What is Digg?109 Comments
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -12/+86This hurts my head. Where's my bible?
- MrBabyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiNQuit6zPA
part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ci1dptPprM
part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEKSBF14i9E
part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3i0m21X5Fs
Whole video on Google Video (with Brazilian subtitles)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4183875433858020781 - mflux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34Despite all the effort they put into this, and Brian Greene's Elegant Universe (effort which by all means I applaud) I'm not impressed at all with either videos.
Hear me out.
Like someone else said... the information density is too low. They use a lot of bad analogies, then waste time showing violin strings, waves crashing. Instead of wasting time showing Kaku ice skate around the park, they could have spent that time starting with simple equations and things that the average viewer might understand (say... laws of gravity, and newtonian physics) and slowly build up into how M-Theory was discovered.. all the while keeping close connection with reality. By extrapolating from things the viewer already understands and working, logically, your way up to Strings and Membranes the viewer might get a much greater appreciation for how it all fits together.
All this pond-jumping mumbo jumbo this video presents insults our intelligence. I mean really, does the average viewer have knowledge of a five year-old? Do we really need to see "bubbles" after the physicist describes our universe "as a floating bubble"?? - primehifi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Michio Kaku is great to listen to. He is really out there. But the most interesting thing about everything he says, is that it is all plausible.
The only thing we know, is that we don't know much. - kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21What if you could slide into a thousand different worlds, where it's the same year, and you're the same person, but everything else is different?
And what if you can't find your way home? - lgc90, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16All 3 hours of the PBS special on "The Elegant Universe" here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
- LarianLeQuella, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@mflux,
I agree that the information density is very low! But remember that the average person has difficulty with 4 dimensions, so I can see them trying to educate to the lowest common denominator. - Roger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Dugg for Dr. Michio Kaku
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Score! Advanced physics and Portuguese lessons at the same time!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Captain’s log, stardate ... unknown. We are trapped in a savage, parallel universe from which we must escape within four hours, or I will face a death sentence at Mr. Spock's hands.
- inactive, on 11/05/2007, -1/+8how'd we all get stuck in the ***** universe?
- bwoodall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The thing that makes String theory, and therefor M-Theory, so plausible is really the math of it all. The calculations accurately predict certain things that up until now have not been able to be seen, such as the graviton.
since you feel this video doesn't give enough info on the subject, try these wikipedia entries to cure that ignorance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi-yau_manifold
or go pick up a book, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene is a mind blower. - Avataren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7How could they not mention Edward Witten, the founder of M-Theory ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten - ckirsch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Local library plug???
- mflux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@SweetChuck
Unfortunately, Scientific Journals often have too -high- a level for anyone to just jump into and learn about the subject. They often begin with some premises that use about fifteen words that you don't understand, then go right into some huge hairy calculus equation. Maybe I haven't taken a look at them in recent times?
I guess I'm disappointed, because I was hoping the video would at least be some primer or a decent summary into the subject. When can we get documentaries like this for people who have at least a college education? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Then you spend several years jumping around with your friends. Then your cool friend with the great voice gets bored, decides to become a circus dwarf instead, so he fakes cancer. Needing a fourth, you pick up a former MTV VJ with a bad boob job who has become a marine, get yourself somehow involved with a war with some Neanderthal wannabes, learn your parents really adopted you from the planet Krypton, find your long-lost twin brother has converted to the Amish way of life, eventually decide things are getting too weird, fake your own death with the connivance of the Centauri ambassador and go on to a new life as a detective in Boston where you eventually manage to hook-up with shape-shifting super-model turned actress Rebecca Romijn.
Does that sound about right? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Guys just wanted to say there are a ton of great videos about our universe in public libraries. Couple days ago I went to my local library and was amazed that they had hundreds of science videos! Just wanted to share. Have fun
- newtronflux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Einstein backed his thoughts up with a little something called "mathematics," you dumbass. Check a book; he didn't just say that stars should gravitationally bend light because they should.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Kaku is great - I highly suggest some of his books.
- whoaohh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6according to this, there are theoretically infinitely many copies of your exact life, infinitely many copies of your exact life while dugg this 5 seconds later than you did, and infinitely many copies where you dugg this 5.000001 seconds later than you did
makes you wonder, why THIS universe? - logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm very conflicted about videos and books like this. On the one hand they generate public enthusiasm and interest in science, something we surely need more of. On the other hand I think they often do more to convey misinformation or false understanding than they convey actual understanding.
For instance take the standard rubber sheet analogy to explain general relativity. On first glance it seems really good. Gravity curves space-time so a planet will rotate around the sun the same way a ball will rotate around the drain in a sink. Yet spend a little bit more thought on it and you realize it hasn't explained gravity at all since without gravity the ball wouldn't rotate the drain.
More problematically consider all the statements about Quantum mechanics of the form 'the electron is in two places at one time' or 'the electron went through both slits and neither'. While in a certain technical sense this is certainly true the impression it gives to the lay reader is that there really are these concrete particles electrons that actually exist at two places at once. Now Quantum mechanics is certainly strange but that isn't what the theory says. Rather a more accurate explanation is that the electron really is a wave function and like a real wave isn't (usually) entirely at any one place. Now collapse is still a very weird phenomena and one scientists really don't yet understand yet but I'm not sure the popular explanations actually get one closer and not farther from what is going on. - yakuzablitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Junkyarddawg, just what the hell do you want, eh? These are scientists trying to explain extremely difficult and high-level concepts for the viewership of the BBC, i.e.; the popular audience. If their analogies help the audience to get some grasp, however basic, of what the scientific concepts that they're talking about mean, isn't that worthwhile? People who become interested can go on from those analogies to more scientifically accurate material. Sorry if we're all not up to your level of cleverness...
- DarkHorizon5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4why was this being dugg down?
libraries are great places to get movies on all sorts of things, and you would be surprised at how much they have to offer, for free. Don't rent that blockbuster movie, go look for the same one for free at the library! While you're at it, get a good ol science documentary. - cpritchard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Which brings us to the reason for the $8 billion Large Hadron Collider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider - zatrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3isn't that we/you experience every single day by invoking "choice"?
- spartan778, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The One with jet li is real.
- cpritchard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@mflux
The Elegant Universe documentary is not nearly as good as the book. If you want more information density Brian Greene's books are a great place to start. They are much more in depth than an introductory video, and include excellent documentation for further investigation.
Check out:
The Fabric of the Cosmos or
The Elegant Universe - SweetChuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3LogicallyGenius, part of the Large Hadron Collider project is to verify the things he’s talking about. By pinpointing the energy levels at which we can create micro-blackholes we can verify the number of extra dimensions the multiverse has.
Further, in a program designed for the general population it would be pointless to delve into great detail. Metaphors and analogies are all that the general public can understand. If anyone wants to delve deeper they should look at some scientific journals. - lohengrin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You will find them all here - http://best.online.docus.googlepages.com
Science - The Elegant Universe... - drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4related the string theory
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1794242500551206071&q=string+theory - sccloatrtk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3THE O.C. tonight was about parallel universes!
- newtronflux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4NO NO NO! Citing the word "quantum" doesn't mean diddly *****. "The quantum level" and "non-existence" and so on and so forth with your regurgitated "Star Trek- this is a torpedo" or "this word makes me smart" *****. Like the "scientist" presented in this series, you can not mention the word "quantum" one hundred times and be right about something. "No, Mechanic, a rod can NOT be shot through my engine because on the quantum level..." A. If you haven't had discrete mathematics, you 99% of the time won't know dick about what the word "quantum" means. B. "Quantum," in physics (which is the only field that can USE the word), represents an energy proportional to the vector magnitude of the energy it represents. Thus, you can't say "my quantum hand" unless you have an inverse beta decay going on in your fingers. You can't just magically declare that neutron degeneracy or electron degeneracy is overcome when you invoke the word "quantum," etc. It's like saying "I decided to live because a blade of grass told me how basketballs bounce."
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Theoretically, distinct parllel universes could exist but the fact is that so much change in very localized places would have to occur in order to change anything that it would technically be impossible to see a difference in the universes... although the idea of free will would tend to alieviate that problem if it does indeed exist.
- zionKing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Morpheus?
- JacNet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Too bad it isn't bbc! It is UKTV.
How stupid can you be, it even has a watermark. - newtronflux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3CHECK IT OUT, GUYS, BEFORE YOU MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!!! Just because "Golden Crisp" is madeby Post doesn't mean you have to 'close your minds.' Maybe Kellog's made it and we just don't know. Don't think of gravity in terms of "gravitation," becasue that's like thinking of "water" in terms of "two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen: just because it LOOKS right doesn't mean that it IS right." All of that "logic" that Mars defies with is't non-existant electromagnetic field proves my God wrong, and thus logical connotation based on empirical evidence is the enemy! Why latch on to the most "complex" explanation for "God" when it's pretty obvious that God exists due to the fact that he has to or how are you here?
Our "fantasies" include following logical deduction, performing experiments, looking at overwhelming modern-day emperical evidence to overshadow what god TOLD me through his thousand year-old ***** book to be true! - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The take-home message, I think, is that for the time being "m" in "m-theory" stands for "missing" (or in the case of the Wikipedia entry, "mushroom")."
No the take home theory is that you are a total dumbass who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. If you understood any of the maths or physics behind what is being said, then you would understand too that most of the analogies are perfectly valid.
But of course you don't and you are too lazy to try to find out - so instead you take the easy option and just discount it all - and probably reach for your 'easier to digits' explanation in the guise of a bible. - Trigonometron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2lol timecube
http://www.timecube.com/
* Pedant humans are stupid and evil.
* Nature's Time Cube transcends god.
* Nature's Time Cube contradicts god.
* Nature's Time Cube debunks god.
* Nature outlaws both word and god.
* God is an adult crime upon children.
* God has singularity of an adult queer.
* Word is now a corrupted evil power.
* Word is a counterfeit representation.
* Word has not the substance of a fart.
* Word god has not substance of a fart.
* Self is the lowest form of humanity.
* Self word god is evil human behavior.
Gene Ray - iancgi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3nah more along the lines of TooL
- iancgi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Embrace the random, you have chosen to be here don't waste it.
The only thing we need to know is that we know nothing at all and never will. - teethman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This video was useful to help understand some stuff
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What exactly is meant by a collision of parallel worlds? Don't they already inhabit the same space? How then can they "collide"?
I'm just curious. Does anyone know what this means? - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I agree. This documentary gives science a bad name. If you believe in this kind of unproven nonsense you may as well believe in scripture. Why are so many people so eager to believe in such utter BS?
More science should be made about what we DO know. The stuff we DO know is already fascinating enough. And as for this kind of speculative crap, scientists should say "we don't know yet". Because, the truth is, we don't know yet. Science documentaries should teach people about science, not nonsense.
And people certainly need it. Despite our technological advances, the majority has a hocus-pocus mindset that comes straight out of the middle ages. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The take-home message, I think, is that for the time being "m" in "m-theory" stands for "missing" (or in the case of the Wikipedia entry, "mushroom")."
No the take home theory is that you are a total dumbass who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. If you understood any of the maths or physics behind what is being said, then you would understand too that most of the analogies are perfectly valid.
But of course you don't and you are too lazy to try to find out - so instead you take the easy option and just discount it all - and probably reach for your 'easier to digest' explanation in the guise of a bible.
Also if you did understand the mathematics - you would also know how nearly impossible it is to come up with a good working analogy that is explainable to the general public.
This was a documentary aimed at the great unwashed masses - .not at a specialist physics audience. If you think you can come up with better analogies that meet this task - feel free to try.
Also if you feel you skepticism disproves the work that these scientists do, then I look forward to your next scientific paper demonstrating your point.
However I supect I will have a very long wait. - Abno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Notice where it says "some schools of spirituality consider it to be a scientific "proof" to their own metaphysical claims about God, the heavens and so on. M-theory itself, however, makes no such claims." - Meaning that stuff isn't a part of M-theory.
Though I do agree that shouldn't go in the M-theory article, it should go in their own articles and they can simply reference the M-theory article if they want to.
It doesn't mean wikipedia has been "hacked", do you understand how wikipedia works? Wikipedia is meant to give various points of view, and it's always a work in progress, not a perfect source. - maus56, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4On the contrary, READ THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. Gods wrote it, they say so. And it's a hell of a lot shorter.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hint: no story just submitted EVER hits the frontpage. Doesn't happen. You need to back your story up through social networking: get a ton of friends here on Digg, and digg their stories - and hopefully they'll digg yours.
If you've got a blog, advertise your article there to drag in more diggs. If you've not got a blog... get one.
Friends? Classmates? Co-workers? Get them to digg your story.
That's how every single story on the frontpage got there.
The retention time in the upcoming section is way too short for "orphan" stories, stories just released in the hope of random diggs, to ever go any where.
Digg isn't at all about the quality of the story, or about the title of the story. Neithe has any effect at all on whether you hit the frontpage. It is 100% about social networking. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So - was it this universe or the entire multiverse which was infinitely long and a maximum of 3 picometers wide in the 11th dimension?
- uggidi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wow..this is a very interesting video. when they say parallel universes, it means infinite permutations and combinations..I wonder if Einstein or somebody else already have found a solution to the exact meaning of life and origin; or may be they even found a way to travel from one universe to the other in another universe... it's just that they still haven't been able to find our planet/universe...just imagine the probability!
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd settle for him being able to explain a single ***** thing intelligibly.
There was zero actual information in this video, there was just a bunch of completely misleading metaphors and similes, e.g. "the universe is music from the strings". -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is