I know. That’s why I don’t trust Einstein any more. He lied, knowingly or not, about quantum mechanics when he said “spooky action at a distance” wasn’t real.
2 Likes
I seriously doubt that Einstein ever said that ‘spooky action at a distance’ was not real. I’d say he was stating that the science implying such was really odd and hard to comprehend, but then Marconi’s wireless was also ‘spooky action at a distance’. And we are used to it now.
2 Likes
Wireless wouldn’t have worried Einstein ; Maxwell’s EM fields explained it nicely, complete with Special Relativity compliant propagation at or below light speed. The “Spooky” stuff was quantum entanglement and the apparent instantaneous action over arbitrarily large distances. Note that Einstein and his collaborators first recognized this consequence of quantum mechanics (although the term ‘entanglement’ wasn’t used at the time), he just thought it indicated an underlying mechanism yet undetermined.
1 Like
That is true, but it definitely spooked most everyone else 
2 Likes
Ah yes, I suppose it would have 
2 Likes
I have an office in Central Austin (west campus) and can report that the only way to get a cop to appear in real time is to report the smell of weed.
1 Like
sigh
Albert Einstein did not reject the mathematics of QM wholesale or entanglement specifically. He rejected the interpretation of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle that individual events in QM were purely random, but he didn’t reject the probabilistic nature of QM. Rather the quote so often attributed to him and misunderstood by so many shitty pop science books and articles is “God does not play dice with the universe.” By this he meant that quantum indeterminacy was only a consequence of not yet understanding the underlying deterministic mechanism, which he and so many others believed would eventually be part of a unifying theory of quantum gravity reconciling the apparent inconsistencies between GR and QM. Einstein’s junior colleague at Princeton’s Institute for Advance Studies, David Bohm called this the Implicate Order.
I don’t really care if you ascribe bogus equivalences to my remarks on the veracity of YouTubers, but promulgating misconceptions about the the history or physics is no bueno.
6 Likes
Point is, by your definition, he lied. He said that “hidden variables” would explain entanglement, and that was proven false, therefore it was a lie, right? Right.
No. Einstein might have been mistaken. We don’t yet know. Einstein didn’t create or assist in a hoax.
Mark Rober lied in that he either participated in originating a lie or helped pass on a deliberate untruth from another liar. That’s why your equivalence between the two is bogus.
Now if you want to argue that Rober was just suckered in, then fine. But he still chose to professionally associate with a liar to manufacture a hoax, and that reflects on his credibility as a professional. Moreover, he acknowledges and recognizes this in his observation that his credibility is shot. I don’t actually think it’s completely shot, but it’s certainly taken a hit.
Not sure why that’s so controversial a position to take when he himself acknowledges it, but to each their own.
ETA: I get the point you’re trying to make. That someone telling a lie and someone telling an untruth because they don’t know better are not the same. The problem is with you equating that to Einstein’s work on unification. Einstein didn’t help spread a hoax.
I’d argue that spreading a lie by trusting a liar and collaborating with them makes one partially responsible for the lie. Whether to also call that person a lair is a matter of semantics and we can agree to disagree.
Equating that to Einstein’s work is just factually wrong.
1 Like
Ok, West Campus is more tricky. But then, I lived in West Campus, in a co^op for ages. And we finally realized that if the cops wanted to bust us, they would have had to bust the ENTIRETY of West Campus, frats and all. Well, it was the Seventies.
So he knew the associate was a liar, and he knew there was a hoax, and helped manufacture it? No.
He associated with a person, and that person perpetrated a hoax. He trusted them and shouldn’t have.
He recognizes it’s a hit on his credibility because he ended up with faked content in his YouTube content, and because the internet is full of “gotcha” types, whose typical line is “he lost ALL credibility” if someone makes any mistake, and sometimes if they don’t (Obama lost ALL credibility every day, it seems)
If the YouTube poster had a history of doing this, then you could lump him in with Der Spiegel, who published fake articles by an actual liar; they, like New Republic and Stephen Glass, should have fact-checked their reporter and didn’t.
Instead it seems like it’s his first mistake, so calling him a liar is pretty harsh as well as being factually false. As far as we know.
1 Like
We really don’t know if he actually didn’t know. That’s the problem. He put his stamp of honesty on the reality of the project.
See my ETA above. This is semantics and we’re not going to agree.
Once again, Rober said his credibility was pretty much shot. My point is that it isn’t, but has taken damage.
I’m sure you mean well defending him. Fine. I like Mark Rober and I like his content. I’m still a fan. I’m not going to just act like this isn’t a problem for his credibility though.
It’s Friday night, I have dinner to prepare, and Mark Rober’s channel’s hoax isn’t even the main topic of the original post. Let’s move on.
liar. you’re ordering out.
3 Likes
Yeah, but not his neighborhood. Tony was a very NIMBY mobster.
1 Like
You bastard.
(I’m so, so proud of you right now xD)
next time hire a juggler …always works
Gotta police their patch.
5 Likes
seriously? pretty sure he said “could explain”…ever heard the term “hypothesis”? and I am very curious what your definition of “lie” in the scientific context is.
1 Like
