of process is so bad Brian Cox spent four minutes trying to distinguish QM from the New Age mysticism.
What most physicist fail to mention is that quantum mechanics is experimental based. They created the ideas to fit the data. General Relativity is theoretical based and then was tested whereby proving the theory was correct. Quantum mechanics is strange because logic didn't come before experiment. In mathematics it is like having the conclusion, then trying to write some proof that is consistent with the conclusion. Bohr and Pauli did that.
err cuz Ben Miller isn't a professor of physics . . . he's from the south and he did maths . . . . . . . . . . . maybe he makes cupcakes with his wife in Holland Park ? ?
@English0pium ermmm i have two problems with this video . . . well one really ! why isn't there a southerner like Ben Miller presenting . . . . FUCK OFF idiot !
@English0pium No, but he did complete (or partly complete) a physics PHD on novel quantum effects in low-temperature quasi-zero dimensional mesoscopic electron systems.
But hey, what would I know.......
I must have been hallucinating when they said that about him on QI.....
Brian.firstly my cous Earny Ruthford was born in ruthford street nelson NZ in 1871 I guess he will always be clamed by the the uk unlike some of his mates of the time that were less smart. Techinacly he formed his theorys in the uk but we in NZ still claim him as our own.
I love all that you spew out re planks throry, the planets, the universe, atomic thory and all your views on where we are and where we may have come from. I would love to meet you to chat life.
@iasedu The tripple 9 club eludes me Im afraid. 145 last test.. maybe too many weekends in places like Ibiza when I was a younger man. Its the great ones that see the the importance of knowledge when they are young and grasp learning early on. A few of us try to play catch up once the penny has dropped, the rest are happy with their lot and know no different. I like to think I am catching up on a few things and guys like Brian make it so easy to do so.
I wonder, then, if instead of a diamond, you get something very small with a tiny mass- say a neutrino or even smaller a gluon- when will that tiny object pop through a solid box? I guess that is the basis of quantum tunneling.
Also makes me wonder why neutrinos can pass through the Earth so readily, since we can indeed measure their mass.
this show was great but what really confused me was what was the whole point of putting sand between 2 slits when he basically shows us that that doesnt happen with electrons. that caused alot of confusion with me
@flyinjoethebest basically he was just showing what most people would think if you told them 'electrons through slit what happens?' They'd imagine it being like sand, like air, but they are like waves of water, which is what he was exclaiming.
@flyinjoethebest The point of the sand pouring was to show what you would expect to see if electrons were particles in the same sense that grains of sand are particles: namely a binary (two peaks) distribution having passed through the two slits. Instead, we see the interference pattern, which suggests that electrons are not discrete particles like sand grains, which only affect their immediate neighbors. Instead electrons seem to interfere with one another at a distance, like waves.
As I watched, trying desperately to absorb and understand, I couldn't help the nagging idea that; if you were somehow able to combine the brain matter of Brian Cox, and Stephen Fry, into a single being, you would create a being as close to any definition of "God" as has ever been conceived.
very nice! Although I still don't get how no 2 electrons cannot have the same energy in different space. I guess there is some truth about astrology :)
this mother is on download for keeps. easy enough to grasp but not patronising spoon fed drivle i like it. might just buy his bbc series on amazon now. if its as good as this im in for a treat.
Um, Feynman's work was way after Heisenberg's so how can the uncertainty principle be derived from Feynman's equation? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
@FinnishFuturist Generally if you propose a theory that better explains "something", your new theory should "collapse" into/produce the old theory under some conditions, assuming both theories are correct. Basically, Heisenberg came up with a fundamental principle of physics, and if Feynman's equation violated this principle, it most likely wouldn't have been accepted. I can't myself give the intricacies of how he worked it, I'm an undergrad, but i hope it helped temporarily :)
@FinnishFuturist No, what he was saying was that WE can derive the uncertainty principle from Feynman's equation, not that it was originally derived from it.
I don't understand how when I make a campfire I am affecting the campfires a trillion light years away on another planet. Other than that, great show.
@rcguy69 When you start a campfire, you will be changing the energy states of one trillion trillion trillion electrons. And since no two electrons in the universe can have the same energy state, the electrons in the campfire on another planet have to know - somehow - the energy states of the other campfire and change accordingly. Or just be at another energy state "knowing" that no other electron in the other campfire will have the same. It's a strange thing indeed.
@iasedu imagine a massive flat plane with a layer of ballbearings of the same size, no matter how you move a single ball, it effects the position of all of the balls at the same time( you cannot move up or down) , if you extennd this allegory over astronomical distances the effect remains simultaneous, it's basically the same as pauli's theory, except you have to substitute space taken up by the ballbearings and substitute it for electron energy states, hope that helps
@spudlington Sorry, but that's just stupid. The universe is not tight-packed with fermions. The average distance between every gas molecule in air is about 3.5 nanometers, which is a lot compared to the size of the atom (0.13 nm).
36:20 ....Mindfuck...
rkcraigslist51907 4 hours ago
Very good.
CelticReject 5 days ago
is video gives you new whole idea of the univers
lilzee507 6 days ago
probability maths, isnt real maths, it doesnt prove anything
thestalkinghead 6 days ago
@thestalkinghead This statement just proves that you don't know what 'real maths' is.
parthon 6 days ago
Brian Cox and the BBC productions have singlehandedly created in the uk and the world a new love and appreciation for science and its many, many wonders to a vast, appreciative audience of people who may not have ever considered science or known little about it prior to these programs. Bravo!
TheFlinglish 6 days ago
at the very start of the video i had a little chuckle;
how mathematicians and scientists humour can come from someone scientificaly inept making a simple but law breaking mistake on a seemingly logical equation.
i dont know why, since im not very smart myself, but i always find logical humour to be the funniest :D
QBAlchemist 1 week ago
In the first 5 mins, Deepak Chopra is debunked, once and for all! Good stuff!
looktonature 1 week ago
I thought you couldn't take photographs of atoms?
HerpDerpBeehive 1 week ago
@HerpDerpBeehive You can't, because photo = light. But with electrons, you can. (Electron microscopy)
iasedu 1 week ago 3
@iasedu:
No. You can't take pictures of electrons. Do research before you post misinformation.
JohnGaltx64 5 days ago
@JohnGaltx64 You should read the posts before you reply to them, that's usually a good thing to do. He asked if you could take photographs of atoms, I said you could with en electron microscope. And to answer your question, we have mange to get several images of electrons also, this one is recent: goo(.)gl/Lwcy8
iasedu 5 days ago
@iasedu:
No, that's not a picture of an electron. That's a picture of a charge distribution. You will never be able to see an electron through any means. Research the Uncertainty Principle. And the only other way to read your statement is to say that you can use electrons to take pictures of atoms, which is also not true. You are seeing an image of how the electrons interact with the atoms, not the atoms themselves.
JohnGaltx64 5 days ago
@JohnGaltx64 Now you're just being a moron on purpose. When you take a picture of a coffee mug, you don't take a picture of the actual mug, you only record the photons that are reflected off it. When you take a picture of an atom with electrons, you bombard the atom with electrons and record all electrons that come in return, and calculate the reflection point. It's the exact same thing. And second, an electron IS A CHARGE DISTRIBUTION, it's not a classical particle like a billiard ball.
iasedu 5 days ago
@iasedu:
......you've never studied physics in your entire life, have you? I suppose that's why you upload bullshit videos like this. The part where Brian Cox says that all the electrons in the universe shift when he heats up the atom? He violates: domain of validity for QM, relativity, and information theory.
But...of course...you're just going to ignore that and keep pretending we can see electrons, aren't you?
JohnGaltx64 5 days ago
@JohnGaltx64 Well, it depends what "to see" means for you. Electrons can not hit the ipRGC in the eye and generate a signal that is interpreted by the brain. Because they are only sensitive to EMR within the 1.8-3 eV range. But this biological process has no bearing in a picture, which we were talking about. An instrument or device can use whatever radiation it wants to generate a picture, in this case beta radiation. In the link above they used electric charge to generate a picture.
iasedu 4 days ago
The path of least resistance is ...all there is.
evenme59 1 week ago
Anyone know who the brunette in the red dress (front row) is? I'd like to do a single slit experiment with her.
Castleinthesky007 1 week ago 7
@Castleinthesky007 That's cheesy.
iasedu 1 week ago
@Castleinthesky007 shes my wife :P hands off
HEROENGI 5 days ago
Comment removed
yurismir1 4 days ago
@Castleinthesky007 Yeah she's well-known (in the biblical sense)
yurismir1 4 days ago
Liked, favorited, and subscribed! Thank you for uploading this!
juggaloryan3 1 week ago
I think I am going to show some of Brian coxes videos to my teacher in Physics to let him know how much more exiting the lessons could be...
XxXMandogXxX 1 week ago 2
phuck Chuck Norris, Brian Cox is the man!
MrStardust85 1 week ago
we get jersey shore and they get this...WHY
1Gaumer 1 week ago 3
@1Gaumer Because they have license fees and the BBC, while we have only for-profit "entertainment" companies and a barely funded public channel.
TrueThanny 1 week ago
They should force every human on earth to watch this video.
Caineheist 1 week ago
I honestly have to say...that was a very good presentation. Many of you whom responded had strong and valid questions/theories...but some of you must have totally wasted your own time when all you could comment on was how he looked and how it wasn't presented with your favourite people. Some of you learned absolutely nothing at all and it was really pointless you even commented. Keep up the good work Professor.
SuzyQld 2 weeks ago
an amazing video and such a pleasure seeing all these positive and informative comments for a change,thanks for uploading this vid.
uberbiscuit 2 weeks ago
for smart comment see Dr. Shelldon Cooper.
jnugent1892 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
87TheProdigy87 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
87TheProdigy87 3 weeks ago
i thought that it was not electrons being fired through the slits but photons? thats what i saw when i watched this experiment on horizon, and individual photons being fired one at a time. Am i missing something here, have they done it with both electrons and photons and the same thing happens?
87TheProdigy87 3 weeks ago
SCIENCE RULES!!!!
Thinkdeep420 3 weeks ago
Is this the "Theory of Everything"?
simabah 3 weeks ago
@simabah No, it's the theory of the small.
iasedu 3 weeks ago
@iasedu Thx. but what is the difference?
simabah 3 weeks ago
@simabah If you want a "Theory of Everything", you'd need one picture that describes the small world, the large world and the extremely small and the extremely large - and their behaviour. You also need all the forces acting in these worlds. We've come very far now, we just can't explain the extremely small world, and we can't make gravity into the picture with the rest.
iasedu 3 weeks ago 5
@iasedu Thanks!
simabah 3 weeks ago
@simabah Yes simabah. Yes it is.
TheFlinglish 6 days ago
I think Dr Cox failed to mention the strangest thing of all regarding the double-slit experiment: the observer problem. That when a person, trying to detect which slit individual electrons go through, disrupts the interference pattern; that the electron, as if "knowing" it's being watched, stops behaving like a wave and acts instead like matter again, resulting in two lines on the screen corresponding to the two slits. That is the weirdest result of all, the implications of which are unsettling.
Deeraise 3 weeks ago 5
@Deeraise It's only strange and unsettling if you decide to interpret it in some special way to begin with. The only mechanism of observation we have is visible light, photons. So if you want to observe the electrons as they pass the slits, you'll have to "bombard" them with photons. In so doing, you are providing the electron with another particle that in can interfere with instead. Without photons, it has to interfere with itself (which give the strange pattern).
iasedu 3 weeks ago 14
@iasedu Well stated and correct.
Intellect1618 3 weeks ago in playlist Chosen Favorites
This has been flagged as spam show
@iasedu "The only mechanism of observation we have is visible light, photons. So if you want to observe the electrons as they pass the slits, you'll have to "bombard" them with photons. In so doing, you are providing the electron with another particle that in can interfere with instead. Without photons, it has to interfere with itself (which give the strange pattern)." where did you get this info??? i was in agreement with Deeraise's comment, you are the first i've heard an answer from.
87TheProdigy87 3 weeks ago
@iasedu touche salesman! Is that indeed why the interference pattern gets interrupted when one tries to measure it? I certainly wasn't intending to allude to some mystical or spiritual interpretation - superstition isn't my style. But I am admittedly ignorant with respect to quantum weirdness. I enjoy learning about it to no end, but alas, I'm a biology student and nothing more. That explanation makes perfect sense however! I guess the wave-particle duality is the weird part, and nothing more.
Deeraise 3 weeks ago
@iasedu well yes and no... If you put a detector on one slit, the electrons going through the *other* slit behave like particles again. Feynman has a wonderful description of that in the Auckland lectures (also on Youtube)
gasdive 2 weeks ago
@iasedu Thank you!
djfakt 1 week ago
Comment removed
mboot57 6 days ago
@Deeraise is that the measurement problem :S ?
Chanteisisjoseph 2 weeks ago
Screw all these massive top comments.
He's a babe.
myihc 3 weeks ago 5
hey folks anobody know the peice of music playing at the start? its realy beautiful
killbotone 3 weeks ago
@killbotone Moby - God moving over the face of the waters
Vendresse 3 weeks ago
That's why my keys keep disappearing !
cmpborat 3 weeks ago
Everyone else has covered just how awesome this video and Prof. Cox is. They are. But I'd like to point out how cute Jonathan Ross looks, just completely riveted watching the lecture.
geligniteandlilies 3 weeks ago
i love the part about everything being connected! and i always thought that those hippies who said "we are all connected" were just smoking some good shit!
shiznak55 3 weeks ago
@gogochriso as he proved, electrons in the atoms escape out of their orbit when applied to by a slit, when that's happening it's orbit keeps moving further and further away, until the orbit moves so far that the atone no longer exists.
bornAtruePERSIAN 3 weeks ago
Can someone explain that to me in more detail, where he says the diamonds atoms are exploring space, and there's a finite chance that the diamond could not be in the box
gogochriso 3 weeks ago
@gogochriso if u pay attention to the equation part again, he says the time you would have to wait for the diamond to randomly move outside the box, is 600 BILLION TIMES the current age of the universe. im pretty sure thats longer then the life span of the universe. basically its impossible. dont worry about it too much.
shiznak55 3 weeks ago
@gogochriso They must explore space in order to "Know" what is going on in all the other atoms to be able to apply the exclusion principle. Everything is exploring everything else, constantly and instantly. Things could happen in the universe that mean that diamond cannot be in the box anymore or it would be defying the exlusion principle. Chance of it happening to all of its electrons at once is tiny but if the diamond were tiny, chance increases.
KowBoySpace 6 days ago
Bringing new meaning to the rhyme:
"Twinkle twinkle little star,
How I wonder what you are,
Up above the world so high,
Like a diamond in the sky."
Sandcat87 1 month ago
Bloke is amazing and he draws u in like this watch his other stuff wonders of the universe and sola system
uklpk 1 month ago
Nope i disagree with Cox... God did it
rkcraigslist51907 1 month ago
@rkcraigslist51907 you're both right. think about it.
shiznak55 3 weeks ago
I am very surprised to hear how profoundly misunderstood Dr. Cox is concerning the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Perhaps there is some experimental data that I am not familiar with. The principle states that the discreet emission spectra associated with the excitation states of alkali metals are identical to the filled states of noble gasses. Therefore Pauli advanced the hypothesis that these energy levels were in fact "containing" electrons, and could only hold one per state.
Iridium237 1 month ago
@Iridium237 The PEP is often defined as: "In a closed system, no two electrons can occupy the same state." This is because no two electrons are allowed to be identical, they have to be distinguishable somehow.What you mention is one of the early experimental data to support the model, it has later been generalized. (One can think of the universe as a closed system)
iasedu 1 month ago
a single helium atom has a radius of 0.000 000 062 mm...it would be in a box, then, of 0.000 000 063 mm...it has a mass of 4.002 atomic mass units and Planck's constant is 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s. Anyone care to tell me how long you'd have to wait for a single helium atom to jump from its box? i cant figure it out.
lughanodlum 1 month ago
@lughanodlum 3.86 * 10^-14 s
Annon91 1 month ago
@Annon91 although with exact (and correct) values its t>9.951×10^-15 s
Annon91 1 month ago
@Annon91 wow cool thanks for that. That is an incomprehensively long period of time, given the minute scale we're talking about. I appreciate your time- this is how youtube comments should be used rather than that endless and inane bickering.
lughanodlum 1 month ago
@lughanodlum (ses the minus/negative '-' sign in the exponent.)
iasedu 1 month ago
@lughanodlum 1.660538921(73)×10−27 x 4 is mass in kg x 0.00000063/1000 for your box in meters all divided by 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s simplified thats:
(1.66 x 10-27 x 4 x 6.63 x 10-10) / 6.62 x 10-34
Which is about 4.4 x10-38 / 6.62 x 10-34
= 6.64 x 10 5 seconds
= 664000 seconds
= 184 hours.
KowBoySpace 6 days ago
"its just a little safety thing..stops your hands from catching fire"
ThePowerV3 1 month ago
@iasedu thank you good sir
TonyisepiC 1 month ago
Comment removed
sebrobbo 1 month ago
@sebrobbo ...he was deffinately the best keyboard player in D.Ream...
HOMEnHIGH 1 month ago
This is brilliant.
Magyaaarvagyok 1 month ago
so...according to Heisenberg, the smaller the cell we lock the world's most dangerous criminals in, the larger the chance they won't be in there next time we check? The fact that the universe is constantly expanding only makes things worse- there are more places for them to be other than where we want them.
lughanodlum 1 month ago
@lughanodlum ye but the probability of the criminal escaping is as likely as winning the lottery every week for the next million years +
xixkieranxix 1 month ago
lots of jews..
HOMEnHIGH 1 month ago
@HOMEnHIGH Jews are awesome.
iasedu 1 month ago 4
@iasedu ...lots of jews are better..:)
HOMEnHIGH 1 month ago
can someone explain to me the part about how we know that star is a diamond? I'm confused about the star part
TonyisepiC 1 month ago
@TonyisepiC There are class C stars, so-called "Carbon stars", were the spectral analysis show a very high abundance of carbon. This is stars were all the oxygen has been consumed into CO2 - halting fusion processes and leaving carbon to form freely. These stars have all the right conditions for diamonds to form (in planet sizes), so by statistics alone, there should be many diamonds flying around.
iasedu 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I cant believe people pay $ to go to the movies when all THIS is FREE on you tube.
Amazing !
rachabsolorzano 1 month ago
i love the fact that he's always smiling. brian seems so passionate about physics, it's really thrilling.
akemimeka 1 month ago 3
I feel like a bad ass for already knowing all of this, this has given me motivation to revise some physics.
Flextaa 1 month ago
@Flextaa Same. It's good for the masses though, not everyone knows these things
sharpezor 1 month ago
Good job brian. I have great respect for you as a scientest anyway, but i love how you explained what is a very hard subject easy to understand for regular people and fun. Great job mate!
patric2413 1 month ago
" Twinkle, twinkle, little star, How I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, Like a diamond in the sky."
Duplooytim 1 month ago 2
Thank you so much for putting this up!! been needing this for some work for AAAGES!!
MrAT1008 1 month ago
MOBY!
Ohloveeh 1 month ago
when he started talking about planks constant, my brain began to melt.
kernowchris 1 month ago 2
@kernowchris will it make it worse if I tell you its Plancks constant ? :) To be honest if your a person that has a constant named after you you are so far beyond us mere mortals in your ability to understand things that im glad you discover constants and not things that change, that way I can just write down the number and know it.!
KowBoySpace 6 days ago
LOVE!!!
hmala 1 month ago
Great!
ElMufro 1 month ago
Great and simple lecture :)
saultube44 1 month ago
By Quantum Theory does he mean Quantum Mechanincs?
Dannnytrules 1 month ago 4
@Dannnytrules Quantum Mechanics is the mathematics describing motion and interaction of subatomic particles. Quantum Theory is the the implications. You could say that Quantum Theory is 'evolution' and quantum mechanics is 'natural selection'.
iasedu 1 month ago 9
@Dannnytrules Quantum Mechanics is just a subset of quantum theory, QT contains also Quantum field theories such as QED (Quantum electrodynamics), QCD (Quntum chromodynamics) and the electroweak interaction which unifies the electromagnetism and the weak interaction in a single theory, you can add to that quantum gravity theories that are trying to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity in a single theory which are string theory then loop quantum gravity.
AchwaqKhalid 1 month ago 26
dont get me wrong, he is good, and i like his stuff, but c'mon!
RasAhmose 1 month ago
@RasAhmose so you are perfect and don't have any defects that bother people, fixing in this guy hair and make up is yours, so fuck off
saultube44 1 month ago
never met a real scientist who worried soo much about their makeup and hair. lol
RasAhmose 1 month ago
@RasAhmose *not even females*
RasAhmose 1 month ago
@RasAhmose name the scientists you know
English0pium 1 month ago
I was supposed to be revising GCSE physics... I think I got distracted. This is much more interesting.
wordsarecrazy 1 month ago
when i first saw this, my mind went 'poooooooooof' so many times. 'we can all fit inside this diamond' pooooooooof
im33dammit 1 month ago
Well I'm not going to spark any debates or try and tell Prof. Cox he is wrong, simply because I know I'm not smart enough to do so. That was awesome to watch and made the whole idea a little less daunting. I wish I'd tried harder in physics at school. I could have done so much better. Great upload, thank you.
MPAH1981 1 month ago
whoo quantum theory XD
im such a nerd
paige64933 1 month ago
absolutely brilliant explanation of empty matter!
numberonewoozle 1 month ago
Physics was defined by processes which could be described mathematically and manipulated such that new technologies could be developed. Modern physics is not about processes but mathematical manipulation of abstract structures. If you QM theorist about processes they start talking about multiple universe and 11 dimensions and measurement makes reality. The interpretation of process is so bad Brian Cox spent four minutes trying to distinguish QM from the New Age mysticism.
BinaryStars100 1 month ago
What most physicist fail to mention is that quantum mechanics is experimental based. They created the ideas to fit the data. General Relativity is theoretical based and then was tested whereby proving the theory was correct. Quantum mechanics is strange because logic didn't come before experiment. In mathematics it is like having the conclusion, then trying to write some proof that is consistent with the conclusion. Bohr and Pauli did that.
BinaryStars100 1 month ago
@BinaryStars100 It's at the stage GR was between theory explaining data and data proving theory?
tobylane 1 month ago
Amazing!!!
Funny enough, I found the calculation part easy compared with some other explanations.
SuperGoldenPony 1 month ago
Funnily enough I just bought a book of Brian Cox the other day.
thedutchman01 1 month ago
Wow.
That was just great.
Thanks for putting this up man.
thedutchman01 1 month ago
Bollocks, when this finished I waited for Match of the Day 2 to come on
TheZenEffect 1 month ago
"Unless it's turned into a dead cat." Oh Jonathon xD
ResoluteReader 1 month ago
I have two problems with this video.
(1) It wasn't long enough (mmmm physics)
(2) Where was Ben Miller eh? This could have been even more of a nerd fest ;) Watching those two get their nerd on would have been awesome!
Otherwise, a truly magnificent lecture; I only wish I'd been there!
gildlily78 1 month ago 7
@gildlily78
err cuz Ben Miller isn't a professor of physics . . . he's from the south and he did maths . . . . . . . . . . . maybe he makes cupcakes with his wife in Holland Park ? ?
English0pium 1 month ago
@English0pium ermmm i have two problems with this video . . . well one really ! why isn't there a southerner like Ben Miller presenting . . . . FUCK OFF idiot !
English0pium 1 month ago
@English0pium No, but he did complete (or partly complete) a physics PHD on novel quantum effects in low-temperature quasi-zero dimensional mesoscopic electron systems.
But hey, what would I know.......
I must have been hallucinating when they said that about him on QI.....
gildlily78 4 days ago
@gildlily78 you know how to read wikipedia . . i can read souls.
English0pium 1 day ago
Too much awesomeness at one. Brian Cox and Jim Al-Kahlili on the same stage, i'm in physics heaven.
baldurus1 1 month ago 4
With the string waves, it's easier if one end is clamped still somehow.
Pumpkinhead77 1 month ago
<3 science @ :50
jeremyengleman 1 month ago
John Butterworth @ 56:42
He lectured me :D
Snoopey0 1 month ago
Brian.firstly my cous Earny Ruthford was born in ruthford street nelson NZ in 1871 I guess he will always be clamed by the the uk unlike some of his mates of the time that were less smart. Techinacly he formed his theorys in the uk but we in NZ still claim him as our own.
I love all that you spew out re planks throry, the planets, the universe, atomic thory and all your views on where we are and where we may have come from. I would love to meet you to chat life.
lmk2k7 1 month ago
@lmk2k7 I would really have liked to test your IQ.
iasedu 1 month ago 7
@iasedu Ditto
xfilion 1 month ago
@iasedu The tripple 9 club eludes me Im afraid. 145 last test.. maybe too many weekends in places like Ibiza when I was a younger man. Its the great ones that see the the importance of knowledge when they are young and grasp learning early on. A few of us try to play catch up once the penny has dropped, the rest are happy with their lot and know no different. I like to think I am catching up on a few things and guys like Brian make it so easy to do so.
lmk2k7 1 month ago
This was awesome. Brian Cox is my hero.
I wonder, then, if instead of a diamond, you get something very small with a tiny mass- say a neutrino or even smaller a gluon- when will that tiny object pop through a solid box? I guess that is the basis of quantum tunneling.
Also makes me wonder why neutrinos can pass through the Earth so readily, since we can indeed measure their mass.
blackday44 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
did de Beers search inside Brian's gaping jacket sleeves afterwards?
gruff5 1 month ago
i'm feeling lost ar 40:25.
TravelsWithKris 1 month ago
@TravelsWithKris *at
TravelsWithKris 1 month ago
Great choice of music. Moby ftw.
neutrinosoup 1 month ago
what a gem
1000wrongdecisions 1 month ago
I came
jushiga 1 month ago
Thanks for posting the video was over my head but I enjoyed it very much . Love when Brian talks ..
kbunky69 1 month ago
Brian cox..looks like the older version of the intern that got killed by the sniper on bones.
cha53z 1 month ago
Still confused. If nothing can travel faster than light than how can the electron or its information go all the way round the universe in an instant
sinjinnsinjinn 1 month ago
it drives me nuts thats he doesnt write down the names of Pauli, or Heim.
ShimmyDigg 1 month ago
Seriously, who the fuck pressed dislike?
tq3eufiy 1 month ago
@tq3eufiy An idiot.
xxJackeeboixx 1 month ago
That whole energy level thing just blew my mind across the bedroom wall.
aaron9099 1 month ago
my physics teacher went to this she was excited the whole week.
fakeaccount663 1 month ago
It fills me with hope and joy that this kind of program is a viable form of entertainment. Its not all consumer zombie content.
Roywocket 1 month ago
this show was great but what really confused me was what was the whole point of putting sand between 2 slits when he basically shows us that that doesnt happen with electrons. that caused alot of confusion with me
flyinjoethebest 1 month ago
@flyinjoethebest That was to demonstrate how you would expect a particle to behave, not how a particle actually does behave.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
@flyinjoethebest basically he was just showing what most people would think if you told them 'electrons through slit what happens?' They'd imagine it being like sand, like air, but they are like waves of water, which is what he was exclaiming.
StarCloud14 1 month ago
@flyinjoethebest The point of the sand pouring was to show what you would expect to see if electrons were particles in the same sense that grains of sand are particles: namely a binary (two peaks) distribution having passed through the two slits. Instead, we see the interference pattern, which suggests that electrons are not discrete particles like sand grains, which only affect their immediate neighbors. Instead electrons seem to interfere with one another at a distance, like waves.
paulgeoffreybrown1 1 month ago
There's no woo woo
Squallzy13 1 month ago
at about 5mins in what does esp stand for?
headissheded 1 month ago
@headissheded extra sensory perception... Basically, mind reading or metaphysically revealed wisdom.
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
As I watched, trying desperately to absorb and understand, I couldn't help the nagging idea that; if you were somehow able to combine the brain matter of Brian Cox, and Stephen Fry, into a single being, you would create a being as close to any definition of "God" as has ever been conceived.
MrBigunALE 1 month ago
Outstanding!
MBaxtonM 1 month ago
i feel like if i was there i would be the person in the "sorry we're drunk" tshirt that is baffled.
OCTAVIUSnfriends 1 month ago
the guy at the end with the beard, was that Ben Elton?
LordlyJeremy 1 month ago
very nice! Although I still don't get how no 2 electrons cannot have the same energy in different space. I guess there is some truth about astrology :)
wakatuvia 1 month ago
@wakatuvia How does that make astrology true?
EudaemonicGirl 1 month ago
james may loved this
simon199418 1 month ago
this mother is on download for keeps. easy enough to grasp but not patronising spoon fed drivle i like it. might just buy his bbc series on amazon now. if its as good as this im in for a treat.
Titankilla1982 1 month ago
1:45
TheFovak 1 month ago
Um, Feynman's work was way after Heisenberg's so how can the uncertainty principle be derived from Feynman's equation? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
FinnishFuturist 1 month ago
@FinnishFuturist Generally if you propose a theory that better explains "something", your new theory should "collapse" into/produce the old theory under some conditions, assuming both theories are correct. Basically, Heisenberg came up with a fundamental principle of physics, and if Feynman's equation violated this principle, it most likely wouldn't have been accepted. I can't myself give the intricacies of how he worked it, I'm an undergrad, but i hope it helped temporarily :)
shinuito 1 month ago
@FinnishFuturist No, what he was saying was that WE can derive the uncertainty principle from Feynman's equation, not that it was originally derived from it.
QuixoticTendencies 1 month ago
I don't understand how when I make a campfire I am affecting the campfires a trillion light years away on another planet. Other than that, great show.
rcguy69 1 month ago
@rcguy69 When you start a campfire, you will be changing the energy states of one trillion trillion trillion electrons. And since no two electrons in the universe can have the same energy state, the electrons in the campfire on another planet have to know - somehow - the energy states of the other campfire and change accordingly. Or just be at another energy state "knowing" that no other electron in the other campfire will have the same. It's a strange thing indeed.
iasedu 1 month ago 5
@iasedu imagine a massive flat plane with a layer of ballbearings of the same size, no matter how you move a single ball, it effects the position of all of the balls at the same time( you cannot move up or down) , if you extennd this allegory over astronomical distances the effect remains simultaneous, it's basically the same as pauli's theory, except you have to substitute space taken up by the ballbearings and substitute it for electron energy states, hope that helps
spudlington 1 month ago
@spudlington Sorry, but that's just stupid. The universe is not tight-packed with fermions. The average distance between every gas molecule in air is about 3.5 nanometers, which is a lot compared to the size of the atom (0.13 nm).
iasedu 1 month ago