Therein lies the difference between scientists and science communicators. Scientists have this blind spot about the human condition wherein they think facts will convince people of truth. Science communicators know better, but sadly the scientists don’t check with them before naming stuff. Sigh.
5 Likes
This might fall under the same category as the question, “what was before the Big Bang?” It’s a super common question, but the funny thing is, it’s not just that the answer isn’t known, it’s that the question is nonsensical. The Big Bang created time, so the word “before” had no meaning until the Big Bang happened. The question makes no more sense to ask than, “Why do horses purple house?”
Just in case you were no longer feeling lightheaded, maybe that will help.
The only reason humans can do cosmology and quantum mechanics at all is because we have math. At some point you have to simply believe the math because our brains can’t handle the concepts at all. 
3 Likes
3 Likes
When I took astrophysics in college, these were the known quarks:
- Up
- Down
- Charm
- Strange
- Bottom
Top was not yet discovered, but assumed from Bottom.
And yes, two of those seemed absolutely bizarre at the time. Ya gotta wonder about scientists sometimes! But based on those names, Magic makes complete sense.
4 Likes
At the time? Still seems bonkers to me. Wouldn’t something like “back” and “front” make more sense? Or do the names strange and charm actually convey something to those in the know?
Question: “If it takes a week to run a fortnight, how many apples in a pound of pears?”
Answer: [Hold your hands about a foot apart and say] “A banana this colour.”
4 Likes
Does their classical computer not have a “magic/more magic” switch that they can use to cover the more difficult cases?
1 Like
… and math nerds.
Or maybe it was what you had for lunch that day.
1 Like
I can assure you that you can’t have one without the other!
Unless I’m off-message, in which case, sorry…
4 Likes
What seems correct to me (although that probably means it’s wrong). Is that if you have nothing you know both its position and momentum, which isn’t allowed.
Now, why you have the uncertainty principle 
Not really. Physicists just like giving cutesy names to things. It’s part of the problem with communicating this stuff to us layfolk because people infer meaning from those words that isn’t there.
It is somewhat helpful that the names are silly because it avoids intuitive baggage. Calling them “back” and “front”, for example, implies some sort of spatial orientation or directionality that isn’t there. It’s easier to trust the math if things are named more abstractly. This stuff is really unintuitive and we go astray if we start trying to apply intuition to it.
Of course “up” and “down” isn’t helping matters, but those were the first ones named and I think we thought maybe there was some spatial relevance at the time. It’s too late to change them now. 
2 Likes
I think the question is hiding a lottery fallacy as well.
People ask “why is the earth so perfect for us?”. Well, because we’re here to ask the question, that’s why. If earth was a gas giant, we’d be over on Flargus in the Delta quadrant asking, “why is Flargus so perfect for us?”. The question is invalid even without considering that, of course, we co-evolved with the planet we’re on.
“Why is there anything instead of nothing” is a real question that physicists ask though, so one mustn’t be too glib about it.
String theory suggests that the BIG BANG was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state
String theory suggests a lot of really interesting things. Unfortunately it’s not particularly testable or falsifiable so we have to take everything about it with a huge grain of salt right now. The scientific consensus remains that the Big Bang created time. String theory, quantum gravity, and various other things are still fighting it out to resolve the issues left open by the Standard Model of particle physics.
2 Likes
Also: The more esoteric a research topic becomes, the harder it can be to discern real research papers from gobbledy-gook. Arthur C. Clarke never wrote that, but he could’ve.
1 Like
3 Likes
And we should have gone with Beauty and Truth instead, honestly.
2 Likes
This is honestly a serious problem these days, because of how expertise is being undermined. The trend these days is of everyone “doing their own research” and being suspicious of all academics, experts, and authorities of any kind in any field. This is a huge problem because we live in an incredibly complex world where nobody can know everything (or even 1% of everything) so we have to rely on the expertise of strangers.
We should be doubling down on teaching people how to differentiate between real expertise and fake, and why the consensus of science is so important in daily life now. Sadly, we’re presently doing the opposite. 
5 Likes
6 Likes
Obligatory:
3 Likes
