Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#51

Post by dchest »

malkia wrote: post #42
omarchowdhury wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that one instance preclude all of the other people that contributed to science, who also had faith?

deGrasse's observation was that when a scientist reaches a point where he can't explain, or understand something often he attributes it to God... And then years later someone else find it's explanation, until he stumbles onto the next problem. It's all good. I gues it's okay to put God where your knowledge limits you, or the current more wide one, but just don't spread it that it's because of God. e.g. God is "what w…

Here's his lecture on this, "The Perimeter of Ignorance": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1HXuiIBF3I

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#52

Post by jahmed »

tkahn6 wrote: post #8
jphackworth wrote: post #2

Really interesting. A couple of physics things I did not know that Neil mentions: 1) The fact that an electron has no known size -- it's smaller than the smallest measurement we have ever made of anything. 2) That Quarks come only in pairs: If you try to separate two of them, the energy you sink into the system to accomplish this feat is exactly the energy to spontaneously create two more quarks - one to partner with…

See also: Q: Since time slows relative to the speed of light, does this mean that photons are essentially not moving through time at all? A: yes. Precisely. Which means ----- are you seated? Photons have no ticking time at all, which means, as far as they are concerned, they are absorbed the instant they are emitted, even if the distance traveled is across the universe itself.

Obligatory xkcd:Prairie http://xkcd.com/967/

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#53

Post by bluedanieru »

skeletonjelly wrote: post #49
bluedanieru wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, sorry. This isn't Wikipedia.

Exactly. Just because I declare something doesn't mean I have to back it up with facts. I trust my gut. That's where the truth lies.

Not every turn of phrase entitles you to a link, you literal-minded buffoon.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#54

Post by malkia »

dchest wrote: post #51
malkia wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

deGrasse's observation was that when a scientist reaches a point where he can't explain, or understand something often he attributes it to God... And then years later someone else find it's explanation, until he stumbles onto the next problem. It's all good. I gues it's okay to put God where your knowledge limits you, or the current more wide one, but just don't spread it that it's because of God. e.g. God is "what w…

Here's his lecture on this, "The Perimeter of Ignorance": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1HXuiIBF3I

Thanks again! I somehow remember different setting, or just different link, or video cam, but it's the same lecture that I watched months ago.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#55

Post by galadriel »

Jach wrote: post #50
tkahn6 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also: Q: Since time slows relative to the speed of light, does this mean that photons are essentially not moving through time at all? A: yes. Precisely. Which means ----- are you seated? Photons have no ticking time at all, which means, as far as they are concerned, they are absorbed the instant they are emitted, even if the distance traveled is across the universe itself.

This answer bothered me. Is he just saying that any supposed delays of "light" we can set up through experiment are really just delays in instantaneous absorption/emission pairs, or is he talking about entangled photons, or some preferred space of simultaneity, or photons not being particles but vectors in a timeless configuration space?

Most probably he is talking about the fact that proper time for all events in Photon's own frame is zero, i.e. a frame that move with speed of light will notice that all events are instantaneous.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#56

Post by retube »

tkahn6 wrote: post #8
jphackworth wrote: post #2

Really interesting. A couple of physics things I did not know that Neil mentions: 1) The fact that an electron has no known size -- it's smaller than the smallest measurement we have ever made of anything. 2) That Quarks come only in pairs: If you try to separate two of them, the energy you sink into the system to accomplish this feat is exactly the energy to spontaneously create two more quarks - one to partner with…

See also: Q: Since time slows relative to the speed of light, does this mean that photons are essentially not moving through time at all? A: yes. Precisely. Which means ----- are you seated? Photons have no ticking time at all, which means, as far as they are concerned, they are absorbed the instant they are emitted, even if the distance traveled is across the universe itself.

> Photons have no ticking time at all, which means, as far as they are concerned, they are absorbed the instant they are emitted, even if the distance traveled is across the universe itself

Yes. Or another way of looking at it, from a photon's perspective the Universe has no size at all! I love that.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#57

Post by lobster_johnson »

th0ma5 wrote: post #45
lobster_johnson wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been looking for a good science show, but Nova scienceNOW wasn't it. Not so much the content as the absolutely juvenline format. Can someone explain how I have misunderstood and the show really is meant for kids? Because it's designed like a kid's show, complete with silly music, wacky editing, colourful demonstrations/analogies to illustrate scientific principles, and narration that sounds as if written for a…

I can't agree with you more, on one hand the technical detail is somewhat increasing in American shows, but the over production and gimmicky nature certainly overshadows it. I'm always impressed by the technical level of BBC shows in comparison, but the best content is online, usually in lectures, and not TED.

They probably think they need the flashy production style to attract mainstream viewers, and in the US, perhaps that's true.

But I was similarly annoyed with Brian Cox's Wonders of the Solar System, which is beautifully designed and calmly edited, but comes across as really fluffy thanks to the lack of scientific detail and the gushing, ultrapositive personality of Cox, who describes everything as "brilliant" and "mindboggling". I like Cox, but he's a bit over the top.

I've found myself hunting down online content such as TED, and also Nottingham University's work, such as the periodic table of elements series (http://www.youtube.com/user/periodicvideos).

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#58

Post by teamonkey »

Jach wrote: post #50
tkahn6 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also: Q: Since time slows relative to the speed of light, does this mean that photons are essentially not moving through time at all? A: yes. Precisely. Which means ----- are you seated? Photons have no ticking time at all, which means, as far as they are concerned, they are absorbed the instant they are emitted, even if the distance traveled is across the universe itself.

This answer bothered me. Is he just saying that any supposed delays of "light" we can set up through experiment are really just delays in instantaneous absorption/emission pairs, or is he talking about entangled photons, or some preferred space of simultaneity, or photons not being particles but vectors in a timeless configuration space?

I loved this reply. Clarifying and correct, as far as I can tell.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/mateq/i_am_neil_degras...

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#59

Post by showerst »

Dn_Ab wrote: post #20
cbo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're two very different ideas, even if they're often shared by the same people. The singularity is all about AI surpassing human intelligence. On this front, I can tell you after having studied a lot of AI for the past three years, we are not close. We're a lot further than many people think, but still not quite that far. As for extending lifespans, this is something we've been doing from the dawn of medicine. We'…

I agree with your premise. I too am skeptical of a singularity although I am hopeful of at least a Feline level of intelligence within the next decade. But the way these things go, the space of ideas is probably non-euclidean and certainly very high dimensional. It is possible that in the dimensions we are used to looking at things a singularity seems far away but is actually right smack in front of us in another dim…

Well, we've increased average lifespans significantly, which matters to a great many people more than if .001% lived to age 200.

That said, is there any way to know if we've increased the maximum lifespan? It seems that accurate birth-date records in many parts of the world didn't start until the 1900s, as there's even difficulty 'verifying' the oldest person in the world today.

You're probably right that on the top end we haven't seen a ton of progress though, I think that first we have beat the things that tend to kill you in old age (cancers!) before we'll start dumping major resources into actually preventing the damage from aging itself that causes us to top out a little after 100.

Hopefully we'll also manage to reap an affordable vaccine or cure for malaria and some of the nasty diseases of tropical poverty in the next 20 years too, which will help that average skyrocket even more.

Post reply on HN