'Quantum Physics for Dummies' with Dr Michael Davis (DGLS)

YC Library's Distinguished Guest Lecture Series, March 28, 2019

Take no offense, no one understands Quantum Physics! This is because of the fact that subatomic particles can be in two places at once (superposition), react faster than the speed of light even when separated (entanglement), and alter their behavior when looked at (observer effect). Sounds crazy, doesn't it? This has led to speculation about consciousness, multidimensionality and parallel universes, to name just a few. Come hear an irreverent presentation of these concepts and learn that things are not as they seem.

Resources:
Origins of Consciousness, Nelson
Quantum Enigma, Rosenblum & Kuttner
From Quantum Physics to Energy Healing, Blomquist
The Grand Design, Hawking & Mlodinow
You Are the Universe, Chopra & Kafatos
Reality is Not What it Seems, Rovelli
Real Magic, Radin

Recorded: Feb 28, 2019
Lecturer: Dr. Michael Davis
Hosted on Prescott Campus Library

Disclaimer: The viewpoints and opinions expressed in the lectures are those of the speakers and do not imply endorsement by the library.

[pepijnklooster]

I'm a theoretical physics student and happened come across this video in my feed. I thought it'd be interesting to see how quantum physics was explained to the layman and decided to check it out. About half a minute into the video Michael admits to not being a scientist (which I found surprising), in which case you shouldn't be lecturing people on scientific topics anyways. But what is worse is that he has taken one of the most notoriously difficult subjects in science, which is just beyond stupid... Long story short, man, he makes so many basic mistakes that he completely discredits himself. It is extremely obvious to anyone who actually knows something about quantum physics that this is some layman who has read some articles and now spits out half truths and perpetuates lots of misconceptions.
Then I checked out the description, and what did I find.... Deepak Chopra and others... that explains. Don't take this guy seriously, he obviously has no real grasp of what he is talking about.

[HarshColby]

Writing this after watching every section (I had to take it in bit by bit because of the level of misinformation was too much to handle in one sitting).
Pay close attention to what he says in the very beginning:
"The real key is that I'm not a scientist." Yes, this is obviously correct;
and "...however, I will give you an accurate view of this. So you're not going to get mumbo jumbo." You say this just before launching into an hour of mumbo jumbo and utter nonsense.
The problem is, everyone should be learning science from someone that actually knows something about science. There are plenty of educators that can give you the real description in a basic way that everyone can understand.
The problem for you, dear reader, is it's very difficult to tell fact from nonsense if you don't already know something about the topic. But, rest assured, this guy is a great example of peddling nonsense while pretending to know what he's talking about.

[jacobvandijk]

WARNING (for dummies) The limitations of QM: 1. It doesn't treat time and space the same way and therefore violates Special Relativity; 2. It can't explain the creation and destruction of particles; 3. It only deals with massive particles. That's why we needed Quantum Field Theory.

[AtheistEdge]

Stopped watching when he said the M in Einstein's equation is "matter". Physics is not a topic for autodidacts.

[Sincere-c]

One of the best lectures I have heard. Quantum physics is slowly but surely killing the materialistic view of the world.

[daviondubois]

Dr. Davis, wanted to thank you for giving this discussion. I am here in Sydney, Australia and would much like to carry on this discussion. I have been in study with C.Goode, S.Brenner, D.Icke and the likes and that is what lead me to wanting to send educate myself on this topic and so much more. I am shocked to see no one has commented. I cannot say I am an expert, this was not my first introduction to QP but the affirmation to my thoughts as of late have lead me to resisting topics with a much different perspective. I much believe in a multidimensional universe and the possibility of a form of simulation in free will constructed by beings in dimensions greater than ours that are in fact beyond of viewable reality but what is real is not as real as we think and our levels of individual conscienceness is the key. Nonetheless, I'd much like to share further conversation. Stay Safe and Well!

[frankiecooper]

Really? So chemistry scientists, astronomers, mathematicians etc got together and made a deal not to collaborate? REALLY? Sloppy work

[KpxUrz]

Sorry, but I need better clarification. There are a few things stated that I can't accept. One is that these "particles" can be in two places at once. For the same reason, I never liked Feynman's "sum over histories" phrase. In my mind, the WAVES associated with every particle are in multiple places at once because they spread radially in all directions, not the particle itself. So information contained in the wave is transmitted through both slits, for example, but finally the particle appears to choose one. I have a real problem accepting that an observer takes on any active role in affecting particles. I have read many books and heard many explanations, and they are all the same: they use logic that requires us to accept unstated assumptions. Somebody is going to have to do a much better job of explaining these things. I accept that there are baffling aspects of quantum physics because it is so different from the macro world. But I do have a problem with the unacceptable portions of these explanations, which in my opinion use inaccurate language.

[blairhakamies]

Good work in terms of basics. Congratulations. 🌹

[RSEFX]

I would think that Dr. Davis must've come across Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's books/papers and/or lectures at some point. Sheldrake brought up many of these ideas into both professional and popular circles some 4-plus decades ago as hypothesis, which have increasingly become more credulous as the sciences continue to provide, in a number of cases, solid evidence in support of his theories.

[akymrinkovsky]

But Subconsciousness is primary relative to Consciousness which is secondary. So how does that play into all this ?

[monaoconnell]

I have heard things before that I now will remember because of this lecture. According to Syrie, there is no atmosphere on the moon. She said the atmosphere on the Earth is a mixture of oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide and several other minor components. Gravity was not mentioned. I am 74. I know so little. We need to start teaching the basics to all of us. We are NOT doing that! This post stimulates desire and memory.

[achristine]

I loved this! Physicists, Scientists and Atheists are terrified to find out that their fascination with QM was actually God proving He exists! Haha! Hallelujah!

[Danaluni]

Scientific method requires questioning assumptions. Ask Roger Bacon.

[suecondon]

Fascinating, enjoyed this, thank you. Very attractive lecturn, by the way. 😉

[danielash]

We and every living thing must be entangled on a massive scale that makes us what we are .vibration energy and thoughts.

[grlpeterson]

Participatory universe. If you look for it, you shall find something. All three times we've thought we found everything within the universe, we suddenly find more.

[kallianpublico]

Three people see a "baguette", a Frenchman an Englishman and hunter gatherer. What do they "call" it? The Frenchman calls it "le pain", the Englishman calls it bread, and the hunter gatherers calls it a log if we force him to .
The "observer" has a predisposed experience of things. Knowledge is what we call the coincidence of observation and experience. Ignorance is what we call the dissonance of observation and experience.
We are used to waves and particles. We are not used to the quantum world. Our "definitions" need updating. Until they are we force ourselves to call something new something we already know. We're guessing.
As observers scientists are used to particles and waves. So their experiments are designed to differentiate between particles and waves. When they encounter something new they are not experimentally, experienced enough to design an experiment to tell them what they're measuring. If it was a "log" how could they tell, if all they know is bread and baguettes?

[lepidoptera]

Ah, another person who thinks he is a physicist giving talks about quantum theory. :-)

[ThinkTank]

I would have walked out of the talk at 10 minutes. That is not at all what quantum physics teaches. It is precisely this kind of nonsense that has halted progress in physics for the past 70 years.