Neil DeGrasse`s Fascinatingly Disturbing Thought

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago Science

If these thoughts are disturbing to DeGrasse, how do you think normies like us are supposed to feel?
There are 62 comments:
Female 49
"life might be an inevitable consequence of complex chemistry."

great quote :)
0
Reply
Female 2,415
Huh, I take to all sorts of animals and bugs all the time and I always look for a response.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@5Cats: The EPR experiment is the same kind of argument Schrodinger used against the interpretation of quantum mechanics, but in the case of Einstein about the interpretation of the wave function as the complete description of the state of a particle. In the sense that Schrodinger ridiculed QM, so did Einstein , Podolski and Rosen.

After that other people, notably Bell and de Broglie developed this experiment into something "testable" (in the sense of what QFT theorists do their experiments...) and found results consistent with their hypothesis. I don`t agree much with their methods but moving on, the theory is theirs, just like you can`t say that the current interpretation of QM is the work of Schrodinger because of his cat, you can`t say that non-locality is Einstein`s because of the EPR paradox.
0
Reply
Male 36,335
@jendrian: Are we talking about the same theory(s)? I thought we were, but you saying Einstein ridiculed it makes me wonder.

EPR Paradox

Halfway Down

Action At A Distance

It seems to me like it WAS Einstein`s theory. That`s how I remembered it.

Anyhow, thanks for the interesting conversation!
0
Reply
Male 1,745
He`s so flawed in his comparisons. First of all he says we`re 1% different from a chimp and then asks rhetorically when we`ve stopped to talk to a worm (which we`re more than 1% different from). We have interacted with chimps and they certainly notice it.

Secondly, more importantly, what is this parallel he`s drawing with intelligence and genetic difference? There is a zero difference between us now and our ancestors from 30k years ago. We`re certainly more intelligent. What`s up there?

The more reasonable explanation we haven`t found intelligent aliens is because space is too big and our civilizations` peaks are separated by millions of years.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
When we declare that we have answered all the questions then we have failed as a species.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Science, use it or lose it.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
and that is why I hate Neil DeGrasse Tyson, his entire "scientific" career is based around lobbying for NASA. I have no respect for him as a scientist.
0
Reply
Female 2,549
Point of this musing is restore NASA budget if gov is too dumb then private money. Money well spent.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@5Cats: I don`t expect you to understand it, but as a similar observation let`s imagine I push you in the general direction of a black hole; you`d be accelerated to relativistic speeds (close to the speed of light) by the pull of the black hole and from your point of view, nothing would change, but from my point of view you would get infinitely close to the hole never reaching it because 1 second from your clock becomes bigger and bigger for my clock as you gain speed. So as the particles from that experiment get closer and closer to light speed, time happens slower and slower.

Look up time dilation and Lorentz transformations if you`re still interested on why I`m so adamant in contesting your experiment of choice, it`s because it`s wrong, there are several, and I mean, several things wrong with the statement of action at a distance, which Einstein rightfully mocked.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@auburnjunky: I`ll cry myself to the lab.

@5Cats: that`s not really all that`s wrong with that experiment, the idea that information travels faster than the speed of light is only if you accept that the entire event happens in an euclidean (flat) space, which is not true when you`re talking about particles travelling at the speed of light (you need to start considering Riemannian geometry). Time bends buddy, even if I were to accept that we somehow are capable of measuring speeds faster than light (which I don`t, for the record), that still doesn`t mean it`s travelling faster than the speed of light.
0
Reply
Male 541
thatjimguy: Just realized the irony of my post by misspelling "your". Anyway...
0
Reply
Male 541
thatjimguy: What? Are you suggesting that you`re God is only one percent smarter than us?
0
Reply
Male 496
Gotta love some NDT.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke
0
Reply
Male 459
He couldn`t be any closer to talking about the idea of God than that.
0
Reply
Male 36,335
Darn tootin @Mykunter!

We are the 99%!
Equal stupidity for all!!
We don`t need no education!!!
0
Reply
Male 736
anyone else notice how much more civility there is on science posts compared to religion posts? I will watch any Sagan / NdG / Frey / Dawkins / Science Drops posting. And I`ll enjoy all 10 minutes of their going on and on and on because they know what they`re talking about, they`re passionate, and they`re almost unerringly friendly.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
Goddamn 1%ers... let`s go protest in the streets!
0
Reply
Male 1,674
also, lol @ the people asking crakrjak to give examples of things we cannot perceive!
0
Reply
Male 1,674
NDT is fun to listen to but this is nothing more than 12 minutes of stoner talk. FFS, Perry Farrell wrote a song about tyson`s big reveal back in the 90s.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Okay?
0
Reply
Male 554
@auburnjunky

..stay small.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Jendrian: "I couldn`t finish it, I grew to hate Neil DeGrasse Tyson over the years..."

You just invalidated everything you will ever say, ever. Ever ever.
0
Reply
Male 36,335
@patchy: yes, but we cannot "test" the gathering of billions of trillions of tons of Hydrogen over millions of years, eh? lolz! That`s "actually testing a star" but for obvious reasons: not likely to happen.

We can observe it! From really far away (currently) but that`s different.

@Otto: If you have faith that humans can learn everthing there ever is to know about the entire universe, good for you! I mean that in a nice way, k? Sure it`s possible, in theory...
0
Reply
Male 5,811
EgalM: [quote]Pretty confident that you can`t actually test a star[/quote]

5cats: [quote]I think @EgalM is saying you cannot study a star "in the lab" for obvious reasons, lolz![/quote]

You can study the basis of stars: fusion. It`s what powers stars and hydrogen bombs, so we`ve effectively studied stars to a limited extent.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
I`d use the word "enlightening" instead of "Disturbing". Awesome video.
0
Reply
Male 438
5cats:

It was not just the assertion that there are things that we cannot currently perceive but that we never will. How can one claim that there is something `there` that cannot be tested for or perceived and science will never be able to? How would anyone have any idea that what isn`t `there` is actually `there`?
0
Reply
Male 36,335
@jkfld: Currently, there are LOTS of things science cannot figure out. I just tossed out one example. Of course most of them will be solved, eventually, but all of them? It takes faith to believe in science THAT much.
We might `know it all` eventually, OR there will be some things we will never know (ie: what @Crakr said) despite our best efforts.
0
Reply
Male 36,335
[quote]Photons have been successfully entangled, and quantum states teleported, in the lab[/quote]
@BoredFrank: I just said that, ok? My question is: how? How does a particle transmit information faster then the speed of light with no observable medium? Hummm?
Lets see @Jendrian`s answer:
A fine one indeed! Simple enough for a cat to understand! lolz!
So yes, the information must be going faster than light because the two particles are moving away from each other, each at the speed of light!
It`s difficult to measure since they`re moving so darn fast, but the observation reamins valid. It`s been replicated many times.
But yes, it`s clear that science POTENTIALLY can explain it, but the question was: "That which we can`t... perceive..." which Non-Locality covers.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Still waiting for an example of a thing <drumroll please> BEYOND THE REACH OF SCIENCE!

My guess is I`ll be waiting a very long time...
0
Reply
Male 2,516
For example if you have two states of a particle, 1 and 2, and you have two identical particles A and B and their measured state is

A(1) and B(1), their total state is T(1,1)

Change A(1) to A(2) by whatever means, and the total state changes to T(2,1), which has different physical properties for the entire system, which can even force B to turn into B(2).

That`s entanglement, and since nowhere in the math does it say the total state takes some time to receive the information, we`re supposed to believe it`s instant.

But again, like I put it to 5Cats on another post, until we find "thermometers" with a cap higher than the temperature we`re trying to measure, we can`t know for sure the temperature is higher. Basically, stuff traveling at the speed of light is too fast for our speedometers.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@BoredFrank: Entanglement is not the same as action at a distant, entanglement is when you have the quantum states of particles "tangled" with the quantum states of other particles close to you; action at a distance means that as a consequence of entanglement, a change in the total quantum state of the system means a change in the total quantum state of the system in another place (because they are entangled)

It`s not like they never break free either, there`s also been experimental proof of violations entanglement, which means that the experiment 5Cats read that fascinates him so much, could still give false positives.

I - a research physicist mind you - personally take large bits of quantum mechanics with caution, because in quantum mechanics laws never stay laws for long.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
I couldn`t finish it, I grew to hate Neil DeGrasse Tyson over the years...

Yes 5Cats, it was me, non-locality has been "proven" to exist, but the fact that it was faster than the speed of light... not so much.

Also, quit saying Einstein predicted it, he didn`t, just like Schrodinger`s cat, he was only making fun of the direction Quantum Mechanics was taking.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Humans -- and other primates -- have exhibited signs of intelligence for a LOT longer than six thousand years. 5cats is confusing intelligence with civilization.

Also, quantum phenomena such as entanglement (Einstein`s spooky action) are hardly unknowable mysterious phenomena. Photons have been successfully entangled, and quantum states teleported, in the lab. You might want to look that up yourself.
0
Reply
Male 1,810
I always have time for what this man has to say. Good link/post.

0
Reply
Male 36,335
[quote]Pretty confident that you can`t actually test a star[/quote]
I think @EgalM is saying you cannot study a star "in the lab" for obvious reasons, lolz!
I wonder about the mechanics of elements too. First there was 3: H, He and Li. They formed stars for some reason, then blew up. Thos bits flew around and re-formed (with some huge hydrogen clouds that DID NOT form into stars for some reason) (by huge I mean as big as a galaxy) into more stars, which blew up, again and again and again.
Then presto! Here we are! idk if there`s been enough time since the BB started for all this to happen. Sure, things used to be closer together, but still!
0
Reply
Male 36,335
3:20 "Almost spiritual" ALMOST? lolz! It can be spiritual without religion being involved, yes?

The disturbing thought starts at 7:30, lolz! He does like to chat. 9:20 now, he`s finally gotten to it!

11:20 I talk to my kitties all the time! They talk back too, in their own way.

Anyhow, it`s worth the 12 minutes, he`s really loving his subject and obviously well practiced.

We humans have only been "intelligent" for what, 6,000 years? Other proto-humans: Neandertals being the most famous, were much closer geneticly and probably had languages of their own too.
I`m saying that if one of those other races had remained, we`d have 2 sentient species on our planet. Would that be better or worse for humankind?

Off to read comments!
0
Reply
Male 36,335
[quote]Just give me something specific here.[/quote]
@BoredFrank: Non-Locality, aka: Spooky Actions At A Distance: lookitup.
They have proven it exists, just as Einstein predicted it might, but HOW it happens? That information is passed faster than the speed of light? Not one clue, although @Jendrian claims he knows (I think it was him, sorry if I`m mis-remembering eh?).
0
Reply
Male 1,471
@CrakrJak: You can`t just make a statement and claim it as fact (unless you`re a creation scientist).

I`m not saying you`re necessarily wrong. But there are good reasons to think that you might be.
0
Reply
Male 21
Fascinating and quite probable. Though I would argue that even though we consider ourselves superior to our closest cousins, chimpanzees, we still have a strong sense of curiosity about them i.e. we want to understand them.

So it isn’t at all too far fetched to postulate that alien life would share the same curiosity towards understanding us.

However, let us hope they are kinder in their pursuit of understanding and knowledge than we have been to our own kin.
0
Reply
Male 1,016
The 1% ahead of us gave the 1% behind us their intelligence and that`s how we ended up with Planet of the Apes
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Look, I`m just curious. What are these `things` that can neither be perceived nor measured? Unicorn farts? Thor`s hair gel? The atomic mass of jealousy?

Just give me something specific here.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

Leave CrakrJak alone, he`s right. There are things science cannot detect or measure. And there always will be something "over the next hill" in science.

Just as a century-&-a-half ago they couldn`t detect or measure x-rays, radio waves, microwaves, etc. But science progresses and one day will measure those hypothetical `unknown` things.
0
Reply
Male 395
well there is the thought that gravity so much weaker than the other fundamental forces because it`s spread out over parallel universes...kinda impossible to create a theory or hypothesis around with technology at present

giving up on research just because you stop at an arbitrary point and say "nope, it`s impossible to figure this out" is completely beyond retarded
0
Reply
Male 2,670
EgalM said: "Pretty confident that you can`t actually test a star due to the in-ability to get close enough to preform said tests."

And I`m pretty confident you`ve never heard of a `spectroscope` know anything about chemistry or astronomy. FAIL.
0
Reply
Male 1,737
So all chemicals came from stars? Than where did the stars come from? Oh, that`s right, nothing. Pretty confident that you can`t actually test a star due to the in-ability to get close enough to preform said tests. It`s all mathematical theory.
0
Reply
Male 2,592
Whatever, the thing that makes us most different is that we can communicate. You can`t even point food out to a chimp. Even with another step in intelligence, our effective communication sets us apart. Animals can`t tell us no when we experiment on them. We have the ability to tell those 1% smarter aliens to go fk themselves or there`s gonna be trouble. Everyone is understood, everyone is on the same page.

In order to impress me, there would have to be something wholly different in their 1% ability, like using the force, rather than toddlers who are intuitive to physics. Vulcans are what those are. Vulcans can`t disturb me.
0
Reply
Male 438
"There is something beyond science that we can`t perceive or experiment on."

Crakr:

Considering the only things we truly know have come from science, what to you claim is outside science? and other than baseless conjecture what is your evidence for believeing this assertion?
0
Reply
Male 2,670
No problem!

I`d like some examples too.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
"BoredFrank: That which we can`t test, perceive or experiment on, and that covers a lot."

Please provide some examples.

Whoah, I was quoting CrakrJack, who is the one asserting that some `things` cannot be tested or even perceived.

I suspect his was a reference to religion. But that`s his assertion, NOT mine.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Science can`t explain it all and will never be able to.[/quote]
I accept your premise but reject your conclusion. No one knows the limits of technology, and with sufficiently advanced technology the amount of things science can`t explain dwindles to nothing.
0
Reply
Male 2,358
It took him 13 minutes to say that. The man needs to take a class on presentations.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
"That which we can`t test, perceive or experiment on, and that covers a lot."

If it can`t be tested or even perceived, how do you know it exists at all?

Is that about a Magical Sky Man, and their various Holy Books?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
BoredFrank: That which we can`t test, perceive or experiment on, and that covers a lot.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
What precisely is `beyond science?`
0
Reply
Male 17,512
What he is saying is that if we ever did encounter UFOs/ETs they would be so smart as to make us look insignificant in comparison.

Thing is, we are already reaching the edges of what we can possibly perceive and explain by experimentation and observation, beyond that we guess and philosophize.

Science can`t explain it all and will never be able to. There is something beyond science that we can`t perceive or experiment on.
0
Reply
Male 1,497
It would be funnier if he had a southern drawl.
0
Reply
Male 2,172
Immagine a being 100% different from us from the direction that we are different from chimps.

I bet we would make pretty cool pets for them.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
If it`s any consolation, my species considers humanity to be a bit brighter than you consider chimps.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

GoodGawd! It takes that man FOREVER to get to his point.
Just loves the sound of his own voice I guess.
0
Reply
Male 19,838
Link: Neil DeGrasse`s Fascinatingly Disturbing Thought [Rate Link] - If these thoughts are disturbing to DeGrasse, how do you think normies like us are supposed to feel?
0
Reply