Anyone want to discuss the Brian Cox scandal?

[laconicsax]

I think he's clearly guilty of oversimplifying a complex concept to a large, ignorant audience.

Any other thoughts?

On edit: I've found some links that explain the background a bit.

Here's the original lecture (I think)

Here's commentary on the controversy:

[longship]

1. The physicist? Or the voice actor?

It would be nice if you'd supply context and/or link.

If it's the physicist, I'm in for a discussion.

[laconicsax]

2. The physicist.

I'm looking for a link that explains the kerfuffle, but the basics as I understand them are that in a BBC special with something like over 1 million viewers, he brought out a big honkin' diamond and explained that by rubbing it with cloth, he'd be exciting some of the electrons in the diamond and because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, that action would effect every other electron in the universe.

The arguments and discussions on Twitter and elsewhere have been interesting.

[longship]

4. Well, I don't know

I can't do online video, not enough bandwidth here in rural MI.

I'd like to see what he actually said in context before I comment. Also, I think your characterization of such a thing as a scandal may be a bit over the top.

So I'm going to have to pass on this. Thanks anyway.

[qazplm]

6. he seemed to imply

that it wouldn't just affect every other electron, but that it would do so more or less instantaneously.

Which isn't true obviously, but at the end of the day, it's a bit silly because at the end of the day, the guy is just trying to get folks interested, and that means sometimes he blurs an edge because this isn't a physics class.

[laconicsax]

7. As I understand it (and I probably don't)...

Pauli says that no two electrons (or other fermion) can share the same quantum state, so if you alter the quantum state of an electron, at least one other electron has to change to keep from occupying the same state and that change takes place instantaneously but doesn't violate relativity because no information is transferred.

[longship]

11. Doesn't Pauli only apply

to apply to electrons in a bound state (i.e., in an atom) where quantum effects and states become important. A free electron has no such restriction, AFAIK.

It's been a long time since my BS in physics, but that's the way I remember it.

So I believe Cox may be incorrect. However, quantum theory has advanced a huge amount since the 1970's.

I certainly would not characterize it the Cox did. Kind of invites quantum flap doodle (as Murray Gell-Mann calls it).

[FiveGoodMen]

10. The Science Forum is kind of a context...

[virgogal]

3. No thank you.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. He certainly did...

...for which he deserves a big honking medal, imho. He doing a talk on TV, getting people interested: Glossing over the details is expected.

If I was asked to talk about light for 20 minutes, I wouldn't grab some chalk and start outlining Laguerre polynomials - I'd grab a 1W laser and set fire to some shit.

[eridani]

8. Yep. How are people going to learn to think scientfically unless they first get interested? n/t

[Sancho]

9. I watched the video...

The show is designed for TV and the general public. There are lots of shortcuts, but he is trying to illustrate physics by choosing dramatic concepts and provocative demonstrations. He cuts corners, but any of us who have ever taught something to a group like this have to make choices.

The discussion of quantum state is confusing enough for physicists, so I admire Brian Cox attempting to come up with the diamond example. He is clearly trying to be careful with his words, but also he's trying to entice the audience. I don't think it's so easy to call it right or wrong. I suspect Brian would also admit it was an abbreviated explanation.