The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 36    Average: 4.3/5]
65 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 9002
Rating: 4.3
Category: Science
Date: 05/08/12 06:30 AM

65 Responses to Neil DeGrasse`s Fascinatingly Disturbing Thought

  1. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18834 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 12:02 am
    Link: Neil DeGrasse`s Fascinatingly Disturbing Thought - If these thoughts are disturbing to DeGrasse, how do you think normies like us are supposed to feel?
  2. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36668 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 6:49 am

    GoodGawd! It takes that man FOREVER to get to his point.
    Just loves the sound of his own voice I guess.
  3. Profile photo of BoredFrank
    BoredFrank Male 40-49
    2328 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 7:03 am
    If it`s any consolation, my species considers humanity to be a bit brighter than you consider chimps.
  4. Profile photo of Groogle
    Groogle Male 30-39
    2172 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 7:07 am
    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.
  5. Profile photo of Mikeoxsbiggg
    Mikeoxsbiggg Male 30-39
    1502 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 7:09 am
    It would be funnier if he had a southern drawl.
  6. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 7:12 am
    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.
  7. Profile photo of BoredFrank
    BoredFrank Male 40-49
    2328 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 7:26 am
    What precisely is `beyond science?`
  8. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 7:30 am
    BoredFrank: That which we can`t test, perceive or experiment on, and that covers a lot.
  9. Profile photo of BoredFrank
    BoredFrank Male 40-49
    2328 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 7:34 am
    "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?
  10. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1927 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 7:39 am
    It took him 13 minutes to say that. The man needs to take a class on presentations.
  11. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 7:41 am
    Science can`t explain it all and will never be able to.
    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.
  12. Profile photo of jkfld
    jkfld Male 30-39
    138 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 7:51 am
    "BoredFrank: That which we can`t test, perceive or experiment on, and that covers a lot."

    Please provide some examples.
  13. Profile photo of BoredFrank
    BoredFrank Male 40-49
    2328 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 8:00 am
    "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.
  14. Profile photo of jkfld
    jkfld Male 30-39
    138 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 8:12 am
    Sorry for the confusion, BoredFrank--I probably should have deleted your name from the quote for clarity. My request is directed at CrakrJak. I would like him to provide some examples.
  15. Profile photo of BoredFrank
    BoredFrank Male 40-49
    2328 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 8:12 am
    No problem!

    I`d like some examples too.
  16. Profile photo of Otto67
    Otto67 Male 40-49
    438 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 8:28 am
    "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?
  17. Profile photo of keith2
    keith2 Male 30-39
    2588 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 8:30 am
    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.
  18. Profile photo of EgalM
    EgalM Male 30-39
    1707 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 8:34 am
    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.
  19. Profile photo of BoredFrank
    BoredFrank Male 40-49
    2328 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 8:35 am
    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.
  20. Profile photo of Langer
    Langer Male 18-29
    394 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 8:42 am
    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
  21. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36668 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 8:44 am

    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.
  22. Profile photo of BoredFrank
    BoredFrank Male 40-49
    2328 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 9:08 am
    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.
  23. Profile photo of pumba62
    pumba62 Male 40-49
    1018 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 9:09 am
    The 1% ahead of us gave the 1% behind us their intelligence and that`s how we ended up with Planet of the Apes
  24. Profile photo of we_suffer
    we_suffer Male 18-29
    21 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 9:22 am
    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.
  25. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 9:25 am
    @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.
  26. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32813 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 9:48 am
    Just give me something specific here.
    @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?).
  27. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32813 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 10:07 am
    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!
  28. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32813 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 10:17 am
    Pretty confident that you can`t actually test a star
    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!
  29. Profile photo of lawndartsftw
    lawndartsftw Male 40-49
    1811 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 10:25 am
    I always have time for what this man has to say. Good link/post.

  30. Profile photo of BoredFrank
    BoredFrank Male 40-49
    2328 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 10:39 am
    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.
  31. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 11:15 am
    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.
  32. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 11:20 am
    @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.
  33. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 11:26 am
    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.
  34. Profile photo of BoredFrank
    BoredFrank Male 40-49
    2328 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 11:27 am
    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...
  35. Profile photo of jkfld
    jkfld Male 30-39
    138 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 11:34 am
    @5cats: I don`t see how pointing to one of the current boundaries of scientific knowledge does anything to support CrakrJak`s apparent claim that there are things which are *by their nature* eternally beyond the reach of any scientific test that may ever be devised.
  36. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32813 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 11:40 am
    Photons have been successfully entangled, and quantum states teleported, in the lab
    @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.
  37. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32813 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 11:43 am
    @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.
  38. Profile photo of Otto67
    Otto67 Male 40-49
    438 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 11:51 am
    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`?
  39. Profile photo of 8BitHero
    8BitHero Male 18-29
    5414 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 12:22 pm
    I`d use the word "enlightening" instead of "Disturbing". Awesome video.
  40. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 12:38 pm
    EgalM: Pretty confident that you can`t actually test a star

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

    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.
  41. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32813 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 1:08 pm
    @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...
  42. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 1:41 pm
    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.
  43. Profile photo of Zuriel
    Zuriel Male 30-39
    554 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 2:44 pm
    @auburnjunky

    ..stay small.
  44. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 2:49 pm
    Okay?
  45. Profile photo of BlankTom
    BlankTom Male 30-39
    1674 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 4:22 pm
    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.
  46. Profile photo of BlankTom
    BlankTom Male 30-39
    1674 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 4:23 pm
    also, lol @ the people asking crakrjak to give examples of things we cannot perceive!
  47. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 5:24 pm
    Goddamn 1%ers... let`s go protest in the streets!
  48. Profile photo of hi2pi
    hi2pi Male 30-39
    736 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 5:34 pm
    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.
  49. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32813 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 6:12 pm
    Darn tootin @Mykunter!

    We are the 99%!
    Equal stupidity for all!!
    We don`t need no education!!!
  50. Profile photo of thatjimguy
    thatjimguy Male 30-39
    459 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 7:58 pm
    He couldn`t be any closer to talking about the idea of God than that.
  51. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 8:35 pm
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke
  52. Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 10:32 pm
    Gotta love some NDT.
  53. Profile photo of kummi90
    kummi90 Male 18-29
    541 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 10:42 pm
    thatjimguy: What? Are you suggesting that you`re God is only one percent smarter than us?
  54. Profile photo of kummi90
    kummi90 Male 18-29
    541 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 10:42 pm
    thatjimguy: Just realized the irony of my post by misspelling "your". Anyway...
  55. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 11:12 pm
    @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.
  56. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 11:18 pm
    @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.
  57. Profile photo of sutra46
    sutra46 Female 40-49
    2550 posts
    May 9, 2012 at 7:59 am
    Point of this musing is restore NASA budget if gov is too dumb then private money. Money well spent.
  58. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    May 9, 2012 at 10:36 am
    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.
  59. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6952 posts
    May 9, 2012 at 2:40 pm
    Science, use it or lose it.
  60. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6952 posts
    May 9, 2012 at 2:55 pm
    When we declare that we have answered all the questions then we have failed as a species.
  61. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    May 9, 2012 at 3:08 pm
    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.
  62. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32813 posts
    May 9, 2012 at 7:08 pm
    @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!
  63. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    May 10, 2012 at 1:26 am
    @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.
  64. Profile photo of Wendypants
    Wendypants Female 30-39
    2420 posts
    May 10, 2012 at 5:28 pm
    Huh, I take to all sorts of animals and bugs all the time and I always look for a response.
  65. Profile photo of Laubwald
    Laubwald Female 18-29
    49 posts
    May 14, 2012 at 11:06 am
    "life might be an inevitable consequence of complex chemistry."

    great quote :)

Leave a Reply