Prof Brian Cox

[whitenemesis]

Did anyone see last night's program? I find the Prof very easy listening, his fluidity of speech and obvious enthusiasm for physics a real pleasure.

BBC iPlayer - A Night with the Stars

 

[MicB]

Did anyone see last night's program? I find the Prof very easy listening, his fluidity of speech and obvious enthusiasm for physics a real pleasure.

BBC iPlayer - A Night with the Stars

Yep.....very interesting but we were, not surprisingly, expected to take a lot of ''facts'' in good faith.....a massive subject even for an ''intelligent lay person''.

Mic

 

[AANDYY]

Yes I saw it, my head hurts now.

 

[Troon]

I'm relatively conversant in his subject matter, but I have to say I found the structure of the talk disjointed and clearly out of the reach of most of his guests.

I'm also struggling to find any clear references to support his broad statement that the Pauli Exclusion Principle applies across the entire universe, and how distant fermions that are not subject to quantum entanglement are expected to know about him rubbing that diamond here on Earth.

If that is the case, and if his "energy levels" (by which he means "quantum state") are discrete rather than continuous, that puts an upper limit on the number of fermions in the Universe. It also raises the question of a) who's keeping track of all the states free and in use, b) how the particles decide who swaps with whom and when and c) how "at the same time" can have any meaning when we think we know time isn't a constant (the whole basis of relativity).

If any quantum physicists here want to help me out with this one, I'd be more than interested.

Not wanting to start a faith argument, as these always achieve nothing on Internet fora, but it amuses me as a Christian that we keep delving deeper and yet finding everything even more mysterious and amazing, yet often we find that people like Cox are staunch atheists despite admitting that as we discover more, we realize the gaps in our understanding are getting more profound. For example, we don't even know how mass or gravity work yet — if the LHC finds the Higgs boson, we might get closer to sorting mass out, but I'm sure that'll raise other questions. We're still unclear on such simple things as why ice is slippery! I'm not for a moment suggesting that such lack of understanding is a reason for clinging to a deity as the answer, but I can't see we're anywhere close to being able to announce definitively that there's no room for one and it's all voices in our heads. Personally, of course, I know that won't happen but I also know that I cannot intellectually prove that to anyone else.

I guess none of this is really subject matter for Mercedes-Benz forum, though...

 

[sportyreptile]

Yes saw that and recorded it last night, I like his delivery but he gives it the full..."hello ladies arn't my brains and youthfull good looks attractive" a bit sometimes.

I had to laugh at Sarah(?) Millican on there, he couldn't make it more obvious but she didn't get it at all......." so WAVES produce this pattern and electrons when fired through 2 slits produce this SAME pattern.....so what do electrons behave like??????"

WAVES yer dull b*gger!!!!! LOL.

 

[whitenemesis]

I think any presentation on the television is going to be very superficial and as you say even so well above the heads of the vast majority of the 'stars'.

I discussed the very subject of taking facts in good faith with my family and agreed it is one of the greatest stumbling blocks to understanding such complex, multi-layers subjects. One simply has to 'take in good faith' many umbrella statements to get to the point of sufficient understanding to be able to 'go to the next level' and delve deeper into the reasoning behind those statements.

It's not until one has assimilated enough facts can one begin to challenge or extrapolate those facts.

As for only realising how little we actually know with every new discovery, surely it must be so? Otherwise we risk the situation of being 'all-knowing' and there is only one being so gifted?

I could listen to lectures on this subject for hours ....

 

[Troon]

One simply has to 'take in good faith' many umbrella statements to get to the point of sufficient understanding to be able to 'go to the next level' and delve deeper into the reasoning behind those statements.
...
As for only realising how little we actually know with every new discovery, surely it must be so?

It's been a while since human understanding was small enough to squeeze a good proportion of it into a single brain. Anyone aspiring to further human knowledge really must "stand on the shoulders of giants" these days.

The problem with being so advanced (in our own current view, doubtless to be laughed at by those a few centuries down the line) comes when new understanding suddenly replaces something those "giants" understood, when the stack of knowledge can come tumbling down to be rebuilt differently.

 

[oldcro]

Looking forward to the children's lectures from the RI if they're on next year, that's the level I can just about understand.

 

[whitenemesis]

I see the RI Christmas lectures will be back on the Beeb. Bit disappointed in the subject matter but will give it a go ...

The Royal Institution of Great Britain | 2011 Ri Christmas Lectures announced

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pmbqq/broadcasts/upcoming

 

[Red C220]

I once tried to read Stephen Hawking's A Breif History of Time, tried being the operative word here.

I got about a third of the way through and found myself reading, then rereading, the rereading again each page at which point I admitted to myself my brain was hurting.

 

[MercFanUk]

I love BC's stuff, he has a great way of explaining things to the general public, things that would normally require heavy math and science knowledge (Of course you still need that to truly understand it, but it's nice to be at least able to 'get' what he's on about). To be able to explain it in the way he does must take a great amount of skill in itself.

In an economy that's ever increasingly becoming reliant on our science and engineering exports it's things like this that get the next generation into the industry

 

[Stratman]

I was going to say it was a big disappointment, but it wasn't. I was expecting it to be a superficial nonebrity-fest and sure enough.....

Like Troon, I know a bit about these things and last night's treatment was the equivalent of Brian Sewell explaining The Renaissance by saying "Some clever people put some paint on canvases", then getting Richard Hammond to colour in a picture. There was no 'meat', and as far as I am aware the Pauli Exclusion Principle refers to electrons in the same atom, not anywhere in the Universe. Perhaps Cox knows something Pauli didn't.

 

[artyman]

I watched it last night with my wife who asked me when it finished if I understood it, I'm not sure she did, so I said 50% of it, I think she was impressed

I also enkoy the RI Christmas lectures and have watched them for years, always open to knowledge on most things. I see he "will explain how you create your own version of reality", I always thought reality was a delusion caused by a deficiency of alcohol.

 

[grober]

To me the RI lectures to beat them all were Eric Laithwaite's series on gyroscopes. If you want to get sense of what science and engineering was about in the middle of the last century watch these on Utube. Forget Doctor Who ----these videos a true window into the past. He actually demonstrated experiments in front of camera. Those with "limited attention span and spectacular flashing lights syndrome " should look away now. [YOUTUBE]KnNUTOxHoto[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Druk]

Did anyone see last night's program? I find the Prof very easy listening, his fluidity of speech and obvious enthusiasm for physics a real pleasure.

Probably helps quite a bit if you're a rocket scientist to start with.

 

[Stratman]

I had the good fortune to attend one of the Christmas Lectures given by Eric Laithwaite when I was studying physics A Level, back in 1972 or '73. The man could certainly hold your interest, that's for sure!

 

[Dieselman]

I see the RI Christmas lectures will be back on the Beeb. Bit disappointed in the subject matter but will give it a go ...

Not watched those for years, they used to be good.

 

[Dryce]

In an economy that's ever increasingly becoming reliant on our science and engineering exports it's things like this that get the next generation into the industry

Hmmmmmmm.

I beg to differ. It's exactly because these programmes are becoming more glossy and lightweight and symphonic that the population are getting increasingly detached from real science and engineering.

Even if the people in front of the camera have credibility the production will still be skewed to try and make it as glossy as possible.

 

[MercFanUk]

Maybe so, but we're talking about it here, no doubt there's a few teenagers out there too who watched it. Glossy it may be, but it does inspire people to want more - and so there we get the extra few doing science degrees

 

[LTD]

I think when he related the 'standing wave' section to describe atomic size section akin to Simon Pegg's onanististic pleasures he brought the programme into absolute focus.