Joe Rogan and the quantum particle experiment video

bobo's peener

Registered User
Sep 17, 2009
409
0
0
Ohio
#1
Joe Rogan is quickly becoming my favorite O&A guest, and I actually sometimes get upset when I turn the radio on and discover he is in studio, because I know that it will fly by too fast and he won't be back for a while. He definitely needs to make more appearances because as much as his podcasts rule, it is great but in a totally different way that O&A&J + Joe Rogan is great, sort of like one is pizza and one is french fries?


I do need to know if I was the only listener who thought my head might explode while listening to the video about the double slit experiment. I will never understand why people need to take scientific studies that are so incredibly fascinating the way they are, and completely twist them around like that video did, to make it seem mysterious in a way that is just completely fabricated.

The video did an excellent job describing the experiment up until (around 3:45) the point where it began discussing the unexpected wave pattern caused from particles interacting with each other, which appeared again when the particles were sent individually. To see which path they actually took, the video actually says that the simple act of watching the particles completely changed their behavior (bullshit):

"The very act of measuring, or observing, which slit it went through meant it only went through one, not both. The electron decided to act different as though it was aware it was being watched."

Unfortunately the viewers are not informed of the fact that "being watched" actually means using techniques that determine which slit the particle passed through, and this can involve techniques that cause the electron to actually collide with another molecule/particle located at each slit, which would obviously have some affect on the electron's path compared to when it "was not being watched." I hate when videos like this claim to be presenting factual information, and instead important facts are omitted from the description of the experiment so that the moron that created the video can hide the complete and total lack of evidence supporting the pseudoscience nonsense about some sort of awareness displayed by electrons.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,538
513
Kingdom of Charis
#2
Joe Rogan is quickly becoming my favorite O&A guest, and I actually sometimes get upset when I turn the radio on and discover he is in studio, because I know that it will fly by too fast and he won't be back for a while. He definitely needs to make more appearances because as much as his podcasts rule, it is great but in a totally different way that O&A&J + Joe Rogan is great, sort of like one is pizza and one is french fries?


I do need to know if I was the only listener who thought my head might explode while listening to the video about the double slit experiment. I will never understand why people need to take scientific studies that are so incredibly fascinating the way they are, and completely twist them around like that video did, to make it seem mysterious in a way that is just completely fabricated.

The video did an excellent job describing the experiment up until (around 3:45) the point where it began discussing the unexpected wave pattern caused from particles interacting with each other, which appeared again when the particles were sent individually. To see which path they actually took, the video actually says that the simple act of watching the particles completely changed their behavior (bullshit):

"The very act of measuring, or observing, which slit it went through meant it only went through one, not both. The electron decided to act different as though it was aware it was being watched."

Unfortunately the viewers are not informed of the fact that "being watched" actually means using techniques that determine which slit the particle passed through, and this can involve techniques that cause the electron to actually collide with another molecule/particle located at each slit, which would obviously have some affect on the electron's path compared to when it "was not being watched." I hate when videos like this claim to be presenting factual information, and instead important facts are omitted from the description of the experiment so that the moron that created the video can hide the complete and total lack of evidence supporting the pseudoscience nonsense about some sort of awareness displayed by electrons.
But doesn't the act of precise measurement collapse certain superpositions? (like the superposition where it passes through both at the same time cannot exist in a situation where it is being measured). At least, that is what my puny understanding of QP lead me to believe. That's the whole point of Schrodinger's Cat - as long as you aren't looking, the cat is both alive and dead, but once you look, the superposition of it being both alive and dead can no longer exist. The mechanism behind this is beyond me, but that's how I understood it.

In any case, I couldn't agree more about your general point. I hate that people try to use QP to "prove" spiritual shit. Like in that utter horseshit of a movie "What the #$@# do we know" or whatever. IT'S SCIENCE, YOU DUMMIES. It just has a different set of rules that we don't entirely understand yet.
 

billyclo

Registered User
Oct 4, 2004
24
0
0
#4
Joe usually bores me, but the conversation you are referencing was great. Love to hear those 4 talk again.
 

The Godfather

Spark it up for The Godfather and say!!!!!
May 9, 2007
11,256
10
163
#5
was this joe rogan segment on yesterday? (friday's show?)
 

JoeyDVDZ

That's MR. MOJO, Motherfucker!
Aug 20, 2004
29,023
5,662
763
#8
However quantum physics posits it was both Thursday AND Friday.
And right now (which is really all there is, after all. Just now. And now. And now. And now....)
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,742
36,870
628
In a porn tree
#9
[Michio Kaku]Time is like a river, and quantum particles are tiny little particles which are no bigger than an Asian penis.[/Michio Kaku]
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#11
That's the whole point of Schrodinger's Cat
The whole point of the Shrodinger's Cat thought experiment was to serve as a reductio ad absurdum proof that Niels Bohr (and others') interpretation of QM (the Copenhagen interpretation) is absurd.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Jan 30, 2005
13,849
638
628
Flea Bottom
#12
Since it was a cartoon short it made you assume a lot. I assumed:

-they did about 5,000 control experiments with the sensor thing to prove it couldn't be some other variable influencing the results. It had to be their first instinct, right?

-they did fucking 500,000 control experiments with the fucking sensor thing. You'd have to do at least that many before your conclusion is "it knows it's being watched". Fuck it. Those guys are stupid dipshits and so is Rogan. How about sub-sub-sub-sub-sub atomic particles the sensor might be giving off? Shit we haven't conceived of yet. "It knows?" wtf kind of retarded conclusion is that?? Rogan really bugs me sometimes. I liked all the other shit about human evolution, though.
 

The Godfather

Spark it up for The Godfather and say!!!!!
May 9, 2007
11,256
10
163
#13
Joe Rogan gets high and watches youtube videos.. what do you expect, windmills?
 

bobo's peener

Registered User
Sep 17, 2009
409
0
0
Ohio
#14
In any case, I couldn't agree more about your general point. I hate that people try to use QP to "prove" spiritual shit. Like in that utter horseshit of a movie "What the #$@# do we know" or whatever. IT'S SCIENCE, YOU DUMMIES. It just has a different set of rules that we don't entirely understand yet.
It reminded me of that same film, especially where a fat lady was giving an example of how our brains struggle to comprehend things that are new to us and so there could be things around us that our eyes don't see because our brain doesn't know how to figure it out, and her example was a little-known historical event where the natives here in the Americas were near the shores when the first European boats arrived, and as the Europeans came to shore, they couldn't figure out why the natives (except the wise elders and spiritual leaders of the tribes) acted as if the Europeans weren't there. She said it was because the natives had never seen anything resembling a large European boat before, or white humans wearing such strange clothes, and so the Europeans and their boats were literally invisible to most of the natives. ahem....BULL FUCKING SHIT.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,538
513
Kingdom of Charis
#16
It reminded me of that same film, especially where a fat lady was giving an example of how our brains struggle to comprehend things that are new to us and so there could be things around us that our eyes don't see because our brain doesn't know how to figure it out, and her example was a little-known historical event where the natives here in the Americas were near the shores when the first European boats arrived, and as the Europeans came to shore, they couldn't figure out why the natives (except the wise elders and spiritual leaders of the tribes) acted as if the Europeans weren't there. She said it was because the natives had never seen anything resembling a large European boat before, or white humans wearing such strange clothes, and so the Europeans and their boats were literally invisible to most of the natives. ahem....BULL FUCKING SHIT.
Yeah exactly. Not comprehending something does not prevent light from bouncing off it into your eyes. Or the part about transferring emotions into water. Fucking annoying.
 

bobo's peener

Registered User
Sep 17, 2009
409
0
0
Ohio
#17
Rogan really bugs me sometimes. I liked all the other shit about human evolution, though.
Rogan sometimes talks about things on the show that are like this example, where he seems to buy into something (or buy into the possibility of this type of explanation) when the source of it is a pseudoscience wackjob. Typically he is correct about things though, and that's why I love when he is on the show. He knows a lot about things that most people are retarded about (the fact of evolution, and that it is a "theory" in the same way the germ theory of disease is "just a theory," or his views about drugs and how messed up our society is when it comes to the way we view "drugs" as all recreational ones being evil and bad, or his views on homosexuality). Almost everything he talks about, I typically agree with him and there are only a few examples like this particle video, where he seems to have completely bought into what was presented without questioning just how absurd the video becomes. I still want more Joe Rogan on O&A and I'm glad that for whatever reason when Joe is on, Ant doesn't force the conversation (and Opie doesn't try to either, the way Opie sometimes does whenever someone that he knows will disagree with Ant on a lot of political things) towards politics, conservative vs liberal or republican vs democrat, and instead they can just talk about other interesting shit. Joe Rogan fucking rules and is a smart fucking dude, and he always comes on the show and talks about stuff I've never heard of. Every single appearance is so much more interesting than the typical O&A show but is still hilarious.

I'm surprised Jim hasn't asked Joe to put Jim in the twister submission since I don't think Jim has felt that one yet (he probably doesn't want to either, and I think if Jim saw what the twister is, that may be where he would draw the line).
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Jan 30, 2005
13,849
638
628
Flea Bottom
#19
I have failed to follow....
Watch the implicated movie. It's not unpopular.

edit: oops, sorry, it's Requiem for a Dream.

The pic's mouse over thingy just says Requiem. I thought it said more.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,742
36,870
628
In a porn tree
#20
Joe Rogan is well-read but he's not very well-informed. He's way too quick to trust the radical theories and claims of pseudoscientific cranks and loonies. Joe is an example of "this is your brain on wikipedia"... he puts too much trust in dubious sources.

The names of the "scientists" that Joe drops is like a Who's Who of notorious crackpots... names you'll have no trouble finding at The Skeptic's Dictionary http://skepdic.com/ and Quackwatch http://quackwatch.org/

The "Rupert" guy whose last name Joe was struggling to remember the other day when he was talking about "morphic resonance" is Rupert Sheldrake. He's the guy who supposedly proved that dogs psychically know when their owner's are returning home.

Rupert Sheldrake is a kook.

http://www.skepdic.com/morphicres.html
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,538
513
Kingdom of Charis
#21
Joe Rogan is well-read but he's not very well-informed. He's way too quick to trust the radical theories and claims of pseudoscientific cranks and loonies. Joe is an example of "this is your brain on wikipedia"... he puts too much trust in dubious sources.

The names of the "scientists" that Joe drops is like a Who's Who of notorious crackpots... names you'll have no trouble finding at The Skeptic's Dictionary http://skepdic.com/ and Quackwatch http://quackwatch.org/

The "Rupert" guy whose last name Joe was struggling to remember the other day when he was talking about "morphic resonance" is Rupert Sheldrake. He's the guy who supposedly proved that dogs psychically know when their owner's are returning home.

Rupert Sheldrake is a kook.

http://www.skepdic.com/morphicres.html
At least I have faith that when confronted with real evidence to the contrary, Rogan won't stick with the kooks. He doesn't strike me as being all in with that stuff, mainly fascinated by it.

Let me also throw a name out there - Joe Nickell. He's a famous skeptic that has done some great work refuting people like Erich Von Daniken and recreating things that were thought to be "impossible" with ancient means like the Nazca lines. Dude is pretty awesome.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,742
36,870
628
In a porn tree
#22
At least I have faith that when confronted with real evidence to the contrary, Rogan won't stick with the kooks. He doesn't strike me as being all in with that stuff, mainly fascinated by it.
I agree. I doubt that Joe is all that intellectually invested in any of the "radical theories" he brings up. He probably doesn't even care if any of it is true or not, he just like playing the role of Mr Radical Thinker guy.

Let me also throw a name out there - Joe Nickell. He's a famous skeptic that has done some great work refuting people like Erich Von Daniken and recreating things that were thought to be "impossible" with ancient means like the Nazca lines. Dude is pretty awesome.
I actually met Joe Nickell once... he was a speaker at an event at the Center For Inquiry in Amherst, NY. Nice guy.
 

Discoman

Well-Known Member
Donator
Feb 21, 2010
2,087
1,427
343
New York
#23
In college I've seen both Chemistry and Physics professors talk about the double slit experiment, mindblowing to say the least. The video may do a poor job of explaining, but that doesn't mean the entire experiment can be written off as crack-pot.

Agree with 3HP, Rogan doesn't have the best sources. I recall him talking about how the entire Christian religion was based around eating mushrooms and smoking pot. Absolutely ridiculous.

It reminded me of that same film, especially where a fat lady was giving an example of how our brains struggle to comprehend things that are new to us and so there could be things around us that our eyes don't see because our brain doesn't know how to figure it out, and her example was a little-known historical event where the natives here in the Americas were near the shores when the first European boats arrived, and as the Europeans came to shore, they couldn't figure out why the natives (except the wise elders and spiritual leaders of the tribes) acted as if the Europeans weren't there. She said it was because the natives had never seen anything resembling a large European boat before, or white humans wearing such strange clothes, and so the Europeans and their boats were literally invisible to most of the natives. ahem....BULL FUCKING SHIT.
That makes no sense in any way. If that was true we wouldn't know anything at all because EVERYTHING we ever saw was new to us at some point.

Now, do we not truly see everything?
Of course, we don't see radio waves or Ultra-violet, but our eyes can't see it to begin with. When we look at clouds we see small drops of water, but our brain just says "fuck it" and makes it into a large cloud.
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
Jul 24, 2005
22,543
13,852
608
Idaho
#24
She said it was because the natives had never seen anything resembling a large European boat before, or white humans wearing such strange clothes, and so the Europeans and their boats were literally invisible to most of the natives. ahem....BULL FUCKING SHIT.
She's right.

Sentinelese tribesmen prepare to fire arrows at the coastguard helicopter after the fishermen's murder
How does she explain babies who have never seen anything before? They seem to see anything you drop in front of them.