London Thinks: In Conversation: Professor Brian Cox and Dr Adam Rutherford (at Conway Hall)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 มิ.ย. 2024
- To find out more about Conway Hall and its events, to become a member or to donate: conwayhall.org.uk • Please subscribe to our channel, too.
--
Join Brian Cox as he talks with Adam Rutherford about particle physics, the importance of getting people engaged with science and why the UK needs to aspire to be the best place for science in the world.
Particle physicist, retired pop star and star of the @BBC series Wonders of the Solar System, Brian Cox is the @royalsociety Professor for Public Engagement in Science at @universitymanchester
Adam Rutherford is an author, broadcaster, film-buff and all-round geek. He holds a PhD in genetics from UCL.
[This event was filmed at Conway Hall, London, in 2015]
--
Conway Hall hosts a wide variety of talks, concerts, exhibitions, courses, performances, community and social events. It is also renowned as a hub for free speech and independent thought, hosting suffragettes, political radicals, scientists, philosophers, artists, performers; campaign, charities and other non-profit organisations.
Brian’s communication and explaining skills are superb.
I remember getting drunk with Brian Cox in the early 1990s, his band had just played at a gig at a club down the road, back then I wouldn't have thought he would end up a member of the Royal Society, what a great mind!
Jason Byrne and a superb communicator
Really???
If you remember it, you weren't drunk enough.
and he still can't account for the discrepancy between the second law of thermodynamics and his assertion, back in the 1990s , that "things can only get better"
were his band any good? genre? what did brian do lol? could imagine him doing some maiden kinda looks like bruce
I love how scientists that speak about something outside of their field of study give caveats that they could be wrong and someone that studies that field can correct them. I've never seen that from a theologian.
or a politician!
@@oc2phish07 or a climate scientist.
And you never will.
!
Because theology is faith rather than fact
When I listen Brian I get a really enjoyable headache, and when it recovers I want more.
Breathe and hydrate.
"Is there a philosopher in the room....?"
I'll be honest, I never thought I'd ever hear that line.
That part was genuinely funny.
Thank you for holding my absolute attention for 2 hours.
"Sit down- I feel asymmetrical and uncomfortable.."
"The hashtag is '#London thinks Cox'"
It's got off to a good start!
I re-watch this about 1 a month due to having 2 of my favorite people in it, but they flow very well together and keep it from being a lecture, or debate. They are great together.
Watch the one with Adam and Richard Dawkins. Interviews him brilliantly
Both committed to public education.
I could listen to Adam Rutherford all day.... actually all night, he's in my earbuds while I sleep.
Great chat - great format - love it. Thanks for posting!
A scintillating discussion - Thanks!
Gr8 talk.
I wish I could put my finger on what of this resonates with me so much, but I feel not worthy to point that out to other beings at this point in time. (Which I feel they covered in their comments here also, concerning space and time)
I'm going to make a point of having as many of the people in my life watch and listen to this video as I can: when any of the wide range of subjects discussed here coincide and become apparent during daily discussion.
It''s not said here technically, but love of humanity and all life are portrayed to us by the carefully chosen words of these two genii.
(I chose to use the proper spelling of geniuses here to deliberately obfuscate, and imply the magic of the wordsmiths Brian and Adam... :-)
Thanks guys from the bottom of my heart.
Please give us more, for the future.
Brian Fedirko o
YES!
What a lovely dialogue.
Amazing man, Prof: Brian Cox. I have watched him 'LIVE' in London in 2019 and I have a copy of his book 'Universal: A guide to the Cosmos', which he co-wrote with Jeff Forshaw, and which Brian Cox has signed. Thanks for everything Prof:
This was an excellent format!
Well done.
Brilliant.
That was absolutely fascinating and very inspiring. Thank you to all involved in this.
1. Brian's cosmic microwave background (3 degree K) as a proof of age of universe - excellent.
2. Gravitational waves have since been observed using laser interferometry (LIGO)
3. Very interesting points made by Brian/Adam about 'origins'....
That final question. Oh god what have we done?
That was fun
as someone fascinated by Origins, this is intellectual porn for me. awesome discussion
+Miki Gatto NO ONE CARES!!!
Yep very satisfying to watch and listen. Better than fapping.
@@jamesl9040 cmon, we all know there's no chance Donald trump would be watching a video like this! Your blown! 💩💯💩
I was at Conway Hall that day. And totally loved it.
What an excellent chat & discussion - thanks.
I’ve got a kids book from sir Attenborough big shoes to fill Brian! You are the man x
the universe was formed and cooled and then there was Brian Cool Cox
I love this situation since I don't know what he would do if I was in the room.
Why can I only see the video when I'm hovering my mouse cursor over the video's timeline but when playing all I see is a blue title screen with white text?
Blue screen finally goes away @18:44 but then leaves the video and audio badly out of sync. Please fix and reupload.
hugely enjoyable and educational
One way of thinking of particle physics......sigh....I can't get my mind around this but I like trying.
I LOVE COX.
Each to his own :-D
David O'Silverman to each his own.
32:18 BC was right in asking the question 👌
🎉🎉🎉
I can imagine that adam is the type of supervisor that is never satisfied if were doing your PhD with him. Brain is a great narrator and an excellent example of how to simplify the crude, dry scientific knowledge. Huge fan of both.
Yes certainly a great chat however the stream I am watching has the audio and video cross-wired between the two presenters and also between the questioners. Don't know how they did it??
My question to Prof. B. Cox, is 1 hour and 20 mins, to 1 hour 22 mins. Singularity ☺
I‘m Atom
Short comment: Cox is charming and brilliant and Rutherford is lackluster, and doesn't bring much to the table.
I think Brian Cox is brilliant, but I'm rather unimpressed by Rutherford. I feel he's way too easily impressed by some of his revelations, or the ones he points out. I know it's a dialogue with a physicist and a biologist, but honestly this interview makes it seem Cox doesn't know much less about biology than Rutherford. Brian Cox has conversed and studied biology (though no degree) thoroughly himself. Science is a field wherein "we don't know" is almost always a good thing, but the unknown that Rutherford raises just seems paltry and boring compared to the unknown of physics. This is not the case with all biologists and their unknowns.
Evan Parker
Some interesting stuff in this conversation. Brain's take on wave-particle duality I liked. Both made quite profound comments on the important role of religion through the ages which resonated with me. Also that most theories/models are generally wrong...correct! A thought...is the theory of evolution wrong?
EVAN Parker No. I get the feeling you would like it to be wrong :) ?
It is the most challenged and tested set of observations and conclusions concerning the facts of continual variation& CRITICAL SELECTION, nothing random about it, over time. Like a good goalkeeper, it hasnt let any in so far,
150 years and so far it is the best / only explanation,
and frankly ONLY CHALLENGED BY IDIOTS
IT HAPPENS and our understanding of how and why it happens is not going to suddenly be wrong, but like most things, occasionally just slightly not perfect.
Ask yourself if the theory we have on gravity is wrong and the answer is probably it’s wrong. Ask yourself if gravity still exists And the answer is most certainly although now I might have to add the caveat that it depends on the definition of gravity.
Similarly the theory of evolution is most likely wrong to some extent but that does not mean there was no evolution.
Why not answer the dmt question?
interesting..... both are awesome up to current understanding and both will need massive remixes as more and better understanding becomes apparent.
Both however seem to carry a this 'is fairly absolute' aura. I am probably splitting hairs as they are at the top of their areas of knowledge and I'm just a simple bum
if the Higgs Boson gives mass, is there a particle that takes it (mass) away, or is there an instance where a particle may lose mass as a result of the boson losing its influence? Is that even theoretically possible?
dumaskhan yes
if you find the answer you could potentially master interstellar flight
i was amused when adam said that the origin of the chemical pathways that are responsible for all known life didn't occur in sterile conditions.. of course they did, there was no life :')
He actually said - 'life didn't occur in a sterile LAB'. but I get what you're saying. The more you think about it, the harder it is to imagine life first coming into existence without life already existing. We're so used to DNA being labelled as the building blocks of life that it seems instinctive to believe that DNA can't exist without life and life can't exist without DNA. Just another example of something Adam said early on- the answer to all the best scientific questions is 'we just don't know'.
I use "I don't know" more frequently as I get older. I think admitting my ignorance is very liberating.
David Renwick, I respect people for simply saying "the answer is, I don't know." No need wasting time speculating, and the honesty only makes that person look better. I've even gotten that reply from a CEO of a major corporation. Not a hint of intellectual pride!
👁️
If electron is electrically polorised how it could be have a negative charge?
Electrons are referred to as negative because of their behavior in an electric field. In an electric field, an electron will move from the negative pole to the positive pole, giving it a negative charge by convention.
1:15:05 probability of any place is NOT equal.
@38:47 - Perhaps some kind of chemical scaffolding?
What does the guy at 1:29:17 shout? #LondonThinksCocks
Stephanie L Bullsemen :)
Yes I am interested. My son has Smith Magenis syndrome missing past of chromosome 17.2
If they decided to do something that made no sense and we had to pay for it, how much can I then control? Just the same as they would.
1. if you scrambled the order of the genes, or moved them from chromosome to chromosome would they still work? Or is the location of a gene an important constituent of its function?
2. how do you tell a gene apart from non-coding DNA?
3. how many base pairs typically comprise a gene?
for 1. that depends on a number of factors, DNA exists in different states, simplified these are called euchromatin and heterochromatin, euchromatin is accessible DNA heterochromatin is inaccessible (this is extremely dynamic). this allows in part the regulation of gene expression, though there are other factors to consider such as whether the gene is regulated by transcription factors and if those transcription factors are distance dependent.. there is no clear cut answer like with most genetics.
2. genes contain non-coding DNA which is spliced out and is actually incredibly important (hence the loss of the term junk DNA) variable splicing is what accounts for our incredibly complexity despite so few genes. that being said, coding DNA is in codons (three nucleotides) which each codon encodes an amino acid which builds towards the peptide chain that makes the protein and therefore it is possible to identify coding DNA from non-coding DNA. Non coding DNA is incredibly important for gene regulation in a whole host of incredible mechanisms and is actually far more fascinating than coding DNA to myself :)
As for length of a gene - how long is a piece of string? The length of the peptide chain the gene codes for determines the length of the gene (a triplet of base pairs coding for one amino acid.) The longer the peptide chain, the more bases required and hence the longer the gene.
Some genes are affected by being transposed from one location to another and others not. Parts of the genetic code also control the expression of genes.
3 gold stars to SharpShotKills. No idea if the answers are right or not but they are full of long words.
1:20 But what if I don't know what Bertrand Russel looks like?
remarkably like a mad scientist.
Brian Cox is an enthusiast, thats why he is so good to listen to, unfortunately Rutherford is trying to make himself sound clever.
www.justgiving.com/PatronBC - Professor Brian Cox will be running a marathon to raise money for a British charity (to be run Sept 13, 2015). If you're a fan of his, donate a few bucks! Thanks ~
Usual Suspects t-Shirt
So u can't inherit geans?
what is Brian Cox's accent?
It's called Posh lol
Uhuhuhuhuhuh he said co- I'll stop myself.
interesting that 20:56 has now been proven by LIGO
Yes, its great fun to listen to a clever scientist and you know better than him . .
I get the explanation of using Inflation to explain what is 80 billion light years apart as once being "together" but how can WE measure anything as being 40 billion light years away in a 13.8 billion light year universe. So OK, in other words, the Universe can be more light years across than it's age but how can we see beyond 13.8 LY to know that?
EXAMPLE: The matter that originally emitted the oldest CMBR photons that we are seeing now has a present distance of 46,000,000,000 light years from us, but when those photons first set out - the matter source of those photons was only 42,000,000 light-years away. [note 9 zeros & 6 zeros there]. So we are seeing radiation today from matter that is *NOW* 46B ly away, but that radiation was a lot, lot closer when it started out. As the photons travelled towards us through spacetime, spacetime itself was stretching.
The distances I've mentioned above are not directly measured. They are derived from the observed red shift. This red shift is then plugged into an equation to derive the distance. Of course everything depends on the assumption that our model of the universe & inflation are correct, but I wouldn't be shocked if what we 'know' today is adjusted somewhat in the future...
I stole my above figures from this Wiki on the *Observable Universe*:- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe *Warning* - it's a bit of a brain exploder - you need to look up & consider some of the terms used such as co-moving distance!
nightjarflying
Thanks for that. So what you are saying is that we are observing something that was within 13.8 billion years away at it's onset but inflation was still in progress and had not completed?
My brain hurts at the thought of the equations behind this stuff.
pilgrimpater Yes - you are kind of correct except your figure of "13.8 billion years away" is slightly wrong & needs the word "light" in there. There are also some other subtleties covered in the wiki.
It's really a bit of an absurdist exercise to talk about the distance to an object *NOW* when the object is significantly far away & spacetime is *STILL* expanding. Cosmologists don't do this - they prefer to use geometrical diagrams with what are called "light cones" drawn in to better picture what is going on.
Here is an example of a style of diagram invented 100 years ago to give you an idea: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram please read the first paragraph & look at all the pictures. You have just looked at one of the *SIMPLE* old geometries that doesn't account for inflation - only for special relativity. If you want to find out what cosmologists draw these days you might want to book a bed in a mental hospital first! :)
nightjarflying
Ta again.
*"... except your figure of "13.8 billion years away" is slightly wrong & needs the word "light" in there."*
Yes, that was just a typo.
*"please read the first paragraph"*
My limit, LOL.
*"If you want to find out what cosmologists draw these days you might want to book a bed in a mental hospital first! :) "*
That made me smile.
+pilgrimpater I have no idea, but I guess that one can mathematically extrapolate from given data set.
"....with an 'X'" XDDDDDDD
Tell Adam if I wasn't black, a Jew, and if that wasn't there I'd probably be married also. They are there.
We don't see what they decide to do with their life.
This is why everyone can't communicate like Brian, cause someone's you're just insecure like the other guy.
So difficult to understand cosmos. Always they say 90% unknown.
Is universe something like Saturn. Some asteroids moving around dark matter.
Let's see if they are right about brexit.
If someone dies you get property rights.
Infuriating that for a talk this engaging they let the media studies first years run the sound desk.
One minute they're whispering, the next they're shouting, people asking question with the mic at the navel and the next questioner trying to eat the damn thing.
next lecture topic, dynamic range and why headphone users are all dead now.
A bit disappointed by Adam’s ambiguous answers, honestly. Watching this after having just ordered his latest book, I was hoping this guy would have more insights to offer. Like how, for instance, there’s so many interesting theories about the ageing phenomenon, but he briefly mentions only the most boring one and then evades the question with yet another “we don’t know”.
T+You how he joins his legs .legs so telling
PhD
DD
Virus - Lifes failsafe ?
Audio isn't bad for a video from the 80s....
I asked Brian Cox afterwards what he knows about the Pineal gland and DMT and he said he didnt know much and that he wasnt interested. All i can say is he is missing out on a trip of a lifetime if he went to Peru it would change his life forever and as ayuska is more then just a plant that makes you hallucinate it actually is an intelligent life force that connects you to your higher self and tell you about your whole life no kidding. its also balnced a lot of peoples EGO's out just maybe at this time Brians not ready for it.
Threapleton HolmesB Oh yes, DMT, the chemical released during death to stop us from panicking and being frightened that appears to be numbed if it is overused before that point. NO thanks. And the Pineal Gland, that helps our circadian rhythm (via melatonin regulation), and may affect sex hormones and can boost the effect of certain drugs by interfering with this sytem causing potent hallucinations. Hallucinations that is
Ahuaska isnt a drug it is two plants that the Shamans use in the Amazon forest. When people use it its done in the right enviroment they do Halluciante but its not the same as getting high on LSD the manufactured version. It releases DMT natually and connects you to your higher self. People say they have been released of emotional trauma and free of addictions compare what Stings says on this
Threapleton HolmesB I've taken ayahuasca/DMT+MAOI and to say it was a life-changing experience feels like an understatement. But just because you have an amazing subjective experience, it doesn't mean you have gained an objective understanding of the universe.
Ayahuasca is not an intelligent life force. It is a substance which suspends the normal integration of a number of your brain functions, and this interruption causes you to perceive things in novel, alien ways. For people who are afflicted with rigid mental routines that they feel they cannot escape from (as is common among the depressed), this kind of trip out of their own minds can be enormously beneficial, as it introduces new perspectives on life and new patterns of thinking. It only seems like it's an intelligent life force because while you're on the drug, the non-integration under DMT leads to forms of primitive, magical thinking that I suspect probably inspired animistic religion.
These kinds of drug have been consumed by people in many cultures for millennia - it hasn't provided them with scientific knowledge. What it may have done is provided some of them with psychological benefits, when taken in the right settings and in the right amounts.
I think psychedelics (DMT, ibogaine, LSD, psilocybin) have enormous therapeutic potential, and it's a travesty that our foolish drug laws have blocked scientific research into them for so long. Thankfully, there are finally some psychopharmacologists studying them again as potential treatments in everything from addiction to depression to anxiety to PTSD, and there have been a number of promising findings.
A dream is a mild dmt trip. Tibetan monks can have a more intense experience by meditation. We've all had a dmt trip in our sleep but smoking it would be to intense for most people which can lead to a bad experience.
+Stephanie L Thank you so much for this intelligent answer. I completely agree with you on everything you said.
Rutherford? Is this the guy who discovered the first atom?
No, that's Ernest Rutherford (1871 - 1937), not Adam Rutherford.
A. Rutherford invented the wheel - Ruther"ford"
no thats ernest rutherford
It was disappointing to hear them both defending religion at the end. Bring back Christopher Hitchens!!
i asked Google is science a religion?
church of cox? 🙂
Sorry, your angry at other's lives? He should live in a harem, not where people associate with each other, you know, society.
Rutherford sounds like a bit of an arrogant knob, would have been more interesting if Cox spoke more.
Agreed.
exactly what I thought too
Thank you, just what I was thinking.
You'll get an opposite impression from the Rutherford & Fry radio/podcast stuff from Radio 4: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08svw8f
Lighten up, it's just his sense of humour. When he got asked questions he was very engaging with the people.
at 1:32:00 after the audience question...Adam Rutherford suggests that religion has had a net benefit to society and it would be wrong to get rid of it . The answer is entirely naive and lacks any understanding of the history of religion in Europe and the conflict it has generated.
Dr. Adam I'd Rathernot. Smug.
Adam Rutherford is really bitter.
Agree, I see him at Dulwich last week with Ed Yong. This led me to here and I thought the same.
I’m going to say it and I know I’m in the minority. I find cox’s delivery tedious and boring. Each to their own
Is this a waste of life?
🤣
🤮
The sad truth about Brian Cox is he's got no drive he's got no real aspiration for science. He's got love for it sure but what has he contributed to science? Nothing he's a waste of a scientist. He just regurgitates what he's been taught that's not teaching.
what a pathetically negative comment.
@@versioncity1 Thats right. He has done SO much for humanity. He has a real talent for teaching, telling complicated stuff so that one can understand.
At 1:30:00 Brian Cox goes into an a rant about science when he in fact is perpetrating the concern over man made global warming that is the biggest hoax in the history of science. By his feminine voice, I can surmise he also voted against Brexit, and I have never been to Europe.
Cox is vermin
Out of you and Brian, who do you think is the one that is holding back society from progressing? I'll give you a clue, it's fucking you, you filthy waste of fucking space.
boxxer221 hi Boxxer ..merry Xmas you blinkered sheep
Holding you back from enslavement to collectivism? Holding you back from being disarmed, like a slave? Holding you back from entitlements, like a slave? Holding you back from fake science? Holding you back from scientific method and eliminating the null hypothesis or shut up?
Where's your science you clown.....
Adam is so obnoxious and rude