*books

Adding video to channels (Books) - requested by eric3579.

Bernoulli effect doesn't apply to particles that are.....flexible. Going towards spongy cars is going in the opposite direction.

Also falling in love with the mouth organ at 12?......giggidy?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jennifer Ouelette, craig ferguson, calculus diaries' to 'jennifer Ouelette, craig ferguson, calculus diaries, late late show, mouth organ' - edited by burdturgler

It's spelled "Ouellette" with 2 L's, 2 T's, 3 E's and OOOOOOOUUUU-LA-LA!!!

I'm allowed, being of Duck-Barking French Canadian stock myself...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jennifer Ouelette, craig ferguson, calculus diaries, late late show, mouth organ' to 'jennifer Ouellette, craig ferguson, calculus diaries, late late show, mouth organ' - edited by burdturgler

I would science pun science giggidy science her until science pun came pun into orbit!

Maybe I'm just a tool, but it seems that this is a great example of smart = sexy.

lol nas car drivers understand physics intuively lol yah how to turn left 120 times.

I wonder if she got the job before or after she met her husband.

yes!!! be unashamed of your questions!!!

and yes!!! researchers, think hard about good metaphors!!!

Title misleads somewhat: Jennifer does a sweet job of making science writing fun, interesting and sexy all by herself.

Craig's just the icing.

Ooouuellette,
gentille Ouellette,
Ooouuellette,
je te plumerai.

>> ^Godless:

It's spelled "Ouellette" with 2 L's, 2 T's, 3 E's and OOOOOOOUUUU-LA-LA!!!
I'm allowed, being of Duck-Barking French Canadian stock myself...

Shows my bias ... me likee boys.


>> ^Retroboy:

Title misleads somewhat: Jennifer does a sweet job of making science writing fun, interesting and sexy all by herself.
Craig's just the icing.

Negative Index Materials ("NIMs") have been mostly explained with wave propagation inside the material. "Sort of" like a photon coming into a circular two doored building. When it comes in both doors open and unlock, but it closes it's door (giving off heat I would think; here). Then only able to come out it's door. It is the material that does the neat stuff as it changes the way light is able to propagate inside the structure.

The structure just happens to meet some peculiar conditions to get this to work (equaling constants and what-not; like a prism in someways).

That's how I've understood it (this is recent news, ~less than one or two years maybe). Awesome interview.

Did she just say that you CAN compress water into a smaller space?

>> ^wraith:

Did she just say that you CAN compress water into a smaller space?


That was a bad analogy; unless you're a physics person. More like throwing a pebble into a pond and yet watch it hit the ground in the pond with no waves. The material structure and atomic setup allow for photons to hit one side without disturbing "the pond" (a.k.a. the atoms) nearly at all; meanwhile, it it is re-emitted as was on, where, or at the point scientists wish it--hence invisibility.

Look up NIMs or what they say in the video. Meta-materials are awesome.

(And no on the water, not unless you put it under pressure first. It's hard to shrink atoms -- density however ...)

That was my point. Fluids are incompressible.

Unfortunately, those bad analogies seem to stick in the minds of the physics lay-person. Just think of the mother of bad analogies: Schroedinger's Cat. The particle may be in a undecided state between "life" or "death", yet the cat certainly isn't. It's either alive and very pissed or dead as a doornail.

When explaining science, avoid analogies whenever possible or clearly mark them as such and point out their deficiencies.

>> ^wraith:

That was my point. Fluids are incompressible.
Unfortunately, those bad analogies seem to stick in the minds of the physics lay-person. Just think of the mother of bad analogies: Schroedinger's Cat. The particle may be in a undecided state between "life" or "death", yet the cat certainly isn't. It's either alive and very pissed or dead as a doornail.
When explaining science, avoid analogies whenever possible or clearly mark them as such and point out their deficiencies.


I think explaining qubits does a better job for first time quantum beginners. It also makes them see the potential for awesome. BUT, it is hard to explain--plainly. I blame my college professors and books. Scientific American has an awesome article for the "lay"-man for qubits.

I get blank stares with entanglement.