Asking physics questions based on very little information? (YouTube videos)

[LightningInAJar]

Is there a category to ask physics questions based on very little information? Namely a YouTube video that discusses a topic in a way that confuses me that I merely want clarification on?

 

[mfb]

Find the best fitting physics section and start a thread there. If it's not the right section we'll move it there.

 

[phinds]

Youtube videos tend to be entertainment, even when masquerading as serious science. Best you ask about the topic, but not about the video.

 

[Frabjous]

Don’t be wedded to the idea that the video is correct. The simplification process can lead to misperceptions.

 

[pinball1970]

Is there a category to ask physics questions based on very little information? Namely a YouTube video that discusses a topic in a way that confuses me that I merely want clarification on?

You can also try and extract the paper, the good posters usually show it in the video.
Then search for the paper on line and you may find a readable version of it on sites like phys.org. they usually give a link to the paper too.
If behind a paywall you can still access the abstract which gives a TLDR.
You can then compare the video content with your other sources and see if they marry up.
At least then you are bringing an article link, plus paper link to pf and not a YouTube video with your questions.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You need to be respectful of others' time. Linking a video and saying "Explain this to me!" is not respectful. "I didn't understand X, so I looked it up in A, B and C and still don't understand it, and by the way I originally got it from twelve minutes into this video and here's a summary" is far more respectful.

 

[LightningInAJar]

Well there was this video in particular I was interested in.



The author doesn't have work cited but basically writes out video script in description. He says at the quantum level conservation of energy holds very well, but at the universal level that probably isn't the case. I think it was saying that when you combine energy and momentum it comes out equal, but energy alone can fluctuate? I am interested in this topic because a number of metaphysical pseudoscience people like to refer to the law of conservation of energy in reference to the soul and things that aren't even physical in all likelihood. Are there exceptions to the law?

 

[phinds]

at the universal level that probably isn't the case.

It most definitely isn't the case. There is no conservation of energy at cosmological distances.

a number of metaphysical pseudoscience people ...

Are utterly not worth conversing with so don't waste our time asking about them. Asking about science topics is fine, but leave that garbage out of it.

 

[LightningInAJar]

It most definitely isn't the case. There is no conservation of energy at cosmological distances.Are utterly not worth conversing with so don't waste our time asking about them. Asking about science topics is fine, but leave that garbage out of it.

So where does energy go at the large scale? Is that just a great unknown at this point?

I only mention the metaphysical folks because they always seem to think they're on solid ground and I'd love a simple reference to how they're not.

 

[Vanadium 50]

so I looked it up in A, B and C and still don't understand it

I originally got it from twelve minutes into this vide

Find the best fitting physics section and start a thread there.

Why do we even bother?

Furthermore, the forum has a no-pseudoscience rule. That doesn't mean set up arguments by proxy.

Like the song goes, "R-E-S-P-E-C-T"

 

[phinds]

So where does energy go at the large scale? Is that just a great unknown at this point?

It is completely understood. It doesn't "go" anywhere, it just isn't there any more.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

 

[phinds]

I only mention the metaphysical folks because they always seem to think they're on solid ground and I'd love a simple reference to how they're not.

Generally, such folks have no interest at all in facts. They have a point of view and have made up their mind about it trying to tell them otherwise is just doing what in the American military is called pissing up a rope.

 

[LightningInAJar]

Generally, such folks have no interest at all in facts. They have a point of view and have made up their mind about it trying to tell them otherwise is just doing what in the American military is called pissing up a rope.

I will certainly look up that phrase. Lol. My point is they try to legitimize their ideas using actual science as they might imagine different spiritual topics with higher dimensional math which largely hasn't been shown to exist even in the physical world. Kind of like they're trying to say that science finally caught up with them or some nonsense.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It doesn't "go" anywhere, it just isn't there any more.

I don;t think we shoudl be discussing this in Feedback, but a) it doesn;t just not go anywhere, it also doesn;t come from anywhere - it can be non-conserved in either direction.

A B-level explanation that is not totally wrong (and certainly not totally right) is that (positive or negative) work is done as bodies tend to return to their co-moving frames. It;s a littke too Aristotlean for my taste, but it is one way to think about it.

 

[phinds]

it doesn;t just not go anywhere, it also doesn;t come from anywhere - it can be non-conserved in either direction.

Good point

 

[Tom.G]

in the American military is called pissing up a rope.

And in more rural areas a similar, but somewhat stronger, phrase is:
"Pissing against an electric fence."

 

[Vanadium 50]

against an electric fence

That sounds like what we called in collage "a self limiting problem."