There are many models which have their own proofs. Without wave-particle duality, there would be not electron microscopes. One definition of a wave is the probability of a particle being at a certain time t. This is one topic where Einstein disagrees with de Broglie, who also disagrees with Feynman, and so on, hence the Copenhagen interpretation. They all agree on the differential equations behind the wave-particle model, but their interpretations of the equations are all in violent disagreement. Great topic though

>> ^offsetSammy:

According to Feynman's QED, there's no such thing as "wave-particle duality", it's just all particles. The behavior of the particles, however, is very strange, and that's what accounts for their wave-like characteristics. QED came after Dirac and Schrodinger (it was a refinement of their theories), so I'm not sure why it doesn't get acknowledged in these kinds of discussions.
QED also predicts exactly the results of things like the double slit experiment without ever resorting to the "well the wave collapses into a particle when we observer it" kind of thing.

According to Feynman's QED, there's no such thing as "wave-particle duality", it's just all particles. The behavior of the particles, however, is very strange, and that's what accounts for their wave-like characteristics. QED came after Dirac and Schrodinger (it was a refinement of their theories), so I'm not sure why it doesn't get acknowledged in these kinds of discussions.

QED also predicts exactly the results of things like the double slit experiment without ever resorting to the "well the wave collapses into a particle when we observer it" kind of thing.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^COriolanus:
Can any one provide a link for an opposing view?

The one I have been reading about is MOND
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND
There is also the newer, or newer to me, QG unification theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
I think there is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic rules of matter, energy, time and space. I don't have much evidence to support this idea. It might be the same problem Einstein had with QED that I have with dark matter, it's messy. It seems like we are creating something first because of the maths we have agreed are true instead of questioning the fundamental understanding. I compaire it to Quine's web of belief. I could be wrong, perhaps there is some wacky matter out there that behaves the exact opposite of real matter, is most of the stuff in the universe, and doesn't interact electromagnetically with our plane of existence...but it seems like reaching for straws.


It's wrong that Dark Matter is just some wacky thing created because of the maths. It is observed, through its gravitational interaction. Just because it doesn't interact electromagnetically doesn't mean it's invisible. It's also wrong that Dark Matter behaves the exact opposite of real matter. The Standard Model of particle physics is far from complete, and we already know of particles that interact through one force of nature and not through others. To posit a new fundamental particle that could fit the Dark Matter profile is not really that far fetched. There are even candidates obtained through Supersymmetry that may or may not provide the right answer. I don't find this messy at all, and frankly, Nature doesn't care if you think its rules are messy or not.

Also, if you don't like messiness, MOND is really not the right answer for you. Modified Newtonian Dynamics is an interesting concept with some interesting results for their own sake, and it may still ultimately prove correct. The idea that extrapolation from high gravitational fields to low ones might be unsound is something that should not be dismissed. But so far, the data are not in MOND's favour.

>> ^COriolanus:

Can any one provide a link for an opposing view?


The one I have been reading about is MOND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND

There is also the newer, or newer to me, QG unification theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

I think there is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic rules of matter, energy, time and space. I don't have much evidence to support this idea. It might be the same problem Einstein had with QED that I have with dark matter, it's messy. It seems like we are creating something first because of the maths we have agreed are true instead of questioning the fundamental understanding. I compaire it to Quine's web of belief. I could be wrong, perhaps there is some wacky matter out there that behaves the exact opposite of real matter, is most of the stuff in the universe, and doesn't interact electromagnetically with our plane of existence...but it seems like reaching for straws.

REMEMBER Entropy merely states from "orderly" to "disorderly" in physics terms. Order is pure energy, disorder being the lack of that pure energy or the energy in dissociated forms (other than the e=mc^2 connection of course). In fact when you look at all the structuring and completely different things OTHER than pure energy, you know entropy is very well at work.

It doesn't mean CHAOS!!! I hate this Tripe (<--capital T).
Complexity is inferred in an entropic setup with time pointing the same direction as ours. No magic, no hocus-pocus needed. It breaks down and changes the structure to more obscure or "different forms" than that first moment. This is the same reason that people who look at the past with the mindset of using "the past" giving rise to statistics; which are helpful if you ONLY know their place. The chances that we would be here in reverse ARE 100% like his egg(unless quantum mechanics throws out a oddity: i.e. a virtual particle where there wasn't one, etc...).

Also, nothingness can't exist as he states. If you could even label it then it wouldn't, couldn't be; which is why in QM we have the quantum foam (QED, Richard Feynman) or quantum spacetime and virtual particles. The term nothingness is as closely related to the term virtual in a physics sense. In other words that idea is "kaput".

He's teaching the audience old, outdated, and sixth/seventh grade'ish material.

/Isn't TED supposedly new ideas being shown easily, like Feynman. They've been falling the last 6 months.

"Why is the gravitational constant at the value it is?"

I'll "try" to take this one.

It took a long time for me to make the connection as to why it is that number (I used to ask my physics teachers the same thing and got a blank look in response). If you believe in something outside the Universe I can't help you, sorry. This is a scientific response.

At the beginning of our Universe a certain amount of energy was in play and in turn eventually physical laws and so forth. But, the gravitational constant along with every constant we have is entirely based on the geometry of the Universe. It's shape and form; it's breadth and width of time. These numbers give a higher meaning to the simple form of energy that the Universe once was. It literally gives you all your abilities in life, as do all the other fundamental forces.

The reason they are "that number" is merely due to our defined state. Why they ended up as those numbers most likely go back to the very instant the Big Bang began; and if the Universe has been here before then perhaps it's been decided by other means (perhaps through quantum mechanical interactions with virtual particles or QED).

These numbers represent the energy structure of our Universe and show that at the Big Bang we "may" have interacted with something that gave rise to an unbalanced system, with dominant energies (what I mean by that is that we don't find huge clumps of anti-matter anywhere, even though it makes little sense math wise; but, recently we have shown that anti-matter innately shows up in smaller quantities than our normal baryonic matter--the question is why...). This energy differences and the fact the numbers are distinct and knowable mean that our Universe will have shape and reason based entirely off of these numbers.

If you believe that there might be alternate Universes then the thing that would most likely change first are these numbers or constants. That Universe will be fundamentally different and alien to us.

>> ^Sagemind:

OK, Just a minute, I'll be back once I've finished my Masters in Physics and Mathematics and learn Feynman Diagrams - Then I will make a comment.
Now..., Where do I register for the courses?


I was thinking the same thing, I didnt understand any of this. With that said, in the amazing age of the internet, there are quite a few paths to courses atleast leading up to this, for example, check out the Kahn Academy, it's brilliant: http://www.khanacademy.org/

Okay, up front: I'm a vision scientist. I've also read Behe's arguments re: the irreducible complexity of vision. It's odd the way the introduction to this video characterizes his argument. Everything it says regarding the evolution of vision is correct. It is so accepted in fact that Behe even lays it out in his paper. He openly admits how easy it is to get from the eyespots on a mollusk to the human eye. He lays out all the steps, and explains how advantages are conferred at each stage, and thus how it is conceivable that such a thing could have evolved.

Behe, as a biochemist, was most concerned with how it is one gets to the simple eyespot in the first place. The biochemical machinery required for phototransduction is extraordinarily complicated. Many of the substances involved are in fact toxic to cells, and special mechanisms are needed to safely quarantine them. The process relies on extremely complicated proteins, for instance opsin barrels precisely tuned in order to create the appropriate energy barriers to 11-cis retinal isomerization. There are a multitude of other chemicals involved, which I won't go into, but frankly most are required for phototransduction as we know it.

Now, I agree, Behe is guilty of other logical problems, for instance poverty of imagination != QED, but he is well aware of the evolution of the gross anatomical aspects of the human eye. His critique of the blind watchmaker centered on the biochemistry of the eye, and it would be better if the video did as well. Instead, by writing him off as a "pseudoscientific" fraud, or similar ad hominem attacks, they are guilty of equivalent logical fallacies, and should be given equivalent respect. The guy is actually a scientist, with publications in journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Journal of Molecular Biology, and the Journal of Biophysiology, on topics like DNA and protein structure. Frankly, unless there is a CV somewhere I can see for these qualia-soup people, Behe has them trumped on credentials, so they might avoid the ad hominem, and critique the substance of the actual arguments put forth.

QED is an awesome book. He's not the best writer in a classical sense, but he writes like he would talk, which makes it easier to understand.

We've found out only a bit more about how it works (Electromagnetism) since this video. Most of the knowledge comes from our particle accelerators. (We've found particles that specifically carry the force, which combine into atoms, then elements, then molecules, and so on...)

Even if we explain how everything works (we figure out gravity's connection, what makes energy into mass) we're still left with origin answers. If you understand Quantum Mechanics w/QED (and as Feynman would say it that, "You don't!") you might allow some to see that "perhaps" we were created from nothing, it just required time.

This is something that we can "conceive" and "imagine". Understanding has definitions with clear boundaries, were as the Universe it seems may only be something that is only "conceivable" until It can define Itself.

/(Being able to "define" itself could be a term to subjectively describe Humanity.)(Or Aliens...)

-- (edited in) --
The only thing the "ICP" added to that speech is that they're correct, but only if the question was asked by a serious mind. Otherwise, they show their complete and utter lack of any knowledge we've had available--to them--since before they were born. It's a parody (almost dark irony; new *tag?) only in the sense of how ridiculously rampant this type of thinking is; in the common populace. It's more ironically sad (as above), in a lot of ways. Their video shows (atleast in their city school zone) how ineffective our teaching methodology/funding is. (Not the teachers; more society and the structure of learning. Teachers tend to be the only glue holding anything together. I've had more than enough first hand knowledge and/or witnessing.)

I could add on forever. The Teachers are willing to change and many bend over backwards; paying for NEW texts (sometimes buying new texts so they don't use some text that has been broken by another state), materials (chemistry, biology, music, etc... pay the most -- unless you're an elementary teacher...then you pay 1/10 your paycheck, if you care for your kids). IT'S not the teachers and the children will go with the flow. There needs to be an ideological change in how kids are taught. I'd go with a college type. Small classes, higher budgets, good training for teachers. Consequences that will make a bully STOP, and if they don't make sure there are classes to help them and if necessary the parents as well. (Yes, parents should be able to be pulled from work.) On staff Doctors/Psych to always help (I know some are starting this). Apprenticing. Not holding a kid back in all areas cause they suck at one. I could go on for awhile longer. Some of this might require us to demobilize the military/industrial complex. Look at how well they can teach "children/teenagers with no hope" into a Tier One Operator, SOC etc...

/Didn't mean to be so long, but as you can see, the "ICP" really bug me.

Religion is a virus which festers and boils in stupid people. It spreads to smarter people and makes them stupider. Stupid people don't make much money, science or other smart things.

Religion == stupid.

QED.

It's not about race, it's about a really, really dumb idea which drags us all down.

>> ^alien_concept:
Haha, fucking hell. What kind of intelligence must you have if you believe that typos are an indication of it? Get off your high horse why dontcha.
Did someone get Lisa Simpson to approve that message?


QED

Heh. I, as well, think the 'gay' tag is incorrect. Clearly the Pyro has the Spy's baby, and the having of a baby means, by definition, that the haver of the baby is a female. QED. (;

He brings up thermodynamics ( you could add QED into this to make it even stronger, quantum foam and what not...), but entropy would be what he is talking about. Entropy can be seen as something that is the same homogeneous "thing" (quarks, photons, hydrogen; or in the case of QED potential energies) breaking down by "physics" or the physical mechanics and properties of the universe into a less homogeneous "thing". Hence energy then particles then elements, stars, black holes, planets, galaxies, cluster groups, the universe. It never really changed it is merely entropy that distinguishes most of these things.

Time itself may induce entropy, but we still have things to figure out in that area. What QED teaches is that you don't need anything special at all to create the universe, "chance" is more than enough. Throw in time or entropy and wallah, instant mechanical system created with it's own mechanics and in superposition to anything outside to detect it unless they become entangled to us. If they measure anything our "universes" would combine into a hybrid (most likely--impossible for now to begin thinking if this would be possible).

Recently scientists have been able to "tune" cobalt niobate (the magnetic spins) into a quantum critical state (superposition) and more recently they've done the same with electrons. The magnetic "tuning" frequency they used to accomplish this was extremely close to the Euler's number: e. "Euler's number" may be linked to the appearance of entropy merely being a function of mechanics that me be described by physicists later as an algorithm. If e is linked it would explain many observable systems we already have knowledge of. You can see it already at work in multiple situations. It also has a strong correlation with: fractals, golden ratio, golden spiral, Fibonacci sequence, etc... It's also an irrational number which may cause the algorithm to seemingly never stop; you could zoom in and out on the universe and it would continually look the same in correlation with an universal algorithm.

I hoped I made my thoughts clear enough; I dumbed down a lot of the material hopefully I still get the point across. It may be that the universe is merely just potential energies with an algorithm thrown in for spice. Other universes would have their own algorithm and constants like e.

Some articles pertaining to some of this: Here, here, here, here, here, and here.

>> ^boblobblaw:
looks like part of a 4 part lecture series, each around 1hr40min long
http://faissal-bd.blogspot.com/2009/12/richard-feynmans-qed-lec
ture-series.html


Thanks for the link.