Intro To Richard Feynman

[scuzzulus]

feynman ftw

[sidewaysfcs0718]

tehnically in order to see an atom it needs to radiate photons ...

so u will never see an atom when its moving like a wave , u can only see it when it reflects the photons u hit it with.

[zaphod97]

Russian scientists, using a field emitting electron microscope photographed a carbon atom in 2009.

G00gle 'photo of atom'

see at the insidescience web site. Her statement was wrong when she said it, but she is right now

[ChalleFoV3]

didn't find it. Could you find the photo for me, and the interwebz?

btw. Zaphod Beeblebrox is a douche! love Trillian though :) And I should remind you of towel-day on the 25th of May!

[Sconz32]

"All before anyone had even seen an atom with a microscope"

THEY STILL HAVEN'T!!

[zaphod97]

Actually they have.

[Sconz32]

Not directly. Find me a website.

[S2Cents]

"..we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society. "

-Some scientist said that, since you only value their opinion.

[twentyflights]

i won't debate this (ignoring the fact that your claim "some scientist said it" is weak). there is no implication of human catastrophe. just mere warning that heedless scientific exploration, especially in ignorance of human context, will lead to some bad things. moreover, scientific advance is not a sufficient condition for improving the human condition.

i would argue that it is a necessary condition though, despite the cases you fear. actual research tends to be more mundane than you think.

[S2Cents]

Einstein said it but ignoring that, my point is you don't have to be a scientist to have views on science that aren't simply dismissible. I'm aware that not included in that I quote (that I by coincidence came across in an article forwarded by a friend to me today) that there is no implication etc.

In any case, I deeply hope your right!

[Koshy2]

Alot of people say alot of things.

Some of them better to listen to than others.

[S2Cents]

Wow, pretty deep. I respect what Einstein says. I mean he seems worth a listen.

[S2Cents]

I LOVE science. But it's going to kill us all.

[Bobbel888]

Right! At least we are not really prepared for the changes that science invokes.

Feynman would follow his intuition and this is what remains to us.

[twentyflights]

this is the wrong way to go about it. i'm not sure how far into science you are, but i'm about to graduate from university in electrical engineering and getting at least a masters...and the only thing i can think is that it will save us all. it's immensely beautiful, and enough of the right people are studying it which means it will, in fact, be used to achieve a meaningful result.

[S2Cents]

You don't either.

You think you/they know more than they do. My feeling is either it will accidentally lead to disaster causing extinction of human life or death of most people -or perhaps all life, except maybe some strands of bacteria OR more likely the technological progress it will make or has made will result in producing things that will be used as weapons to kill. Nuclear war, 12 Monkeys scenario, who knows...

[twentyflights]

no, i understood that your view implied all of that, but i think that's a notion for the naive and the conspiracy theorist. science and technology drive civilization: (maybe over)simply put, the alternative is to lead lives defined by the pursuit of biological needs like food and reproduction. i'll take the former.

unless you're actually entrenched in a formal study of science, i'm not tempted to believe your view. not while i and other engineers and scientists have something to say about it.

[twentyflights]

and that's not to say science and technology don't produce problems, but that those problems are caused and supported by a smaller fraction of scientists and engineers than those trying to solve problems in the world.

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"I LOVE science. But it's going to kill us all."

*facepalm*

Science = method for acquiring reliable knowledge. Period.

Apparently you feel having reliable, accurate knowledge about the Universe is dangerous, and would have us... what? Sacrificing virgins to the sun god? You think knowledge will kill us, but ignorance won't?

Ultimately, all life on this planet is doomed. Our species' ONLY hope of outliving this planet is through science.

[S2Cents]

@ReductioAdAbsurdum

Lol. (not really) I was being pessimistic that day. Of course I was referring to the means or methods of what is called science possibly having unforeseen consequences as well as the technologies developed with it's crucial assistance.

I agree people will have to leave the planet eventually. I doubt they will and good luck making it somewhere. Hope they develop a "warp drive" in time.

[chuckinator0]

Science is a tool. We use it to cure disease, and go to the moon, but we also use it to make weapons of ever increasing efficiency and terror. Science itself helps us gain knowledge, but what we do with that knowledge is up to us. As Michio Kaku says, we are at a crossroads. We have to ability to lift our civilization to heights never before imagined--or, fall harder than any civilization has ever done before.

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"Science is a tool."

That's why I just said. Why are you replying to me?

[chuckinator0]

@ReductioAdAbsurdum I wasn't trying to reply to you in particular, just the subject. You seemed to imply that science can't be dangerous, and I wanted to make it clear that a powerful tool like science is, in fact, dangerous if we don't have the collective wisdom to use it in beneficial ways. Science is not enough. We need wisdom. There's a famous quote somewhere to that effect.

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"You seemed to imply that science can't be dangerous"

I did. Science is simply a method for acquiring reliable knowledge. It is not the tool which is dangerous, it is the *knowledge* so acquired. I wanted to clarify that distinction: when someone disparages science, what they are really disparaging is knowledge.

And that's fair. Knowledge *can* be dangerous. But do we choose ignorance instead? That's a hard pill for a curious animal to swallow, despite the fact that it may end up killing us.

[chuckinator0]

@ReductioAdAbsurdum We are in complete agreement. I was mistaken for not making the distinction between science itself and the knowledge gained thereof. Yes, it is the knowledge that can be dangerous, not science. Thanks for correcting me. As for the old question "would you rather live in ignorant bliss?" , I would rather not, being a curious animal as yourself, but I think some might. It all depends on whether that ignorance really is bliss (being a sacrifice=not bliss).

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"It all depends on whether ignorance really is bliss"

Look at Middle East theocracies. Science recognizes human fallibility, seeking to avoid cognitive errors that lead to erroneous knowledge, and requires mature acceptance of *not knowing* (see: Feynman on uncertainty).

Those who reject this discipline happily fill in blanks with pure bullshit of which they are absolutely certain, so they'll stone a woman to death for showing her face, because they "know" an invisible sky man requires it. :/

[chuckinator0]

@ReductioAdAbsurdum Feynman is one of my heroes. It's also convenient that God always seems to want exactly what would benefit the elite and keep the masses under thumb.

[pancakepie2]

Isn't a nanometer simply one billionth of a meter? Spelling aside, it has to be a part of the meter correct???

[OccamKant]

Watch the video again. The parts she's talking about are 100nm across - and she says 1 million of them would be an inch.

I worked it out, and it's correct, though actually 1 million of them would work out to about half an inch across.

[OccamKant]

Oops. Actually it looks like it would be 10x that, so make that 5" across.

[kdum8]

1 million x 100nm = 10cm. Once inch is 2.54cm so it would be ~ 4" across. Still it is very very sloppy to use metric and imperial measurements together in such a way. Time for the US to become metric I think. Currently the US is among the illustrious company of Myanmar and Liberia as the only countries in the world that are not metric. If the inventers of the imperial system, the Brits, can change then so can the US. It really wouldn't be that difficult.

[BXBZ88]

She then stated one million to the inch,not one billion.

[petrpecka]

one billion nanometers is one inch? at 1:34 :D

[jlange73]

brilliant man