The Future of Quantum Physics - J. Kimble - 2/26/2016
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 04. 2016
- The Science and Society conference brought together world leading researchers and scholars in science and world affairs-individuals who have dedicated their careers to addressing the most complex and challenging problems of our time.
The one-day conference was organized in honor of Nobel laureate Ahmed Zewail-Caltech's Linus Pauling Professor of Chemistry and professor of physics-as a way to recognize this distinguished scholar for more than 40 years of scientific and scholarly contributions. Zewail was be joined by fellow Nobel laureates and National Academy of Science and National Medal of Science honorees, as well as other leaders in their fields, in a series of lectures ranging from treating disease to quantum physics.
View all presentations: • Science and Society - ...
Produced in association with Caltech Academic Media Technologies. ©2016 California Institute of Technology - Věda a technologie
Oh my god. I literally have never heard a scientist talk about how the process of commercial publishing is meddling in and destroying scientific integrity and direction. Sure, some of them mention how overblown these publications are, but not one other scientist have I heard talk about the details of this problem and explain how the research is being manipulated through media trends and commercialism. This is a real problem.
I don't think people understand how this important this is and how fundamental it is.
Brilliant! This is one specifically well qualified report on the best practice in science.
thank you
Regarding the comments on Nature and the publishing process; There is an easy (well, relatively speaking) way to reduce conflict of interest, increase transparency and improve the process of vigorous debate which is crucial to the process of science. Open source science. Publish papers outside of journals, in the public sphere. Let other scientists freely review and leave comments on iterative drafts of papers. There is never going to be a way to reduce the conflict of interest, eliminate the favouritism and the status-gaming of review journals. That is endemic to the system. By openly exposing scientific research to the broader scientific community, you eliminate all of these at once. You also raise public involvement and access. The journals served an important purpose, but now it's time to move on.
+XRXaholic Makes no sense. Scientists don't really have trouble accessing material because it is done through University databases that cost money and generate money for research.
If everything was open sourced, research wouldn't be funded and companies wouldn't have to maintain ties and endorse universities. That's how people in the academic world get paid for research.
The problem is not access to information, the problem is the trend being set by quantifying performance with publications. Majority of publication are fluff that have no significance - I think there is just a fear of top Universities losing endowment because of this bs.
If an image, a compound mix of frequency interference, is demodulated - reduced to the driving frequency, then what results is a kind of blue-screen background of simply entangled "space". It is a legitimate claim to make that the combined cosmological and mathematical study of Black Holes can result in a more convinced understanding of quantum space time.
"Nature" is political, science is simplification.
Still think this is one specifically well qualified report on the best practice in science. Very positive.
Recèlent lecture ' thanl you sir
Damn these things are cool.
electron and photon is the same particle in two different states (two fields intertwined), and whole universe is built of electrons (actual atoms) and exist only two fields - electric and magnetic, the rest are just effects of them (and they can be out of ether or out of nothing) and speed of light is actually a speed of field in the ether or in the space
i proposal a higgs cube slipery available on lulu
there is no strangeness in Quantum Physics, it is just an-isotropic way of describing forces, since electron has got electric and magnetic fields producing each other (spin is directional) and due to this we get asymmetry in building larger particles and not only asymmetry but and quantisation (due to one and the same particle as a building block)
My ham sandwhich is a not fast airplane. Im not sure what has convinced you that Quantum mechanics is just about describing forces. Im asuming you are basing your statment off applications of Hamilton's equations, but this in no way describes some easy explanation for all of QM.
Event Horizon really? :) well then go ahead in explaining something mysterious in QM :) usually you have to read more to be clear :)
I would agree :). Sounding smart on the internet does not include saying "Quantum Physics is super duper easy yall. it is just an-isotropic way of describing forces, since electron has got electric and magnetic fields producing each other (spin is directional) and due to this we get asymmetry in building larger particles and not only asymmetry but and quantisation (due to one and the same particle as a building block)". :) :)
:)
:)
:)
:)
Event Horizon yes, so what is not clear in it to you? :)
i have a similar view of the heisenberg idea being essentially an easy answer to the question "what happens when you squeeze a wave?"
8:47
Warren Griffen
why cant someone help him make better slides? 1993 called and wants its slides back
It's not clever to start your introduction with "So".
The subjects discussed in the video are all engineering. Engineering does not require Nature, journals, publications. Engineering always works, and survives on its own rights. But that is not the case for math and physics. Science is all false. To make them correct you must remove money. Only then science will become correct. Money buys everything from young and old. There is always a conflict of interest, whenever there is money. And since money is everywhere, you cannot make correct science. See money-less economy at theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/
Take for example - Newton’s first law - an object will continue in motion in a straight line with a constant velocity. But you have never seen such an object either on earth or in space. So Newton is wrong. Einstein assumed inertial frame, for his special relativity (SR). Inertial frame obeys, by definition, Newton’s first law, which you know is wrong. Thus SR cannot be correct either.
The same is true for QM, which is based on Uncertainty Principle (UP). UP has two fatal assumptions. Take a look at Heisenberg’s own proof of UP in : “Heisenberg, W., The physical principles of the quantum theory, Translated in English, Eckart, C. & Hoyt, F.C., Dover publications, University of Chicago, (1930).” The proof is exactly copied in the above blog site with comments. BTW, Caltech has done some experiments to overcome UP.
+IdentifiablePerson LOL, what a load of drivel. Are you on drugs?
+Kalum Batsch If you pick up any one item then I can discuss.
IdentifiablePerson
1. This is engineering.
2. Engineering always works.
3. Science is all false.
4. Newton's first law is wrong.
5. Special relativity is wrong.
6. Quantum mechanics is wrong.
Maybe I missed a couple.
+Kalum Batsch Take your item 4. I stated - "Newton’s first law - an object will continue in motion in a straight line with a constant velocity. But you have never seen such an object either on earth or in space. So Newton is wrong."
Why do you think Newton is correct? Have you seen such an object?
IdentifiablePerson
You left something out: "unless acted upon by an unbalanced force".