Public Science Lectures online

Get your science fix here: research, quackery, activism and all the rest
Post Reply
User avatar
Gfamily
After Pie
Posts: 1872
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Public Science Lectures online

Post by Gfamily » Thu Apr 16, 2020 4:10 pm

The STFC have had to cancel their "Talking Science" lecture series at Daresbury and the Rutherford Appleton Labs, but are hosting an online talk tomorrow evening at 6pm (UKT)

Rosalind Franklin and her legacy

Friday 17 April, 18:00

Laura Holland, Director of Communications and Culture, The Rosalind Franklin Institute

Professor James Naismith, Director, The Rosalind Franklin Institute

Rosalind Franklin was an extraordinary multidisciplinary scientist, whose work with DNA contributed to the greatest discovery in biology in the 20th century. In this talk, Jim Naismith and Laura Holland of The Rosalind Franklin Institute will discuss her life as a researcher, and why Franklin’s name was given to this new research institute, which will have a home on the Harwell Campus.


Please click this URL to join. https://ukri.zoom.us/s/91420569466
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Gfamily
After Pie
Posts: 1872
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Gfamily » Fri Apr 17, 2020 10:25 am

For people interested in Astronomy, there's a Zoom/YouTube 'Virtual Astronomy Club' that runs for about an hour on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7pm (UKT).

Details here https://www.star-gazing.co.uk/WebPage/v ... stro-club/

There are links to previous club talks on YouTube at the bottom of the page. A range of subjects; some to do with practical aspects of observing and imaging, and some to do with space exploration and discovery.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

Holylol
Buzzberry
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:14 am

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Holylol » Fri Apr 17, 2020 11:41 am

Gfamily wrote:
Fri Apr 17, 2020 10:25 am
For people interested in Astronomy, there's a Zoom/YouTube 'Virtual Astronomy Club' that runs for about an hour on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7pm (UKT).
I've just received a mail from my university IT about a security breach in Zoom that led to 500,000 IDs, passwords etc... being stolen (and sold).

User avatar
Gfamily
After Pie
Posts: 1872
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Gfamily » Fri Apr 17, 2020 12:19 pm

Holylol wrote:
Fri Apr 17, 2020 11:41 am
Gfamily wrote:
Fri Apr 17, 2020 10:25 am
For people interested in Astronomy, there's a Zoom/YouTube 'Virtual Astronomy Club' that runs for about an hour on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7pm (UKT).
I've just received a mail from my university IT about a security breach in Zoom that led to 500,000 IDs, passwords etc... being stolen (and sold).
It's a concern - the source of the 'breach' appears to be 'credential stuffing' (where hackers use existing lists of IDs and passwords, and tries to see if they've been reused when people signed up with zoom). If you haven't reused a password, it shouldn't be a problem,
https://fossbytes.com/zoom-security-iss ... -dark-web/

Though, if you'd rather not use zoom, the option to use YouTube is available.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

Holylol
Buzzberry
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:14 am

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Holylol » Fri Apr 17, 2020 1:04 pm

With students, we are also using Discord.
If you need voice only, you can have a lot of people and it works well. You can also share you screen (or an application) with groups of less than 10 participants. It also includes text chats.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Clardic Fug
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Cardinal Fang » Fri Apr 17, 2020 5:57 pm

Skeptics in the Pub Online are running talks on Twitch every week, on Thursdays at 7:00pm

Channel here: www.twitch.tv/sitp. Talks are available on YouTube thereafter, but you miss a lot of the banter in the chat sidebar. You can find about forthcoming talks on their Facebook page. Up coming speakers include Kit Chapman and Sian Williams

CF
Image

User avatar
Gfamily
After Pie
Posts: 1872
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Gfamily » Tue May 12, 2020 6:20 pm

The Hay Festival is going online this year - with free admission for talks from 22nd to 31st May.

The Science Programme is here.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Fishnut
Catbabel
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Fishnut » Tue May 12, 2020 7:39 pm

Gfamily wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 6:20 pm
The Hay Festival is going online this year - with free admission for talks from 22nd to 31st May.

The Science Programme is here.
Thanks for the link - I've registered for Naomi Oreskes (I'm slowly reading her new book, better get a move on) and Adam Rutherford. Some really interesting stuff there. Though I doubt he needs the promotion, David Spiegelhalter's talk is excellent, I saw him when he was in Bristol a few months ago.

User avatar
Fishnut
Catbabel
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Fishnut » Fri May 22, 2020 3:57 pm

Naomi Oreskes' talk is up for the next 24 hours and I highly recommend it. Actual talk starts at just after 6 mins in.

bmforre
Fuzzable
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by bmforre » Sat May 23, 2020 2:33 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 3:57 pm
Naomi Oreskes' talk is up for the next 24 hours and I highly recommend it. Actual talk starts at just after 6 mins in.
I listened to this but broke off after hearing Orestes claim that effects described by relativity are of no practical consequence for motions that are important in ordinary experience. Does she or does she not know that global position systems would be off by several kilometers per day without use of special relativity computations of fast motion effect, and general relativity, clock in gravitational field effect ??
Is modern navigation of no practical consequence?
See f.ex:
Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System

In old times one had to look at Mercury perihelion shift and stellar images during solar occulation to see effects of GR at work. Now a common mobile phone can determine position depending on this. Time for global presenters to update some presentation examples?

User avatar
shpalman
After Pie
Posts: 2216
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by shpalman » Sat May 23, 2020 3:28 pm

bmforre wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 2:33 pm
Fishnut wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 3:57 pm
Naomi Oreskes' talk is up for the next 24 hours and I highly recommend it. Actual talk starts at just after 6 mins in.
I listened to this but broke off after hearing Orestes claim that effects described by relativity are of no practical consequence for motions that are important in ordinary experience. Does she or does she not know that global position systems would be off by several kilometers per day without use of special relativity computations of fast motion effect, and general relativity, clock in gravitational field effect ??
Is modern navigation of no practical consequence?
See f.ex:
Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System

In old times one had to look at Mercury perihelion shift and stellar images during solar occulation to see effects of GR at work. Now a common mobile phone can determine position depending on this. Time for global presenters to update some presentation examples?
Magnetism is a relativistic effect.
molto tricky

User avatar
Fishnut
Catbabel
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Fishnut » Sat May 23, 2020 5:12 pm

bmforre wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 2:33 pm
Fishnut wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 3:57 pm
Naomi Oreskes' talk is up for the next 24 hours and I highly recommend it. Actual talk starts at just after 6 mins in.
I listened to this but broke off after hearing Orestes claim that effects described by relativity are of no practical consequence for motions that are important in ordinary experience. Does she or does she not know that global position systems would be off by several kilometers per day without use of special relativity computations of fast motion effect, and general relativity, clock in gravitational field effect ??
Is modern navigation of no practical consequence?
See f.ex:
Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System

In old times one had to look at Mercury perihelion shift and stellar images during solar occulation to see effects of GR at work. Now a common mobile phone can determine position depending on this. Time for global presenters to update some presentation examples?
Er, what? She said,
...we still see that a huge amount of scientific evidence has stood the test of time. And, interestingly and importantly, even in those cases where something really major has changed, the most obvious example being the shift from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein's theory of relatively, where we would now say today that space and time are not absolute even though they may seem absolute to us. Nevertheless, even with a change as radical as that, we can still use Newton's equations to describe most of the motion that occurs in the world that we live in, most of what we see. And so we can understand that Newton's mechanics appeared right because it actually is right for probably 99% of what we actually experience.
ETA the second part of her answer,
So, philosophers have argued a lot about how we can reconcile Newtonian mechanics with Einsteinian relativity, but that's my personal reconciliation. Einstein proved that time and space are not absolute, but the conditions under which that is perceptible to us are almost none, and that helps us to explain why Newtonian mechanics can seem correct, because it actually is correct in most circumstances. And so we can still admire Newton and still view him as a great genius, and still say that the scientific process worked, and one more thing, if we needed to do something in the world based on Newtonian mechanics, in 99% of cases it would work.
I'm not sure where she discounts GPS in there - it's in the 1% of cases where Newtonian mechanics don't work. But for flying planes, shooting missiles, piloting ships, playing snooker, etc, we get to use Newtonian physics because it's right enough for our needs.

bmforre
Fuzzable
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by bmforre » Sat May 23, 2020 9:14 pm

There is another central fact being hidden: The relativistic timespace was implied in the special theory but was pronounced by Minkowski not Einstein.
From Minkowski biography at mathshistory-st.andrews
Minkowski developed a new view of space and time and laid the mathematical foundation of the theory of relativity. By 1907 Minkowski realised that the work of Lorentz and Einstein could be best understood in a non-euclidean space. He considered space and time, which were formerly thought to be independent, to be coupled together in a four-dimensional 'space-time continuum'...

In a paper published in 1908 Minkowski reformulated Einstein's 1905 paper by introducing the four-dimensional (space-time) non-Euclidean geometry, a step which Einstein did not think much of at the time...

This space-time continuum provided a framework for all later mathematical work in relativity. These ideas were used by Einstein in developing the general theory of relativity. In fact Minkowski had a major influence on Einstein ...
The Lorentz transformation set that now looks so clearly 4-dimensional was formulated before the theory of relativity, even the special theory. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction was postulated by FitzGerald already in 1889 and Lorentz in 1892 and Oliver Heaviside had looked at it from his electromagnetic perspective in 1888. So when Einstein took up these threads he was "standing on the shoulders of giants". In my opinion a historian ought not to present this as a revelation made by one single genius in an almost a-historical way. A picture with more detail indicates a richer process and can show more of the truth.

User avatar
Fishnut
Catbabel
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Fishnut » Sat May 23, 2020 9:42 pm

I think you are missing the point that Oreskes was trying to make. Unfortunately the talk has been taken down now so I can't quote directly, but it was asking about how we can approach the claim that that science can be wrong and therefore we shouldn't trust it, the talk being to promote her new book Why Trust Science. She was saying that while the idea that science has been completely wrong is popular, it isn't accurate. She was using the example of quantum mechanics superseding Newtonian mechanics as an example: that while Newtonian mechanics isn't technically exactly correct, at the scale we normally operate the errors are small enough to be inconsequential. This is why it worked so well for so long, and why it is still used today. Newton wasn't so much wrong as missing a piece of the puzzle and Newtonian mechanics is still good enough for much of what we do. By all means, calculate the trajectory of a canon ball using relativistic equations, but it's much easier and just as accurate to do it using Newtonian equations. And her point wasn't to get into a discussion of the relative merits of relativistic theories over Newtonian ones, but to show that science doesn't often get things completely wrong, instead build it on its knowledge. That old 'standing on the shoulders of giants' thing as you point out.

User avatar
Stephanie
After Pie
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Stephanie » Sat May 23, 2020 10:01 pm

bmforre wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 9:14 pm
There is another central fact being hidden: The relativistic timespace was implied in the special theory but was pronounced by Minkowski not Einstein.
From Minkowski biography at mathshistory-st.andrews
Minkowski developed a new view of space and time and laid the mathematical foundation of the theory of relativity. By 1907 Minkowski realised that the work of Lorentz and Einstein could be best understood in a non-euclidean space. He considered space and time, which were formerly thought to be independent, to be coupled together in a four-dimensional 'space-time continuum'...

In a paper published in 1908 Minkowski reformulated Einstein's 1905 paper by introducing the four-dimensional (space-time) non-Euclidean geometry, a step which Einstein did not think much of at the time...

This space-time continuum provided a framework for all later mathematical work in relativity. These ideas were used by Einstein in developing the general theory of relativity. In fact Minkowski had a major influence on Einstein ...
The Lorentz transformation set that now looks so clearly 4-dimensional was formulated before the theory of relativity, even the special theory. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction was postulated by FitzGerald already in 1889 and Lorentz in 1892 and Oliver Heaviside had looked at it from his electromagnetic perspective in 1888. So when Einstein took up these threads he was "standing on the shoulders of giants". In my opinion a historian ought not to present this as a revelation made by one single genius in an almost a-historical way. A picture with more detail indicates a richer process and can show more of the truth.
This is all very interesting, but in no way addresses Fishnut's response to you.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

secret squirrel
Fuzzable
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by secret squirrel » Mon May 25, 2020 7:23 am

Fishnut wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 9:42 pm
I think you are missing the point that Oreskes was trying to make. Unfortunately the talk has been taken down now so I can't quote directly, but it was asking about how we can approach the claim that that science can be wrong and therefore we shouldn't trust it, the talk being to promote her new book Why Trust Science. She was saying that while the idea that science has been completely wrong is popular, it isn't accurate. She was using the example of quantum mechanics superseding Newtonian mechanics as an example: that while Newtonian mechanics isn't technically exactly correct, at the scale we normally operate the errors are small enough to be inconsequential. This is why it worked so well for so long, and why it is still used today. Newton wasn't so much wrong as missing a piece of the puzzle and Newtonian mechanics is still good enough for much of what we do. By all means, calculate the trajectory of a canon ball using relativistic equations, but it's much easier and just as accurate to do it using Newtonian equations. And her point wasn't to get into a discussion of the relative merits of relativistic theories over Newtonian ones, but to show that science doesn't often get things completely wrong, instead build it on its knowledge. That old 'standing on the shoulders of giants' thing as you point out.
I missed the video, so this may be covering old ground, but whether and how science advances kind of depends how you look at it. First, it's obvious to most people that we're much more able to manipulate the physical world according to our desires. So Newton's physics is 'better' than Aristotle's, because seeing the world as Newton invited us to allows us to do things like build flying machines and so on, which have pretty obvious manifestations in the world which most of us can agree upon. In turn, understanding the physical world in accordance with Einstein and co allows us to build things like GPS systems, nuclear weapons etc, which again most of us can agree actually exist and do significant things that could not be done before. And conversely, it's hard to find good examples of things that people could build in the past by harnessing older theories that can't be replicated or improved by harnessing their modern replacements (glossing over some technicalities e.g. loss of technical craft skills as interests and priorities change). This is pretty clear if we take a long view of history, but it breaks down a bit if we zoom in. For example, theories that we now accept as 'morally' correct were often initially less able to explain observations than the theories they came to replace (e.g. heliocentricity, heat, electricity). Most people are more interested in the comparison of mature theories though, so this difficulty isn't very important.

On the other hand, the metaphysical worldview inherent to physical theories can radically change, and we have no objective standard for saying what is likely to be true or not. For example, the Epicureans had an atomistic view of the world, which fell out of favour over the following centuries to the point where most scientists and philosophers were committed to the idea of a continuous universe till the late 19th century. But then research into particle physics threw out the continuous view in favour of atomism, and quantum mechanics makes everything weird in a bunch of ways. So while 19th science was better than anything the Epicurean's had in the obvious sense described above, in another sense, their fundamental conception of the universe would soon come to be judged as worse than that of the Epicureans 2000 years earlier.

And then of course if you were a mid 20th century logical positivist you'd be saying that the distinction between 'continuous' and 'atomic' universes is meaningless anyway. And then you'd probably start an argument about 'protocol sentences'.

User avatar
Gfamily
After Pie
Posts: 1872
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Gfamily » Wed May 27, 2020 6:31 pm

Professor David Spiegelhalter has just completed a talk for the Hay Festival
If you are a subscriber to Hay Viewer (which looks excellent value at just £10 for a year), you should be able to catch it again at your leisure: but if you're quick you should be able to watch it again for the next 23/24 hours
Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTGTqoHpbsQ
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Gfamily
After Pie
Posts: 1872
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Gfamily » Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:53 pm

Another, this evening at 7pm
Video Webinar: Science How – What Meteorites Can Tell Us About the Solar System with Geologist Cari Corrigan

https://naturalhistory.si.edu/events/vi ... ogist-cari?

Register and let them know some metrics - or just join via Zoom
https://zoom.us/j/93785308913
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

FlammableFlower
Catbabel
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by FlammableFlower » Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:39 pm

https://www.facebook.com/uniofbath/vide ... &ref=notif

Facebook Lecture: Mike Richardson
The ‘BrainPort’ is a device that converts visual information into electro-tactile feedback on the tongue. It electrically stimulates pictures though a pixelated grid of electrodes, so that users can feel a photo or video on their tongue.
Mike Richardson from our Department of Psychology, hosts today's Facebook Lecture, explaining how his work with the BrainPort helps people with sight loss gain a greater understanding of their environment as well as sharing some interesting findings about our brain’s spatial perception.

User avatar
Stephanie
After Pie
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Public Science Lectures online

Post by Stephanie » Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:17 pm

Ada Lovelace Day is online this year (Tuesday 13 October) and as such we are running some free webinars that might be of interest to folk here:

Sustainable Energy & Water, 1-2am
Join us for a lively discussion about the state of sustainable energy and water with Kaapua Smith, Head of Sustainability for Contact Energy; Andy Blair, the President of the International Geothermal Association and a founder member of Women In Geothermal (WING); and more speakers to be confirmed.
Medicine's Biggest Questions, 10-11am
We'll be talking with Prof Ijeoma Uchegbu, UCL School of Pharmacy, Dr Mariam Jamal-Hanjani, Clinical Research Fellow at UCL Cancer Institute, and Dr Freya Harrison, Associate Professor at the University of Warwick, to talk about the biggest medical questions, and how scientists are attempting to answer them.
In conversation with Lori Beer, 3-4pm
Celebrate Ada Lovelace Day with Lori Beer, Global Chief Information Officer for JP Morgan Chase & Co., who will be in conversation with ALD’s Founder, Suw Charman-Anderson.

Lori will be talking about her career in technology, including how she got into tech, and what advice she’d have for her younger self. She’ll also be talking about why she chose to create a scholarship to support women in STEM and why young women should choose to study technology.
The Near Future, 5-6pm
Join us for a lively discussion about what the near future holds for us, with Dr Beth Singler, Junior Research Fellow in Artificial Intelligence at Homerton College, University of Cambridge, and more speakers to be confirmed.
Space, the Next Frontier, 8-9pm
Join us for a lively discussion about preserving the Moon and more, with Michelle Hanlon, Co-Founder and President of For All Moonkind, Inc., with additional speakers to be confirmed.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

Post Reply