Back when I was a baby I got my first exposure to quantum field theory from a set of lectures David Tong did at Cambridge university. The video quality was grainy, but the quality of the content was phenomenal. It was my first exposure to the idea that I could get a better set of lectures online than I could from my actual classes. In fact, even today David Tong is probably my second favorite lecturer. I was therefore extremely pleased to find that a couple of days ago Tong did a lecture aimed towards the general public on an area he is intimately familiar with: quantum field theory.

One of the fundamental questions that humans have had basically since civilization started is what are the most fundamental building blocks of the universe. In this lecture, Tong argues that it is the quantum field. Along the way, Tong explores some of the more interesting parts of quantum field theory in a way I think most will find accessible. If you've ever wondered what the most fundamental building blocks of the universe are, or if you've ever wanted to understand what field theory is, I think you will find this video enjoyable.

If you have any questions afterwards I will do my best to answer them. Here is the video:

Here is an interview with Barry Setterfield as he discusses the Zero Point Energy. Barry is one of the scientists who helped to prove that the speed of light isn't a constant and is actually slowing down.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Here is an interview with Barry Setterfield as he discusses the Zero Point Energy. Barry is one of the scientists who helped to prove that the speed of light isn't a constant and is actually slowing down.

---

Woo!

The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

Turns out that I agree with Barry's quote:

"It is never good science to ignore anomalous data or to eliminate a conclusion because of some presupposition. ".

I find it hilarious that I found this quote on the website for Genesis Science Research - which clearly does not presuppose anything.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Turns out that I agree with Barry's quote:

"It is never good science to ignore anomalous data or to eliminate a conclusion because of some presupposition. ".

I find it hilarious that I found this quote on the website for Genesis Science Research - which clearly does not presuppose anything.

---

Quote:

---

An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. Two types of association fallacies are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association.

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

---

So what happens when the sun produces hundreds of millions of times more energy, as is required under E=mc(2) if the speed of light is faster a few thousand years ago?

Might have been a problem...

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

---

So what happens when the sun produces hundreds of millions of times more energy, as is required under E=mc(2) if the speed of light is faster a few thousand years ago?

Might have been a problem...

---

If the speed of light can be observed as to be slowing down, I'm not sure how that's a relevant question.

Barry talked about how Planck's constant was discovered by Planck and Planck proved how the constant is actually a measure of the ZPE. Barry talks about how the ZPE has been shown to be increasing. If the ZPE is increasing, this is what would be the cause of the slowing of the speed of light. As light travels, it would take longer to move through an increasing ZPE.

AstroAg17 said:

---

I watched it and I'm going to show it to some people. I think it was pretty accessible and it was definitely interesting.

---

Cool, glad to hear. Is this lecture part of the same lecture series he was talking about that Faraday did, or was it just in the same room? I don't know. I'd be interested in checking those other lectures out too.

Thanks for the vid that was accessible and informative

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

---

So what happens when the sun produces hundreds of millions of times more energy, as is required under E=mc(2) if the speed of light is faster a few thousand years ago?

Might have been a problem...

---

If the speed of light can be observed as to be slowing down, I'm not sure how that's a relevant question.

Barry talked about how Planck's constant was discovered by Planck and Planck proved how the constant is actually a measure of the ZPE. Barry talks about how the ZPE has been shown to be increasing. If the ZPE is increasing, this is what would be the cause of the slowing of the speed of light. As light travels, it would take longer to move through an increasing ZPE.

---

So he needs magic to make his science work. Got it.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

---

So what happens when the sun produces hundreds of millions of times more energy, as is required under E=mc(2) if the speed of light is faster a few thousand years ago?

Might have been a problem...

---

If the speed of light can be observed as to be slowing down, I'm not sure how that's a relevant question.

Barry talked about how Planck's constant was discovered by Planck and Planck proved how the constant is actually a measure of the ZPE. Barry talks about how the ZPE has been shown to be increasing. If the ZPE is increasing, this is what would be the cause of the slowing of the speed of light. As light travels, it would take longer to move through an increasing ZPE.

---

So he needs magic to make his science work. Got it.

---

What magic are you referring to? Are you say is the quantum field and the ZPE don't exist?

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

---

So what happens when the sun produces hundreds of millions of times more energy, as is required under E=mc(2) if the speed of light is faster a few thousand years ago?

Might have been a problem...

---

If the speed of light can be observed as to be slowing down, I'm not sure how that's a relevant question.

Barry talked about how Planck's constant was discovered by Planck and Planck proved how the constant is actually a measure of the ZPE. Barry talks about how the ZPE has been shown to be increasing. If the ZPE is increasing, this is what would be the cause of the slowing of the speed of light. As light travels, it would take longer to move through an increasing ZPE.

---

So he needs magic to make his science work. Got it.

---

What magic are you referring to? Are you say is the quantum field and the ZPE don't exist?

---

His interpretation and use of ZPE bares no relation to the actual science in that very young, contested field. He's using it as an out with no logical explanation because he can't make his theory work in any other way.

It's not a theory. The slowing of the speed of light has been documented.

Quote:

---

His interpretation and use of ZPE bares no relation to the actual science in that very young, contested field.

---

What exactly are you referring to as a young, contested field?

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's not a theory. The slowing of the speed of light has been documented.

---

By whom? And I mean outside of your creationist who has been disowned by other creationists.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's not a theory. The slowing of the speed of light has been documented.

---

By whom? And I mean outside of your creationist who has been disowned by other creationists.

---

Quote:

---

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's not a theory. The slowing of the speed of light has been documented.

---

By whom? And I mean outside of your creationist who has been disowned by other creationists.

---

Quote:

---

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

---

---

Ok, my response is not an ad hominem. It's asking for your source. If this man is your only source, you have a major credibility problem since his work has been tossed by everyone. Including other creationists.

Telling me other people don't believe him isn't a refutation of his reported observations.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Telling me other people don't believe him isn't a refutation of his reported observations.

---

When "other people" is every person who works in that field, yeah, it kind of is.

---

Actually, it's not. But feel free to continue with your fallacious line of argumentation.

Nice contribution. I'd definitely like to see more scientific threads.