What Physicists Don't Want You to Know About Quantum Mechanics

what's the deal with objectivity?
Support my work on patreon: / drfatima
References:
docs.google.com/document/d/1v...
Music: "Hanen" by Carthago
Chapters
00:00 - Cold Open
00:49 - Part 1: The Uncertainty Principle
05:00 - Part 2: Interpreting "Uncertainty"
08:07 - Part 3: Scientific Worldviews
11:22 - Part 4: What Does Feminism Have To Do With It?
16:15 - Part 5: Objectivity and Who's Allowed in the Club
23:17 - Final Thoughts
26:59 - Fun Science Postscript

[@obsolettuce]

Really interesting video. I've always been proud of my objective and rational mind, which made me go through my science curriculum pretty easily. But I guess I never really tried to understand why it was that way, and I never dared to question if it was the only way we could see reality (despite having studied quantum mechanics). Thanks for this train of thought. I definitely think in politics, and human interaction in general, it's extremely important to acknowledge that not all is known, or even knowable.

[@danielsykes7558]

Definitely

[@DarthCool99]

I have a Bio/Phil degree, and it really shook up the way in which I can respect objective science. High level biology begins to get into how it's truly unseen and not understood particle physics that power living things, and my vertebrate physiology class rattled me -we are so complex, it's amazing we're alive at all. If I was an anxious person, I could be worrying about dozens of minute processes going awry and killing me. The philosophy side of it really got into the epistemic limitations of our empirical "objective" western worldview and scientific establishment. One of my profs went deep into the economic & social biases that drive science as an industry, rather than a discipline. I don't love "woo-woo," there are plenty of charlatans who use pseudo-science or quasi-spiritual language to exploit people, but I can't take "objectivity bros" seriously anymore as a result of my education. There are plenty of things that we simply can't know, and I think our cultural obsession with being right & objective knowledge is really harmful today. Towit, there are plenty of charlatans that use fully armed-and-operational scientific language to dupe rubes. Fancy data presentation is still real "science," even if it's used for dishonest ends. There is still plenty to learn from indigenous peoples, and it's such a shame so much has already been destroyed because we look down on things like spiritual medicines or shamanic practices. The spiritual, philosophical or social vocabulary of other cultures doesn't always look scientific, but if you give them enough patience and space to exercise themselves, these systems of knowledge prove to be incredibly deep and useful.

[@obsolettuce]

@@DarthCool99that's so cool. To be honest, it has been a few days but this feeling is sticking with me. There really is something there, and I am definitely going to try to get to the bottom of it in my head. I'm actually worried about the impact it might have on my passion for my current engineering job lol. But hey, questioning the nature of reality really is worth it.

[@Daniel-ih4zh]

@@DarthCool99 objectivity can just mean it is universally verifiable. What in the world are you talking about: "we can't know everything", "shamanic practices" etc. Hopefully low iq people like you get filtered out of the discipline because its clear you completely lack any perspective and ability to form cogent chains of thought. Your whole schtick is to look and feel smart, not actually try and understand anything. Same with Fatima, who cites "scholars" who have wrote papers saying special relativity verifies black epistemology.

[@ambatuBUHSURK]

@@DarthCool99 lmfao muh indigenous. There is nothing in biology or medical science that cannot be incorporated into particle physics model. I challenge you to give examples. Also, just because you don't understand a certain biological process doesn't mean it's permanently unknowable or cannot be understood through other fields. Also, "some things we simply can't know" is a strawman. What are those things? and how did you ascertain that we "simply can't know them"? There are definitely limits of an empirical scientific model and you're exaggerating and making stuff up without any examples or evidence and cushioning that within progressive language.

[@hambonesmithsonian8085]

I am a black undergrad and physics and I have never felt more seen in my entire life. Thank you so much for making this video. Luckily my department is a lot more based about the inherent subjectivity of the process of doing science. Please keep making many more videos, but only if you’re into it.

[@hambonesmithsonian8085]

Undergrad in physics*

[@soulsynthesissubject]

Relatable comment

[@marinecomponentvandefensie5351]

Can you explain to me how there’s a relationship between scientists considering their field an objective study of reality and discrimination in stem? Wasn’t convinced by the video

[@Snowforest60]

@@marinecomponentvandefensie5351same couldn’t see it, maybe if her video was about reality being objective or not then their might be an argument but every time she tried to switch to how this is showed in society the philosophy was not making sense

[@michaelneedssleep]

I was sent here by Zoe Bee. Physics is the one scientific field I struggle the most with, so I’m grateful whenever I have the opportunity to listen to someone who makes it more accessible. The perspective is a bonus. PS - I was always skeptical/critical of string theory, and I thought it was because I’m a killjoy. Turns out I am a killjoy, but I was right once.

[@Daniel-ih4zh]

Please stfu about string theory if you barely even know anything physics. You don't even have the ability to be skeptical of it and neither does she.

[@NickiRusin]

When I discovered string theory back in uni, I though "this seems cool, can't wait for experimental results!". Still waiting.

[@anakides]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3PCe4Ceg8yHiLc

[@realitypoet]

If you want to hear more about how string theory is unscientific I recommend Sabine Hossenfelder’s channel; she’s a theoretical physicist that does a great job of explaining scientific concepts to those who don’t have a deep background in it, and she’s very critical of string theory and other such claims

[@michaelneedssleep]

@@realitypoet thanks! I’ll check her out.

[@bananatassium7009]

i've been on the educational side of youtube for a solid 5 years and i've never had a video give me a full philosophical mindblow like this one did. amazing, thank you for making such an incredible video!

[@tylerk3130]

I've been consuming a lot of social, economic and political science content lately, and coming across someone who similarly has passion for both 'hard' (with the biggest of air quotes) sciences and social sciences is a really fresh take, and very much speaks to me. Thank you, keep it up.

[@mattias2576]

Very much agree, I sometimes feel very alone being extremely into sociology as well as physics (masters student in physics).

[@DaveE99]

You may like the channel “what is politics” he integrates a lot of areas and was prob the most in depth and integrated look I found.

[@hayashicharizard6646]

As a physicist and a philosopher of science, I 'd like to point out somethings. The first thing being that when you say that "we have robust evidence that the reality is not objectivity and we ignore it" you are objectively wrong, as i) Bohr wasn't claiming that and ii) this interpretation has been a case of study in Philosophy of Science for decades, even Popper discussed and criticized that interpretation himself [1]. Other thing that I think you might be misunderstanding is that objectivity in science led us to the interpretation that the knowledge obtained by it is some kind of "ultimate truth" about the world, which is not the case. There are a lot going on in Philosophy of Science about this, mainly in the debate of scientific realism/antirrealism, but, for example, we can easily take the scientific knowledge as objective knowledge about a mind-independent world, and not as a "ultimate truth", but as approximate truth. This is the case of some kinds of scientific realism [2][3][4]. Then, you talk about string theory as if it is our only attempt to quantize gravity, which also is not the case. Take for example Loop Quantum Gravity or even Canonical Quantum Gravity, which are much more well viewed by the scientific community - as they can produce experimental or observational data - [5] than String Theory (which just happen to be more popular due to TV shows and etc). Finally, you talk about how "scientific objectivity" is bad, but you do not even define what you mean when you talk about "scientific objecvitiy", as there are not just one definition of it [6]. Other than that, you have some really misunderstandings about Quantum Mechanics itself, as, for example, the term "observer" does not refers that a person whatsoever. It refers to a machine (a particle collider, or whatever), which already breaks down almost all of the argument about this "subjectivity" of reality. [1] www.ies.ee/bahps/acta-baltica/abhps-9-1/01_abhps-2021-1-01.pdf [2] www.routledge.com/Scientific-Realism-How-Science-Tracks-Truth/Psillos/p/book/9780415208192 [3] www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Scientific-Realism/Saatsi/p/book/9780367572556 [4] academic.oup.com/book/1368?login=false [5] arxiv.org/abs/2012.08785 [6] plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/#UnitDisuScieObje Obs1: As a non-white person (asian + native + white) from a "3rd world" country - namely Brazil-, I know that science is, among other things, a social activity, and therefore I truthfully think that we need o endorse the discussion about some disparities in science (social, ethnical and gender) and how it affects our bias and results and how to solve this disparities, but we need more solid argumens for that. Obs2: We need to be very cautious when talking about QM and Philosophy, as even a little term put in the wrong position could cause very bad results, as a lot of pseudosciences have been created and popularized by some misunderstandings in science due to bad science communication (just like the new age quantum-woo-woo co-creation energetic stuff). Obs3: I'd just like to point out that I desagree that problem of marginalized people being marginalized in science is due to some "forcefull objectivity" in science. As a marxist, and a materialist as a consequence, I found this to be just wrong.

[@estebancanizales3303]

Chad response

[@emilianosintarias7337]

Serious, non-trolling question: as a philosopher of science and a marxist, how can you accept feminism? Isn't it just a tradition or a form of woo? There is no evidence that sexes are anything like classes, that men as a group exploit women as a group, or that misogyny is the norm in society. The patriarchy as an idea does not make any sense, and women are not disadvantaged in general. (they may be disadvantaged in the sciences, but that doesn't support feminism anymore than the trend of longer prison sentences for men does - only that sexism exists).

[@richardsaid973]

If you didn't I would have, great response

[@katt3985]

This counter argument does not actually address the video. she never argues that Bohr made any claims about about reality and subjectivity as whole, just that particles don't have inherit properties. Philosophy of Science is interesting but niche field; the argument is that most physicist are not invested into epistemology or metaphysics to separate their observations from what they think of as "Ultimate Truth" about the world. my opinion, and likely the author's opinion, is that anti-realism has been demonstrated well enough to accept it over realism and certainly over the common way of thinking. hence "we have robust evidence that the reality is not objectivity and we ignore it". String Theory is being used here as an example of a scientific theory that has no evidence to support itself despite years of research and attempts to prove it and is all but debunked but still take up a lot of resources in the scientific community. Just because an Observer is a machine and itself a part of a 'mind-independent' world does not debunk the idea that the measurement is a synthesis of the machine and the particle and not an inherit property of the particle.

[@greengorilla]

I am an anti-realist instrumentalist because I think that the scientific method will never give us complete knowledge about substances or forces in their entirety. But that does not imply that the scientific method is too value-laden to the point where it cannot provide us with useful and practical insight into certain aspects of the physical and social world. I love using GPS tracking on my phone. I would be lost without it. Thank you science. Biological anthropology gives us insight into our current behavior and physiological composition. Thank you science. But the social sciences, if they are worth their weight in salt, must utilize sound methods of falsification and empiricism, lest they run the risk of being nothing more than useless gibberish. There is a case to be made that the concept of objectivity can lead to the social practice of demarcating those who do and don't possess knowledge (the intelligent and the ignorant), which can lead to epistemic and political injustice. However, the refusal to interpolate empiricism and falsification into academic social and political theorization is just plain mad. It is happening far too often with way too little justification, particularly by feminists. What we need is better and more objective science, in which more diverse populations are conducting research and experiments, not deconstruction, relativism, and standpoint epistemology. It's bad philosophy and completely counterintuitive.

[@momchi98]

I am doing a masters in physics, so I get what you mean, but I disagree. It's not that there is no objective reality, it's that the uncertainty principle is simply a part of reality. It's not just a quantum effect either, you can't know the wavelength or frequency of a water wave if it's just a dirac delta with absolutely certain position. But real waves have pretty well describable wavelengths, but there is no definite position, there is a whole wave there, multiple locations simultaneously. But QM says that when the wave interacts strongly with the environment, that wave suddenly collapses on one one of the positions if you are trying to measure location, so you immediately lose out all info on momentum, since momentum basically is wavelength. And even if we don't take that literally, reality still is objective, it's just that objective doesn't mean all variables having a definite value at all time. Our brains simply aren't hardwired for that, theyhave evolved to survive in the macroscopic world. If there were somehow organisms the size of molecules or even atotms, then they would have an intuition about quantum mechanics and the macroscopic world will just be a world of averages.

[@theodionne9370]

I totally agree also! Being biological creatures, we have our own set of biases brought onto us by evolution in the macroscopic scale and we can't be expected to intuitively understand everything at the micro scale with that same ''cave person'' instincts!

[@UsernameXOXO]

Objective reality is confusing because our personal interpretations of it are subjective. Furthermore reality cares from where it is observed and rarely do people share the same exact space, so it seems even more subjective. This is simply my subjective observation of a complex objective reality.

[@avibhagan]

people get confused. the uncertainty principle is a principle, it's an observation, it's not a law or effect. it was created to make our calculations more accurate. What happens is our measurements are ACTIVE, and not Passive and we actively change the system when we measure it. Thus, the uncertainty principle was created to compensate for this. In a cloud chamber , looking at the path of an alpha particle or an electron , we can know the precise location and precise momentum of these particles, at any point in their trajectories. This is not a "defiance" of the uncertainty principle. It's just that the principle does not have to be applied in this case. The principle ONLY needs to be applied IF, your measurement method is directly responsible for changing the position or momentum of the system.

[@PIERRE1QUIROULE]

​@@avibhagan The uncertainty principle is a theorem (and what is the difference between a principle and a law anyway ?). It is a fundamental property of any object and it's due to the non commutativity of some observables (position and momentum, spins in different directions,...). The uncertainty principle of course applies in cloud chambers.

[@PIERRE1QUIROULE]

How do you define a state of reality ? Because the description of phenomena in quantum mechanics is observer dependent and, for example, just because the wave function has collapsed for you does not mean that it has collapsed for all observers. An objective reality is not excluded by quantum mechanics, but it is clearly not implied by it.

[@MegaTomate99]

Really great video! I'm a Chilean physicist (in between my undergrad and my masters) And I've had an interest in philosophy of science since I entered the field. I would say I started with this naive view of science as objective knowledge, but as I've learned more about the field(physics and philosophy of science) I would say that a view like that is harder and harder to maintain. I think with this video you touch on a lot of interesting questions, and you have some really great points about a lot of things that are not generally discussed in physics (even though they should be).

[@-.jai.-]

wena

[@MegaTomate99]

@@-.jai.- Wena wena, igual eres de la cfm?

[@BenWard29]

Science doesn't lead to objective truth, science creates models of our reality the lead to testable predictions. This is why both Newtonian mechanics and general relativity are both "correct" in difference contexts. Newtonian mechanics are still used heavily. Also, as a person who never went to college, I learned about the Copenhagen interpretation (which is what Bohr's interpretation is called) in high school- I am very surprised that you didn't hear about it sooner. From what I understand, it is the dominant view in the science community today.

[@KazmirRunik]

Science DOES say what's objectively true in the sense that it discerns OBSERVABLE reality. It's an unfortunate artifact of the English language, where people confuse this for the other definition of objectivity which asserts that it refers to an OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT reality, or the true nature of reality. These are the two different types of reality at odds here, and they're both definitionally objective. It's prudent to refer to "observable" reality instead of "objective" reality in scientific circles where people might not recognize this distinction, because "observable" avoids this subtle miscommunication. The word "observable" is more specific about what science actually does, and it doesn't evade skepticism or deeper observations the way that "objective" does. The "objective" reality holds a certain moral weight of referring to immovable truth, so being skeptical of "objective" reality makes you sound like a wingnut. However, being skeptical of "observable" reality implies that you want to double-check an observation (as any scientist does) while also making some headway in excluding the biases(/conclusions) of the initial observer. You can point out when a piece of information is a conclusion instead of an observation, and it strikes at the heart of science being synonymized with objective truth. Science is the observation PLUS the conclusion, while observable reality is just the observation.

[@outisnemo8443]

That's empirical science. Rational science, also known by Aristotle as "first science", which we know today as metaphysics, is what leads to objective truth.

[@cherubin7th]

Newton gives wrong prediction for the moon position by a few meters. So it is wrong. Flat earth is approximately right in my garden.

[@alexeyvlasenko6622]

I would say that the most common interpretation, among sober physicists, is that the entire idea of interpretations is unscientific, and as far as science is concerned, all mental models of reality that mathematically give exactly the same predictions are in fact exactly the same, and arguing about which one is "right" is best left to philosophers and such (this is known colloquially as the "shut up and just calculate" approach). When the physicists get drunk or high, they tend to noncommittally lean towards many-worlds type views.

[@alexeyvlasenko6622]

@@bibi_999 Well, yeah, of course any theory is a mental model, as is all our perception or ideas of reality. However, the point of the "shut up and calculate" approach is that it really doesn't matter what kind of mental picture of reality you have, as long as it produces correct predictions. So, if the "many worlds" picture produces exactly the same predictions as, let's say, the Copenhagen interpretation, then which one is "correct" is not a scientifically answerable question. On the other hand, if some predictions were to differ, then this would be interesting and it would be possible to determine which interpretation doesn't work and reject it.

[@adithyasj5840]

These videos are amazing. Please keep them coming. I found one video and thought to myself 'I know what I'm binging today' only to find that there are only two videos.

[@mikeymann3278]

I can see why your channel has blown up so quickly and I thank the algorithm gods for sending you my way, your's is such a refreshing perspective and while I'm currently too poor to support your patreon I am definitely a fan and I eagerly await more of your videos. I always intended to take humanities alongside wherever I end up in stem, but I feel you have effectively warned me to be prepared for these biases whithin the very systems of the higher educations. Not to be unscientific but to be more open in my understanding, and also highlighting the importance of my taking humanities. So thanks for starting this channel!

[@EEEwart]

Yeah the philosophy I take as a HEP grad student is that the objective reality exists, it just doesn't contain a simultaneous "true position" and "true momentum". I don't really see a contradiction there. On the other hand, everything you said about objectivity rhetoric in the field is spot fucking on, and even beyond that I find the idea that we as humans could ever be truly "objective" laughable. How would we even know if we had succeeded? Our subjective experience of feeling objective? Objectivity is for reality, we messy humans need to own and use our subjectivity to better ourselves and our systems, not hold other people down

[@tmsphere]

subjectivity politics is the politics of the self navel gazing, very popular these days, navel gazing as replacement for knowing anything.

[@EEEwart]

@@tmsphere Personally I'd prefer knowing that what I know is knowable. It's remarkable the things people think they know that, if they were to just look at there bellybutton a little bit, they'd realize were not only false but ridiculous. Science serves part of this purpose. Philosophy of science ensures that institutional science is not blinding itself and thereby reproducing the errors it seeks to eliminate. Both are necessary.

[@SC-zq6cu]

There is a big problem in this video. Quantum mechanical worldview does not say that there are no observer independent facts. Sure it does say that measurements are affected by the observer, but measurements are not the end all be all in q-mech. In q-mech instead of measurements the fundamental truths of nature are represented by wavefunctions which are observer-independent and thus very much like how you describe newtonian measurements as. So q-mech scientists are as much objectivists as class-mech scientists are, its just that their notion of what counts as "objective" is different.

[@teesh6003]

THANK YOU! The comments are full of drivel drinking dunces who ate this video up when its completely built upon a false notion to push a rhetorical view of her own, I'm glad someone else saw through the veil. Nothing about this video was either scientific OR useful in any sense to the topics she discussed, just a bunch of bullshit strapped together with "what I feel" and "what I think" while simultaneously accusing the "objectivity ideologues" of doing the exact same thing she is.

[@4udioFour]

Two opposing truths can co exist, in most if not all cases they must co exist for either to exist.

[@parkerstroh6586]

There is a body of q-mech scientists who do believe the fundamental nature of reality is found in the interaction of observer and observed

[@parkerstroh6586]

@@4udioFour union of opposites! You are arguing the observer must exist for the universe to exist?

[@4udioFour]

@@parkerstroh6586 the simple answer is yes. The complex answer is duality is deeply & subtly intertwined with our universe so a part of me feels the opposite could also be true depending how one defines “observer” & reality. Like the example she gave with the tree falling & making a sound. Is sound just vibrating air or is it the interaction of the ear & consciousness with said air? Both could be argued but ultimately without the human experience of sound we wouldn’t define it as sound, it would just be moving particles/energy. So the human observing the phenomena is more fundamental to defining/perceiving said phenomena. Without the observer there is quite literally nothing to experience or observe…. & if it can’t be observed or experienced then it either doesn’t exist or we are unaware of it…

[@TheZectorian]

As someone who just completed my undergraduate in physic, the Bohr (Copenhagen) interpretation is what is generally taught today as it is the most popular interpretation.

[@dameonvonfrankenstein3001]

As a layperson, my issue with the Bohr interpretation as described here in the "tree in a forest" allegory is that it is highly anthrocentric. Is Bohr suggesting that without ANY observers capable of perception, physical interactions do not occur? If the tree falls in the forest, none of the animals perceive it? If the forest is somehow devoid of wildlife, no trees ever fall and the forest stands forever? It doesn't make any intuitive sense (not an argument for it not being true, just difficult to understand). There are stars in the galaxy that no living thing has observed, and yet they continue to burn anyway...

[@Edude117]

@@dameonvonfrankenstein3001 from what I saw in the video, particularly when it comes to the “tree in a forest” analogy, the nature of the interpretation seems very semantic. It seems like the argument isn’t that vibrations don’t travel through the air after a tree falls unless someone is there to hear it, it’s that the concept of “sound” definitionally involves a pair of ears to sense it and a brain to interpret the sound, otherwise the vibrations are just meaningless and can’t be called sound. It basically struck me as a redefinition of the word sound. I don’t know, it’s all looking to be very circular and pedantic. “Science isn’t about objective reality, it’s about predicting measurements.” Yeah, okay, measurements of what, though? Objective reality perhaps? The sheer fact that science is reproducible shows that the uncertainty principle cannot be applied to anything beyond the measurement of particles. And of course measuring particles will be wonky, we can’t observe them in any possible way without changing their behavior, such as by blasting them with photons which affects their condition.

[@samuilpetkov497]

@@dameonvonfrankenstein3001 Because the video grossly misrepresents it. Check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the CI of QM.

[@aikendrum3228]

@@dameonvonfrankenstein3001 I think its anthropocentricity serves to evince an underlying truth. Anthropocentricity is the ultimate limit of our scope. The thought experiment isn't meant to prove that the tree makes no sound if not observed, only to show that observation is a prerequisite to anthropocentric relevance. Existence is an emergent characteristic of disctinct things interacting, and if none of those things interact with us, they can never meaningfully exist. Existence divorced from observation is intrinsically meaningless. We can imagine beyond this limit, but only as human subjects concocting a hypothetical reality that still only has meaning as a result of our attention.

[@sean748]

@@dameonvonfrankenstein3001 This is a misunderstanding of what "observer" really means here I think. It does not refer to "conscious entity" or "human being", but rather just something which has a causal interaction with the quantum system. An electronic light sensor is just as much an observer as your eye is. The idea is more that if those distant stars *hadn't* sent out photons or gravitational waves that reached and interacted with us, there is a more fundamental thing going on than "we can't see these objects" - these objects, in a very real sense, would not exist for us. But there is no anthrocentrism here - everything interacts, not just conscious human minds.

[@rfn900]

Strange. I definitely spent quite a bit of time discussing this beef between objective reality (or physical realism) vs Bohr's view reality. We discussed the Einstein-Bohr letters and talked about this exact shift that quantum mechanics brought to our view of the world. And this was the exact way I myself taught it during my years teaching college level physics.

[@AlexanderRussakoff]

Thank you!

[@nataliejennings2620]

This was an exceptional video essay, and very entertaining. I think you clearly have a knack for this! Hope that we get to see more soon ^___^

[@JohntheDuncan]

Got recommended this video in the comments of a video i did on epistemology and the weird ways it's utilised in online debates and I'm very glad it was recommended. This video ruled!

[@JoshPelton]

Excellent video essay, amazing for your first vid, please make at least 500 more.

[@brookswift]

Bohr's interpretation was part of my introduction to quantum mechanics in college and on my own before I started college. I was studying quantum mechanics 20 years ago at Berkeley. Our textbooks were mostly from the 70s for all the intro classes. Is there a new way they're teaching physics these days that glosses over the big early debates over pilot wave and hidden variable theories that had tried and failed to maintain Newtonian determinism and objectivity? I'm surprised you didn't bring up Godel's incompleteness theorem and the way it totally upended thousands of years of mathematics in a similarly fundamental way to the upending of Newtonian physics and assumptions about pure determinism.

[@longnoseboi]

I was studying quantum mechanics at university 3 years ago and no, Bohr's interpretation was part of it.

[@Dave-hp4vh]

Dude, beyond the amazing videos, the songs in these are a friggin' bop - I would LOVE if you would link the songs in the description so we can check them out.

[@matthewburger798]

Bohr wasn’t claiming that there was no objective reality whatsoever, and very few physicists do. Nor was he claiming that there was anything more special about a human observer than say, a single photon. Observation and interaction here mean the same thing. In fact an integral part of the Copenhagen interpretation (which Heisenberg and Bohr are chief contributors to) is that the measurement is not subject to observer interpretation, and it was a convention among the adopters of the interpretation that there would be no attempts to describe the fundamental nature of reality (ie objective subjective) as that would have no bearing on any observation that could be made. The subjectivity of fundamental reality, even if true, would have no impact on the objectivity of measurement, which is why despite the indeterministic nature of quantum mechanics, we can make deterministic predictions using classical mechanics.

[@jamesexplainsmath]

Unless the de Broglie-Bohm theory is the correct one (whereby the indeterminism is removed by considering particles interacting with their own pilot-waves)! However, since both produce the same results anyway and Bohmian mechanics does not yet have an associated field theory, I'm firmly in the Copenhagen camp for now.

[@QuantumR4ge]

This video is very much falling prey to pop sci versions of quantum mechanics rather than a rigorous one an actual physicist would use.

[@jamesexplainsmath]

@@QuantumR4ge Maybe, but keeping quantum mechanics under lock and key for only those that completed relevant coursework in their degree to understand makes scientists look conceited. John Herschel wrote that the general public needed "digests of what is actually known in each branch of science to give an overview of what has been done and what remains to be accomplished." Obviously, these 'digests' can't be rigorous since they would be incomprehensible to the layperson. In the video, there were several points that would be incorrect in an exam setting but on the whole I thought it did a decent job of explaining very difficult topics to a wide audience.

[@vauchomarx6733]

@@jamesexplainsmath There are plenty of other interpretations (e.g. Many Worlds, Superdeterminism…) which are also deterministic, as well as being consistent with QFT.

[@jamesexplainsmath]

@@vauchomarx6733 yes, I am a bit biased (my thesis is on pilot-wave hydrodynamics and so naturally I only talk about that lol)

[@Quincitic]

As a white dude with an engineering degree who came from mathematics, hitting physics on the way and some philosophy to boot, I love what you have to say. Over in mathland, we study the things that don't fall apart under their own logic. I think the universe happens to be one of those things. But we've proven that we can't prove that math is consistent. This self-reference is important, and incredibly deep.

[@nefallian702]

Love your channel, not only for the absolutely necessary analysis of academia, but the absolute BOPS you play in the transitions!

[@BellamyJay]

Idk why your video popped up in my recommended BUT I'm THRILLED it did. I'm a Geography PhD student and what you're talking about has a TON of overlap with Affect Theory. Interestingly enough...I'm an affect theorist. I'd love to hear more from you and as someone who is herself v new to KZbin (and taking my time making my videos) I would love to chat. This was great and you've done a wonderful job!

[@BellamyJay]

Affect theory, as I see it, isn't the nonsense Brian Massumi, Spinoza, or Deleuze and Guatarri put forth (saying this in case you look it up and go "Uhhhhhhhhh no"). They're weirdos married to objectivity. Feminists (shocker) have been very critical of the above and it's my own feminist advisor who introduced me to Affect Theory as I understand (and am building on). In short it is hyperfocused on the interaction you described. We cannot know things unless we interact with them (even if through tools like remote sensing) and thus we are almost forced to act like nothing exists until it interacts with other things. Unknown unknowns and all. The theory, as I imagine it, constructs a post-phenomenological view of the world. What it means is that everything, literally everything that exists exists within its own world which then interacts with other worlds. Each interaction is each "world" (perspective) creating and being created by that which it interacts. What's really fascinating is that this is an idea that I've found expressed in philosophy going as far back as 4th century China by Zhuang Zhou.

[@dr.fatima]

hey so dope to see you here, I've definitely seen you around on someone else's video (maybe it was fd signifier or foreign man? can't remember) totally happy to chat, hit me up in my email!

[@BellamyJay]

@@dr.fatima it was both, actually! A joke I make frequently is that I'm working to be the Andre 3000 of video essays. Featuring all over the place but releasing my own album once a half-decade, lol. I'll email you for sure!

[@SylviusTheMad]

Epistemologist here. 1. Excellent description of the Uncertainty Principle. You neatly highlighted the errors people make when describing uncertainty. 2. Bohr's account of uncertainty is not inconsistent with the popular account of uncertainty. It merely conflicts with the common logical error laypeople make when trying to apply the popular account. Uncertainty in knowledge does not imply certainty in reality. But nor does it imply uncertainty in reality. Bohr's contribution was to redefine reality to "stuff we can measure", because he knew that stuff we can't measure isn't important. Things we don't know cannot be relevant to decision-making. So, if it matters, measure it. 3. You err when you extrapolate from Bohr's view that objective reality doesn't exist. Whether objective reality exists is merely unknowable (something identified by philosophers millennia ago), and irrelevant to science. 4. No credible scientist thinks science produces objective truth. The first thing my undergraduate astrophysics professor told us was "there is no truth in science". He was trying to describe the scientific principle of falsification, but the point stands. Science can never tell us what is. Science tells us what isn't. Or rather, science tells us what combinations of features are impossible.

[@anomienormie8126]

Exactly this. Thanks for neatly writing them out.

[@guy-sl3kr]

Can you explain to me the difference between objectivism and materialism? I'm still pretty new to philosophy and I don't understand what the difference is between saying that reality is material and reality is objective.

[@shahsadsaadu5817]

@@guy-sl3kras a materialist: there isn't one. Objective means something that exists outside of the subject (mind of an individual). Matter is defined in Philosophy as something that is outside of mind. This is the reason why material world is Also considered to be objective. Now there is a group of Philosophers who are known as objective idealists. This includes people from plato to hegel to Sankara. They believe that the ultimate reality is above both matter,AND the individual mind(subject). There is a world of spirits that exists beyond individual mind(but can accessed by it),the real world,the world of eternal ideas or world spirit,or God or brahman. The material world that we see now is merely a projection,or an illusion,or a copy,or even a creation of that supreme consciousness. The problem with this view is that there is little to no evidence for these beliefs at all. As it stands now,the only thing that we know to have objective existence is matter.

[@CorbinSimpson]

Note that, on (3), objective reality is disproven by the Kochen-Specker lemma, elsewhere in quantum mechanics. Specifically, there is an observation of some particles (squared spin) which cannot possibly be predetermined by a hidden local variable in all cases. It follows (eventually) that there are non-objective observables, and thus that reality is subjective. This leads to the "participatory" view of reality. (It could also validate superdeterminism, but hopefully you already know why superdeterminism must be rejected at the door.)

[@shahsadsaadu5817]

@@CorbinSimpson but participatory view of reality is still not subjective reality. There is still a huge gap of objective knowledge between "observation has an influence on tye phenomenon" to "everything that exists is in mind" which is what subjective reality is. Not to mention how this entire conflict resolved when you consider the fact that the subject (perceiver) itself is a product of objective matter,which is very specifically objective to him ie outside his mind.

[@Ryan_Perrin]

Great video, please keep it up. I'm glad I came back to watch this fully after your second video. I am working on some education research courses while finishing my physics PhD, and its nice to see the connection coming into my YT recs.. maybe being listened in on by Google isn't so bad. Discipline based education research is pretty sparse, and physics doesn't seem to have much that takes it this far. I am glad to see the references and that someone is bringing up the discussion I think the connection between interpreting the uncertainty principle and the treatment of women in physics was golden, and really well laid out. Had a good, "not because it is funny, but because it is uncomfortably true" laugh with that.

[@torrluv]

Oh my. I really loved this video. And I love the conversation that can be fostered from it. I look forward to your future content!

[@writethepath8354]

I've had this on my to watch list since your second video was posted, and the algorithm knew I'd want to see this content. Appreciate how you've used your 20's, and looking forward to more.

[@avibhagan]

I love this , I agree with everything 100% and I love it because I'm not nearly articulate enough to convey this message to anyone without a few dozen expletives ! Now I can just share this video , instead of getting into fights ! Please make more videos ! I'd love to see if there's something in Dr. Fatima's viewpoint that I disagree with.

[@womanlovercapitalismhater]

Absolutely loved this can't wait to see more!

[@tsukinotsuru]

Just wanted to say thank you so much for putting in subtitles! Really enjoyed your video, will be staring off into space for a little while thinking on it more 😄

[@fishofthepeople]

One analogy that, although it's conceptually wrong, is useful for that "how can it be" itch that scratches the back of our head when learning about the measuring problem is to compare it to photography: with a slow shutter, we can know the speed and direction of movement, but not the position of the object. With a fast shutter, we capture the object's position, but have no idea about it's movement.

[@bobbylope8297]

Loved the video, especially how you applied it to the idea of objectivity/in a more social context.

[@mmmk6322]

The dichotomy of Netwonians vs Boherians is not even a thing. The physicists of the world have very radically different and diverse interpretations of reality... The premise at the beginning of the video is historically relevant, but not canonically descriptive of the current state of 21st century physics.

[@TVIslamScience]

Super awesome! Can't wait to see what's coming next.

[@PeterManger]

The image that is used to help understand 11 dimensions is the best I’ve ever seen! Clear! Concise! I now fully understand how the universe works. No need to ever watch a KZbin video again nor try and pretend I understand the dimensions in Remembrance of Earth’s Past trilogy!

[@PaulHaesler]

7:44 Why doesn't anybody know about it? How did I spend a whole decade studying physics without hearing about any of this? Admittedly my undergrad QM lectures were pretty superficial. But by 4th year (i.e. honours year, bordering on post-grad) we were absolutely discussing the philosophical impacts of the various interpretations of QM. And, hang on a moment - this thing you call "Bohr's view" - this is what is usually called the "Copenhagen Interpretation" right? The Copenhagen Interpretation was absolutely discussed in my undergraduate QM classes. My experience with physicists is that they are MUCH more aware of these arguments and interpretations, and discuss their philosophical consequences a LOT more than you seem to give them credit for in the fist half of this video essay. Just my subjective perspective though I guess. ;)

[@bryanreed742]

Agreed. The video seems to use extremely cherry-picked examples to support a defined narrative. It just doesn't hang together as an argument. The discussion of what the uncertainty principle says about the nature of reality and objectivity has been a major thread from the start. And very significant progress has been made, leaving Bohr far behind. Modern field theory, decoherence theory, generalized Bell inequalities, and a huge collection of experiments have raised new questions and given nuanced answers to the old ones. To pretend that everyone has just been ignoring it this whole time is just plain baffling. To my knowledge, not one of those advancements was made by a sociologist.

[@richardsaid973]

Nope, you are actually correct not just your perspective especially lately, even some areas at the frontier of modern physics, where interpretations of quantum mechanics discussions used to be taken toxically and feared we have become far more comfortable with them.

[@rv706]

She doesn't know, because she doesn't know what she's talking about.

[@PaulHaesler]

Over all I thought she did a pretty good job of making a physics-gender theory crossover video. She made some good points (and even a few important ones) and drew some interesting connections. I just found her characterisation of the way physicist talk and think starkly at odds with my personal experience.

[@ViciousOneWon]

Boer's theory is akin to saying "God did it". Scientists don't want to hear that crap!

[@joeo3377]

As a science educator, I apparently can't let poor characterizations of the uncertainty principle go by without comment. I appreciate that your essay is really about systemic bias in academia and I think that you make good points on that topic. However, the uncertainty principle - which is a general property of waves and not quantum mechanical in nature at all - can be very simply stated as "a wave cannot have both a single frequency and multiple frequencies at the same time". The way that quantum mechanics comes into it is that matter is composed of waves, and the frequency of those waves in space is related to their momentum.

[@APaleDot]

Thank you! That was killing me. That, and her stating that Bohr's interpretation of the uncertainty principle has been repressed. Like, what?! Isn't it the _most_ common interpretation among scientists today?

[@APaleDot]

@Mazinblaster Z I don't think she is skeptical about physics. She has a PhD is physics, right? I think she is skeptical about the idea of objective truth, and she thinks scientists (mostly male, white scientists) use this idea to exclude marginalized people from having their ideas taken seriously. The uncertainty principle was given as an example where the observer seems to affect the state of the physical world, and therefore undermines the idea that an observer can stand "outside" the world and measure it objectively.

[@Theballonist]

You need to elaborate if we are to understand your point. It sounds like you are saying that because of some set relationship within particles, frequency and energy and momentum are all interlocked to each other, so frequency can be used as a proxy for the whole particle, and waviness (multi-frequenciality) and particleness (single-frequenciality) cannot be demonstrated within the same experiment. If I have re-stated your point correctly, then how does that change what Dr Fatima is discussing? As a non-scientist I have heard dozens of basic descriptions of the Uncertainty Principle and, having never seen the set up or outcomes of the actual experiments, I am left trying to piece together a coherent structure to reality from all of those half-true simplifications. To me there is no contradiction between what you stated and what Dr Fatima described, so the only take away I have is … basically nothing informative. Please give me more to work with! (Sorry this is my frustration with physics in general, and how no one takes the time to show, actually show stuff like the double slit experiment. I’ve seen the classroom demonstration, but then people talk about single photons and I’m confused because there’s no way to do that in the classroom demo, what does that actually look like?)

[@bluepapaya77]

@@Theballonist There's a simple experiment you can see the set up and outcome of with the naked eye that demonstrates the uncertainty principle. Here's an example where a guy does it with simple household equipment: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b3nJhpSig72DqM0. I didn't watch much of the video beyond making sure it was the same demonstration I've seen before, so I can't speak for it's quality beyond that.

[@Theballonist]

@@bluepapaya77 that actually answered one question quite well. When people say you “observe the position” of a photon, it means that the photon had to pass through a specific area to be part of the experiment, and narrowing the gap constrains the number of possible paths it could have taken between the emitter and the detector. That’s much clearer.

[@matthewkeen2041]

Wow. What an intelligent, insightful, articulate, and accomplished young woman. I had to turn the playback speed for this video to 0.75 just to keep up.

[@kristianminkov9631]

Great video! I almost can't believe it is your first one but it made me subscribe and I'm looking forward to the next one. 🙂

[@oscarfernandez9964]

This was a captivating way of learning some general knowledge, history, and opinions about physics! I recently decided to go back to school as a 27 year old. In high school and the 2 semester of college I took after high school I was a terrible student for many reasons one being I just had no interest. Over the last few years I’ve begun craving the knowledge I completely missed out on. Hence my return to school. Anyways I say all this to say thank you for being willing to share your knowledge and views on these subjects that might not be considered entertaining for the layperson.

[@ThatDangDad]

Awesome video. As someone who was reading a lot of your Brians Greene and Michios Kaku back in the late 90s/early 00s, I appreciated this perspective and how you tied all this stuff together. I'm so excited to be on the ground floor of this channel; you're a really great communicator and I think this is a great niche in this space.

[@jeanzerwas9704]

super cool to see you here KZbinDad, wonder if you're what brought this video to my recommended

[@dr.fatima]

Yeah Kakus a trip, have to check out Greene though--- and thanks so much for the kind words, I'm excited too!

[@AnthonyChinaski]

Thanks for the referral, this video is awesome

[@Ewr42]

@@dr.fatima Greene kinda criticizes string theory these days, he also hosts a lot of discussion panels on physics and also philosophy of physics. In my physics playlist there are videos of him and many more people working in these fields discussing about the true nature of reality, if spacetime exists at all, what is consciousness... And I'm talking Roger Penrose, David gross, Gerard t'hooft, Susskind, Maldacena, Sabine Hosenfelder, Edward Frenkel, rovelli.. Anyway, I've been kinda collecting all videos I can find on these topics for a while and I think other people might like to check them out as well.

[@gracied.3599]

Your memes and colloquialism while remaining so eloquent and educational is amazing 😂 you make things so easy to understand! Thank you!

[@riku213]

I really enjoyed this video and I'm looking forward to your future videos. I also enjoyed the fun science fact at the end of the video!

[@UpstateAlgaeLaboratory]

Your attitude is what is missing from most science communication. Love your videos

[@lok2676]

Does not seem like it's your first video, damn well done!

[@MagicTre123]

This was a great video! Looking forward to following your KZbin journey

[@fabioventura7852]

Girl, I stepped into one of your most recent videos and I've got to tell you... I love it! I love the presentation, I love the content, I love the settings! I loved it so much that it drove me to check on your very first video and really it's gonna be a very sweet journey watching each one of them. Thanks goodness, and, Doctor of philosophy, you've got it all to keep us moving and by us I mean humanity

[@EricaCalman]

I come from condensed matter and have long been comfortable with the idea that all field theories are just effective field theories which can be extended to all theories so I'm pretty on board with this take.

[@istuff4137]

Physics doesn't really claim to describe reality, it simply constructs laws and rules that seem to work. The only claim to reality i can think of is within the many world's interpretation, where phrases like 'reality is the wave function' can be seen.

[@michaelfarmer1565]

This was delightful! I look forward to seeing where you go.

[@k3i14ni9]

Omg i love the video. First time actually seeing this type of mix between philosophy and science and i hope to learn more about it. Great first video, I'm exited to see what else you upload :D

[@camronmidgette8309]

Great video Love to see more thoughtful creators

[@justjulia1720]

Interesting video. Others have (much better than I can) articulated some issues with what you said in the video, but I still appreciate what you did here.

[@n-ekmh2542]

Very nice. Subscribed, waiting for the next. Thank you!

[@ami1649]

I loved this video, can't wait to see what's next!

[@matthewfoley2529]

Really interesting stuff to think about. I am currently about to go infto my second year of physics in college(it is 2am the night before my first day). I am constantly at odds with myself if this is what I want to do with my life and knowing all this interesting stuff is inspiring but going into it with this kind of thinking and believing that I can possibly make a difference in the how we think about the field if not the field itself is momentum enough to keep me going for a time at least

[@mmmk6322]

The uncertainty principle discrediting of "objectivity" is still under question(s). Its not a full fledged argument, or demonstration of the lack of objectivity. For example, the uncertainty principle is missing a major puzzle piece, that fundamental particles that make reality, might just be excitations in a field, a wave, described by quantum field theory. Waves have properties different to particles, because the measurement of (this is why iits important to say moment and position) momentum, necessarily equates to a change in the wave such that position is uncertain, while "position" in this case, is just a collapse of the momentum space (or wave in the field) into and interaction in a more localized position in "Space" space. Objectivity is not under attack just cause neils bohr couldn't figure out that "reality" can be described by waves... sometimes.... in very simple cases.

[@alexeyvlasenko6622]

It's not even under question, it's pretty much a non-issue. As a close analogy, suppose there is a sound. We ask a question: what is the exact frequency of this sound, and when exactly did we hear it? Well, these two questions cannot be answered with complete precision simultaneously. To determine the exact frequency, the sound has to go on for some time (multiple oscillation periods, at least), so we can't say when exactly it occurred, we have a time interval. But if the sound occurred at just one moment, then it's impossible to determine the frequency, because the sound would just be a sharp click in which all frequencies are present. The position and momentum of the particle are literally exactly the same as the pitch and time of occurrence of a sound. The nature of the physical system is simply such that it cannot contain precise values of both at the same time, these are not independent measurements, and if a system is in a state where one can be measured precisely, then this implies that it's in a state where the other one cannot. This has nothing whatsoever to do with objective reality or lack thereof, this only indicates that our classical Newtonian idea of position and momentum being independent variables, that can be individually specified with arbitrary precision, is wrong.

[@xRickAstleyx]

@@alexeyvlasenko6622 i wish scientists used a word other than "observer"... none of this deepak chopra shit would have happened

[@GaloisFan]

Objectivity was never under question. Natural and mathematical sciences ARE objective.

[@theknight5473]

@@xRickAstleyx Deepak Chopra would have just used whatever other word people came up with. Deepak Chopra's whole thing is appropriating scientific language to make his crackpot ideas more marketable to vulnerable buyers.

[@mabusestestament]

I'm reminded of the Coen Brothers movie The Man Who Wasn't There. The lead character is on trial for murdering someone and his lawyer is inspired by the Heisenberg principle to try and get him free by arguing "What happened? We can't know what happened because the more we look the less we know."

[@sam4772]

this is so good i genuinely got quite upset its the only video youve made cannot wait for more 💕

[@diegohernandez8104]

Great video, can’t wait to see this channel’s content

[@peterbahnson6451]

This was a breath of fresh air! Love the microphone, btw. The desire to know things is so different from the desire to already be right. I'm so glad you made this video because this issue needs to be clearly defined if we are to discuss and make progress on it. Thank you so much, and I look forward to your next one!

[@Blabla130]

I really enjoyed this video! I liked the structure and clarity, and it was well argued. I will admit that I am at least partially an "atheist bro" so I don't end up agreeing with the conclusion of the essay, but it was thought provoking and I hope you make more! Thank you!

[@world_musician]

Oh wow this is your first video?! Thats amazing, you nailed this. Wishing you success!

[@delve_]

Loved this. I decided to subscribe. I hope to see more great videos going forward!

[@nachomonkekumake]

I really liked this discussion. I hope to see more

[@ignacio3460]

I got confused when I saw this comment cause I thought I had made a comment that I didn't remember

[@slek120]

Interesting and thought provoking video. I hope to watch more videos from you. Surprised you didn't mention Sabine Hossenfelder's Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray

[@MBellipanni]

Great first video, looking forward to more!

[@zeroeu5510]

Hey, you have a fan from Brasil 🇧🇷 now. Great video, love the sources in the description.

[@zachgarwood1012]

The bit about the throwing the mic thru the wall reminds me of the improbability drive from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[@gornser]

Excellent essay. Basically a must-see for everybody

[@mb7626]

This video was incredible. I'm from a philosophy background and I've through the years been interrogating the field of quantum mechanics as a sort of epistemic limit and how we can address that, along with the sort of selectively scientific or selectively positivistic attitudes often expressed by institutional science, etc, and the number and relevance of the things you brought up that I've been considering from my very different disciplinary background was astounding. I know it's sort of the call or purpose of philosophy to attempt to ground everything (whether it succeeds or not), but it's still fascinating that these two very different disciplines can apparently even have that clear or direct of a dialogue, especially considering that (as you address) institutional science or its figures often present such a vicious or cavalier attitude towards all other disciplines, so this point of exchange apparently living on the most infinitesimal level of reality is just sort of a marvel to look at. An 'epistemic limit' has a huge plus as an object of fascination if nothing else, which is only something we can do if we approach it clearly or rationally so as to preserve it and don't just try to blow past it or explain it away with untestable metaphysical suppositions.

[@jagowestaway2503]

What a fantastic video! Good to see a scientist's perspective on the subjectivity of our perceptions. Liked, subscribed.

[@AnarchistArtificer]

I think this video (and your other content) has legit shaped what I want to do with my life. I'm feeling like you at 16:56 except I study biochemistry and I'm still in my 20s. So thanks for saving me a few years, I guess? Yay, science and its many problems.

[@TheHydrogen4]

WOW! Where did you come from? For someone that seems to have just popped into existence from out of nowhere, you came out swinging pretty hard. I loved it! I hope to see more of this kind of heavy content.

[@painter-midge]

She really pulled a Big Bang the way she suddenly appeared lol

[@seanmcconnell847]

Commenting for the algorithm, cuz your video is amazing, and I really want you to be successful on here!

[@OrayoFX]

Phenomenal video. Keep up the good work on your art.

[@fmtpulmanns7593]

I may be misremembering my physics, but doesn't quantum mechanics describe and apply to (sub)atomic particles and phenomena? It seems to me that taking those principles and formulas like Heisenberg that are used to describe these minute scales and applying it to the macro scale that is described by Newtonian physics and relativity is a little premature without at least an attempt at justifying being able to do so. Also, it sounds to me from how you describe it that feminist physics is less phyics, and more sociology of physics with a feminist lens. Which I suppose could be a field of study if that's your thing, but it doesn't appear to have much to do with whether the models you create accurately explain the known data and predict future data.

[@ClaireCraig]

Agreed, it seems she doesn't distinguish objective knowledge from the discourse or social institutions surrounding said knowledge/fact. So because she believes *interpretations* are subjective, that makes observable facts (or *science*) subjective as well

[@mabusestestament]

Indeed. By that line of reasoning she could argue that the earth might as well have the shape of a flat disc or that the holocaust didn't happen, because hey, you can't objectively know the is round or that the holocaust did happen...

[@slek120]

It can be shown that classical Newtonian physics emerges from quantum physics. Check out "classical limit". I guess it's one of those things that physicists forget to explain since we view quantum physics like an improved version classical physics, not a separate set of principles.

[@fmtpulmanns7593]

@@slek120 Yeah, but to assume that that means that what applies to quantum mechanics also automatically applies to the macro scale world is just fallacious. See emergent properties. Also, all bricks are small. Does that mean the Wall of China is small, too?

[@Kefemu]

@@fmtpulmanns7593 I don't think anyone claimed that quantum principles can be applied directly to the macro scale world. Only that macro scale phenomena emerge from quantum phenomena. They are not interchangeable, but they are related and reconcilable.

[@adapienkowska2605]

It might not intervene with their research, but it definitely intervenes with the topics they pressure in their research.

[@potts995]

Great video, this helps clear things up!

[@dontme1294]

Such an amazing video , looking forward for more you definitely got my follow

[@UpstateAlgaeLaboratory]

When I first heard about the uncertainty principle, I said, "that makes sense." If you know the exact position of a ball, you lose the information about the speed as you need two points to measure speed. But perhaps this falls into the "if you think you understand QM..." saying.

[@peter-mangelsdorf]

This is a lovely critique. Thank you. I do worry that too few people are applying this necessary "objectivity regarding objectivity" in Machine Learning and Data Science. There is a similar culture (*note*, I am *not* talking about pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories) of not expecting transparency in automated decision-making ("Automating Inequality", a book), quality of data in datasets (especially *private* datasets which insurance agencies then use to make judgements of people's premiums on), and of embracing uncertainty and being willing to explore what something *could* mean. It is especially good and ironic that your points not only apply to the culture of *scientific practice itself*, but also to the *interpersonal culture and biases* which facilitate scientific practice.

[@lauta_c]

I loved the entire video! I can't belive it's the first one you uploaded. It looks really polished and engaging :) I think the way you bring together seemingly unrelated topics is really cool ❤ You remind me of Michael from Vsauce, but beautiful

[@micaduce509]

so happy you popped up! incredible video, thank you for entering the youtube scene. i have yet to meet any Feminist Physicists at my undergrad (if they're around) , in fact, i was ignorant of such community up until now too. looking forward to more of your thoughts and exploring this space !

[@pastapirate]

Seriously this is a well crafted video, especially for your first youtube video. Loved the way you took so many complex and nuanced topics and organized them in a way that anyone can follow from start to finish without overly simplifying them. Also your perspective on this stuff is fantastic, hope you make more great videos in the future!

[@EAghost7]

Great work doctor! Your editing, writing and delivery of substance and entertainment are on point. I hadn't questioned the efficacy of the scientific method much and enjoy how you challenge it. Subbed, cheers!

[@VirtualLotus]

Subscribed. Please keep up the good work!

[@lycoris7890]

This's phenomenal ! Nice work

[@sakketin]

When you critizised using beauty as a guiding principle in physics it would have been fair to mention that it has worked in the past. Probably most famously for Dirac.

[@alanparker3130]

Sure it well worked for Dirac... for a while. But it is just a heuristic. His last decades were spent following the search for beauty with little success.

[@lenkel]

I laughed right out loud at “No Image Available” for 11 dimensions! Also you raise some very compelling questions.

[@stephena.sheehan9959]

I just found your channel -- brilliant, refreshing!. I'm watching all your videos.

[@dreamerdoes_is_love8986]

The microphone is real, it's not genuinely a microphone but it is a "real" object, as in it can be observed in reality and i think keeping it in the condition it's in is a good idea rather than throwing it against the wall on the extremely rare off chance it passes through

[@sonucan8113]

?????? This video seems to meander a lot. There is no solutions. Only complaints. It's fine if its constructive criticism but it seems to lack rigour in trying to back up its claims. Lofty proposals require monumental evidence and stunning precision in the use of language and accuracy regarding the claims being made. Both of which are lacking in the video. Let me explain. It proposes that science esp. particular set of physicists lacks objectivity in their ideas regarding the construction of the world. A fair criticism. Such criticism has been and will continue to be, extended to other fields of study such as psychiatrists and biologists. No one is denying that the lack of objectivity in the scientific community is a fairly bad thing which must be corrected. Much of the errors of science are due to a lack of replication and the publish-or-die mentality of the modern Scientific Industrial Complex. I am less aware of the problems in physics but the pursuit of beauty seems to be a pestering problem for physicists. Valid criticisms. But, Dr. Fatima proposes that we must embrace subjectivity and disregard the objective reality because Dr. Bohr had a different interpretation of the construction of reality... Preposterous. Your ideas regarding particle physics are certainly interesting and may be further discussed in actual scientific papers but there is no need to throw away hundreds of years of scientific theory just for one hypothesis which may not even be correct. Regardless of whether Dr. Bohr is correct or not, it honestly does not change the way that data is, has, or should be interpreted. Especially for objective sciences like physics. Perhaps, our culture does influence the ways we interpret the data but there is no scientific paper to demonstrate such a hypothesis - at least as far as I am aware. I would be willing to learn if proven wrong. Dr. Fatima seems to hate that String Theory is lacking any theoretical rigour in physics and still gets funding while feminists and other minorities do not in the scientific field. Dr. Fatima states that objectivity was to a certain extent used to perpetuate discrimination against minorities, women, and LGBTQ peeps. All true. All such discrimination and lack of rigour and standards in our scientific community should be burnt under the fire of Syrax, the dragon of Rhaenyra Targaryen. Hehe, I couldn't help myself. The solution to lack of objectivity is not subjectivity but rather a need for standardization in regards to the interpretation of data and better mechanisms for distribution of funds to replication studies. Cutting funds to String Theorists will also help but those nutjobs have captured the imagination of the foul general public. I would much rather let the festering wound be if the body is being well fed -- for now at least -- lest the beast of science be starved by the lack of interest amongst the patronage. Regardless, time will heal the wounds and scars may remain but the vital organs will be unharmed. Another point of note. You propose that we embrace subjectivity and disregard objectivity because some asshole used objectivity to say that women were inferior or blacks were inferior. But the same objectivity has demonstrated that such inferiority was, is, and has never been the case. Thereby, the same objectivity has helped fight back against the oppression faced by the oppressed. There is also a contradiction in your video in that you despise, a strong word but I couldn't think of another, the scientific community for lacking objectivity and not embracing subjectivity. Then you flip and say that objectivity is a good thing in cases such as COVID-19... You can't embrace the warmth of subjectivity while trying to sip on the ice-cold drink of objectivity. You have to pick one or the other. With good regards, A First-Time Viewer

[@altogethernow]

Would love to see your take on effective altruism. It’s getting way too much momentum for something that’s basically a makeover for eugenics.

[@samcortez9879]

You are the best and your music makes this so fun!🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼

[@DarthCalculus]

Great video! Looking forward to more

[@POTATOEMPN]

I'm stealing your cop joke

[@Yupthatsme_7D]

This is so great! I can't wait to see what you do next. You just opened a whole new avenue of learning for me.

[@ff7522]

That's so interesting, I'm very proud of you with all your little projects babe

[@ProBadSing]

Hell yeah. Loved this video. Please make more. Also, factoid at the end was rad as hell.