Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt 2 (Updated with pt 3 URL)
Continuation of http://quantamiscool1.ytmnd.com Part 3 at http://yqpic3.ytmnd.com/

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
<< 1 2 >>
September 23rd, 2006
(5)
I hear they're starting to do experiments to see if probability can be effected not only by observation, but by the will of the observer, with some positive results.
May 12th, 2007
(0)
Could you PM me a link to any kind of information on these experiments?
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Workin on sound, gimme a sec
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
:0
September 23rd, 2006
(4)
also quarks.
September 23rd, 2006
(-1)
◄3rd/4th?►
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
yee
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Triangle man wins. Wow! I scare the hell out of electrons when I just watch them. :O
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
and whetstone is the one being petitioned against?
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
◄Also hotpockets. And btw, how is that a solid conclusion that the particles stop forming patterns just by observation? That conclusion doesn't really square to me. There's gotta be something else to the equasion.►
May 10th, 2007
(0)
well something could be in the observation items that changes the properties of an electron
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
but why?
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
September 23rd, 2006
(1)
These conclusions have been drawn from over 50 years of experiments. And it still stands that when they don't observe an exact path or velocity of a particle, it always yields interference patterns. Mathematically the results prove that the particle must be at more than one place at the same time. Which would be kind of a paradox. But the particle always goes back to normal when we try to observe the paradox.
September 23rd, 2006
(1)
wtf and a half
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
might wanna slow a few of the frames down a bit, also jim gaffigan owns
September 23rd, 2006
(-1)
r u shur? Proff that there is no interference from the detectors? Probably is, I'm just too lazy to find out for myself.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
im scared, after watching this i took a dump and i think some brains came out...
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
I like this presentation... and hot pockets.. but the notion that particles know when they're being watched was just stupid.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
"...the notion that particles know when they're being watched was just stupid." I second that.
September 23rd, 2006
(1)
there is no spoon
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
I was soooo ready to one this but I watched it and liked it. Nice work
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
hooooooooooooooooooot pockeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
1'd for no nedm.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
HOT POCKETS
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
that's weird, and my brain hurts
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Win.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Hah! I know this one! It's all to do with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which, in it's most basic form, means, that it is impossible to simultaneously measure the speed or position of a particle with certainty! Wiki Heisenberg Uncertaintity Principle for some light Quantum Physics reading. Man, i wish my physics teacher was cool...
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
5'd for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
5 for Joonas Hahmo! (you must also listen to ASOT :) also, interesting stuff! also, c*cks
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
My head hurts....also HOT POCKETZ!!!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Some parts with a lot of text was too fast, and I didn't like the dumbing down. Could have been so much classier.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
What mitchellangel said. With the Uncertainty Principle, you can't observe something without fundamentally changing it; you're spewing photons (light) at the stuff you're looking at, which knock the electrons out of their normal paths.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
I'm gona have to go with what 'Liquid-Snake' said. Has it been proven that the insterments used to detect where the particles go don't create an interference that affects the path of the particles?
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Hoooot Pooooockets!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
That's crazy. Maybe it's the way our eyes percive light.... but then I know nothing.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Sh*t man. I wish there was somewhere else you physicists could go. and you too Whetstone.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Wow, cools stuff!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
hot pockets
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Makes it a little more complicated with the lasers and mirrors. Should have just stuck with the slits. Also, ◄asshat►
September 23rd, 2006
(-3)
Youngs double slit expirement was stupid. So is this.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
this sh*t is so confusing, but im 5ing it anyways :D
September 23rd, 2006
(-2)
Wow, you guys are all retarded. Light is a wave, thats all there is to understand.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
This proves that whoever wrote the rules of our universe has a sick sense of humor. 5'd!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
that guy is an idiot ^, anyways thats again for this awesome ytmnd
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
UUUUUUUUUUU-DDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
September 23rd, 2006
(-1)
ok, if half of the electrons (or lasers) go each way, it doesn't mean its in both places at once. When you observe, and find its only in once place, don't you start to realize that? Just because you dont observe and it looks cool doesn't mean you need to get all retarded.
September 23rd, 2006
(-2)
-1 for the hot pockets why put something so gay in here?
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Physics+Thumping beat= 5 for you sir.
September 23rd, 2006
(1)
^ "These conclusions have been drawn from over 50 years of experiments" ... WRONG! This is a subject that interests me, and I've read a lot on the subject and talked to a lot of people... Hot Pockets have only been around for about 25 years. Experiments on them took place slightly before that, in the 70's, but not 50 years ago! That's crazy! 5 for crazy
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
most of the time when im on ytmnd its because i was doing homework and want to get away from doing it. so yeah i go on ytmnd to get away from learning.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
comments got me curious so i watched it anyway. was that hot pockets thing from jim gaffigan?
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
HOTPOCKETS! Dude, I remember that comedian, he was hiliarious, what was his name again?
September 23rd, 2006
(-1)
^ jim gaffigan
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
lol hot pockets out of nowhere
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Lol, my only idea for this paradox is that they need something new to observe the protons with. Also, the laser is simply shooting protons, not emitting a wave.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Oh, shat. PHOTONS. Well, yes.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
its actually not cool at all
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
MIchael J. Fox is from Canada. He has Parkinsons. When I grow up, I want to be just like him.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
shorten the whole hotpockets thing.. I almost exitedthinking this was someone else playing off your first one. other then then, absolutely incredibly :-)
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
I wonder how many kids will watch this and think to themselves "I'm a deeper person now" and then go play Halo for 7 years thinking they know science
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
this is why I am a physics major, or rather space sciences. Its similar, but more in terms of astrophysics, which can be just as weird.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
^where do you go to school?
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
very nice
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
omg, +1 for making a sequel, +1 for more kickass music, +1 for HOT POCKETS!, +1 for the title, and +1 for sneaky photons!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox would make another good one.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
This one I liked more than the other, hot pockets aside.
September 23rd, 2006
(-1)
It is misleading to say that by merely opening and closing your eyes, you could afftect the wave pattern. A more realistic example would be that you would need a flashlight to see the electrons, and when you turned it on, the photons from your flashlight interacting with the electron probability wave force it to collapse.
September 24th, 2007
(0)
dude you are a noob
September 23rd, 2006
(-3)
didnt watch, btw gj if this helps you study. if not gtfo
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
5d for educational YTMNDs. Technically, we won't know whether this is continued or not until we check. Until that time, it is both continued and not continued, and my cat is starting to look unhealthy.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Once again you stole that presentation from "What the Bleep do we Know?" You even repeated some lines word-for-word. Go here to see the real presentation http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=414923056147040970&q=what+the+bleep+do+we+know&hl=en
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
But the particles must remember : WE ARE ALWAYS WATCHING .
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
This man is a genius.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Ah, anarchy makes so much more sense than simple universal laws.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
lol you have to be kidding. Texaggie79 did not create this expereriment. Second of all, HE STOLE THIS FROM A DOCUMENTARY and put it in slide-show form. This isn't his work or ideas. Texaggie79, go upload this on eBaumsWorld, it will fit in better there.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
I fukkin loved it. Science rules.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Fail. The detectors were probably interfering with the wave pattern being detected. The conclusions you draw are moot.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
I would love to study physics just for this sh*t. Too much goddamn kinetics though.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Like the electrons, I enjoy hitting multiple slits
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Also, if we were shrunk down, how would watching it with our own eyes change from if we were regular size.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Although I still think that saying that they know there are being watched is ridiculous and that it was pobably the sensor that was interfering, I 5 for the HAAAAWT POCKETSSSSss!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Downvoters should be shot. Excellent work! Hoping for part 3...
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
hate the music
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
quantum misspelled wrong ftw lol.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
This reminds me of Lyra's Dust (sentient energy), and the theory that what you think can change things. Fascinating!
September 23rd, 2006
(-1)
yawnsville
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Awesome, love it. Very interesting. Well done.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
i wonder y observing them makes them act weird
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
rockin
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Try using Hot Pockets for real in your next one.
September 23rd, 2006
(1)
I take it your watching "What the *&^% do we know?" It reiterates these concepts quite clearly.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Uhh, ever thing the measuring device could be interfering with the path of the electrons? Maybe the measuring device shoots something (light sound) to see where they went? How exactly are the electrons measured?
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
sweet---> ~~~~~~~sweet~~~~~~~~ sweet--->
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
You should probably focus your next presentation on defining the context of an 'Observer', before everyone freaks out. :)
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
tag for later
September 23rd, 2006
(-1)
This is the most uninteresting ytmnd ever. Anyone that paid any attention in high school should know this.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Have you tried the Hot Pocket Hot Pocket?! It's a Hot Pocket filled with a Hot Pocket! Tastes just like a Hot Pocket!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
The problem with the whole "it behaves this way when we watch and this way when we don't watch" is that the method of observation, under our current understanding of causality and statistics, necessarily is correlated with the results. The results are not repeatable (a necessary condition of empiricism) and thus no results can be derived from one to the other. The other stuff, having to do with "willpower" which, eventually, will be defined in more technical terms of physical behavior in the brain I would imagine, is interesting. It also makes sense that the electromagnetics in our body would be able to affect the outside world, especially one particle at a time...
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Kind of like in Mario 64 when you don't look at the ghosts they come at you but when you turn around and look they stop!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
5'd for an educational mindf*ck made of win.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
5, i just saw hot pocket and im laughing my *ss off...in a sec ill finish watching and recomment
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Keep the EduTMND's comin. STRING THEORY!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
i dont do reading
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
photons are almost as smart as my brother...oh and please remove your dik from my face, i dotn liek being mindf*cked, tyvm....Gj duud
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Keep making these.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
"2006-09-23 14:16:28 veruca This is the most uninteresting ytmnd ever. Anyone that paid any attention in high school should know this. " im sorry at my high school, they dont exactly offer any classes called Quantum Physics
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Take out the Hot Pockets. Also, doesn't that also mean for the particals that started the Big Bang have to have been observed by something?
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
wow
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
The act of watching the photon doesn't change the experiment the act of measuring the photon changes the experiment, please don't start with this whole O YOU CHANGE THE RESULT bullsh*t, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem to find the truth behind the problem, the problem lies with measurement not with observation
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
ya ASOT with AVB is da shiznit
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
wTF....interesting.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
do quantum tunneling next.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
I love the asstards 1ing this. F*cking 12 year olds challenging conclusions made by geniuses. Good luck with that.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
The electrons know all.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
To keep from getting technical since we don't have room for an entire thesis, basically how can the measurement cause the collapse? I mean, there has to be a collapse since when there is no measurement of which slit or mirror, the ending result can only be explained by the particle traveling through both slits/mirrors, otherwise you wouldn't get the interference pattern. Further shown to be the case when you DO measure which path, it only goes one path and makes no interference pattern. If electrons constantly act as waves, how can measuring their trajectory make them suddenly act like matter?
September 24th, 2007
(0)
Because they ARE particles of matter, and they will act the way we THINK they are going to act - lest one of the other 7 theorized dimensions composing and upholding our existence rip open and spill the all-consuming truth into our own - and we'll be REAL f*cked then, won't we? F*cked like the wavefunction of a housecat's particle. I bet that'd satisfy you RIGHTLY, to see our Universe fold in on itself because we finally witnessed the inner-workings of a mathematical paradox. I bet you'd get off on that.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
In before Schrdinger
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
THAT IS F*CKED UP
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
The only problem with this is: How can you define 'observation?' Is a fly enough to change it? A dog? A cat? Are only -humans- enough to actually change what's going on? If the last is so, you step into the world of . . well, is arrogance the right word? Kind of takes me back to the whole "only humans have souls" thing, which is strictly religious in nature, not scientific.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Also quarks.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Faving for Scientific Theory.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
"NOT A F*CKING SPEEDREADER."
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Once again you stole that presentation from "What the Bleep do we Know?" I'll give you $20 if you can find the laser splitting experiment on What the Bleep. I saw that movie like 3 years ago, and they have no copyright on scientific fact. That movie was a nutjob new age hippie fest that needs to never be called science.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
◄Thats so Awesome!►
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Needs more Schrdinger.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618 give me my 20 bucks.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
5'd for epic win, please make more of these awesome sites.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
mmmm...hot pockets....
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
what we need more of is science
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
make it jsut a little slower. i cant take all that in that fast. but that is crazy.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
I love this; please present some more. Also, a question (which I suppose I could just look up but I'd rather have some interaction with the community): does this YTMND represent the Observer Effect or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Or both? Is there a difference?
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
owned
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
HOOOOOOOOOT POOOOOOOOOOCKETS
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Um locutus.... that has nothing about lasers and photons in it.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Too fast. I can read everything, but not look at the diagrams.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
WTF is the reading level of this website. If you can't keep up with this ytmnd, you're f*cking functionally illiterate.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Hot Pockets.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Bravo you did it again!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Should be titled "Why Quantum Physics is Boring" but 3 for originality and effort.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
large heaping amounts of fail light is not carried by electrons . light is EMITTED by electrons with frequency equal to the frequency vibration of the electron.. So wouldnt that infer that obviously at each point that the light that is emitted behaves, obviously, as a wave. Saying that light is carried somehow through or by matter is ridiculous. its amazing how few people have taken an actual class in physics however......... 5'd for hotpockets!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
oh btw
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
hot pockets!!!! CRASAAAZY oh man this is crazy
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
HOOOOTTT POCKETTTTT!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
mindf*ck 5
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
There's the Everett many worlds interpretation, that's pretty interesting. Also, the whole holographic universe model. This is really cool and interesting stuff.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
hot pockets
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Damn it you should brun in hell for making me learn while being entertained 5'd
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Electical intereference by the detectors.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
So far, we have shown how one goes from an ordinary quantum theory to a quantum field theory. There are certain systems for which no ordinary quantum theory exists. These are the "classical" fields, such as the electromagnetic field. There is no such thing as a wavefunction for a single photon in classical electromagnetisim, so a quantum field theory must be formulated right from the start. The essential difference between an ordinary system of particles and the electromagnetic field is the number of dynamical degrees of freedom. For a system of N particles, there are 3N coordinate variables corresponding to the position of each particle, and 3N conjugate momentum variables. One formulates a classical Hamiltonian using these variables, and obtains a quantum theory by turning the coordinate and position variables into quantum operators, and postulating commutation relations between them
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
For an electromagnetic field, the analogue of the coordinate variables are the values of the electrical potential and the vector potential at every point . This is an uncountable set of variables, because is continuous. This prevents us from postulating the same commutation relation as before. The way out is to replace the Kronecker delta with a Dirac delta function. This ends up giving us a commutation relation exactly like the one for field operators! We therefore end up treating "fields" and "particles" in the same way, using the apparatus of quantum field theory. Only by accident electrons were not regarded as de Broglie waves and photons governed by geometrical optics were not the dominant theory when QFT was developed.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Supersymmetry assumes that every fundamental fermion has a superpartner which is a boson and vice versa. It was introduced in order to solve the so-called Hierarchy Problem, that is, to explain why particles not protected by any symmetry (like the Higgs boson) do not receive radiative corrections to its mass driving it to the larger scales (GUT, Planck...). It was soon realized that supersymmetry has other interesting properties: its gauged version is an extension of general relativity (Supergravity), and it is a key ingredient for the consistency of string theory. The way supersymmetry protects the hierarchies is the following: since for every particle there is a superpartner with the same mass, any loop in a radiative correction is cancelled by the loop corresponding to its superpartner, rendering the theory UV finite.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
A cat is placed in a sealed box. Attached to the box is an apparatus containing a radioactive atomic nucleus and a canister of poison gas. This apparatus is separated from the cat in such a way that the cat can in no way interfere with it. The experiment is set up so that there is exactly a 50% chance of the nucleus decaying in one hour. If the nucleus decays, it will emit a particle that triggers the apparatus, which opens the canister and kills the cat. If the nucleus does not decay, then the cat remains alive. According to quantum mechanics, the unobserved nucleus is described as a superposition (meaning it exists partly as each simultaneously) of "decayed nucleus" and "undecayed nucleus". However, when the box is opened the experimenter sees only a "decayed nucleus/dead cat" or an "undecayed nucleus/living cat."
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
The question is: when does the system stop existing as a mixture of states and become one or the other (see basis function)? The purpose of the experiment is to illustrate a paradox; as Schrdinger wrote: "The [wavefunction] for the entire system would [have] the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression) [sic] mixed or smeared out in equal parts."[1] Because we cannot get along without making classical approximations, quantum mechanics is incomplete without some rules to relate the classical and quantum descriptions. One way of looking at this connection is to say that the wavefunction collapses and the cat becomes dead or remains alive instead of a mixture of both. NEDM!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
^ "A cat is placed in a sealed box. Attached to the box is an apparatus containing a radioactive atomic nucleus and a canister of poison gas." ... not cool. prepare to be banned.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
This is some crazy stuff. Please do more!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
I heard something like this about the electrons in an atom. It seems that scientists can know WHERE an electron is in an atom, or HOW FAST that same electron is traveling, but never both.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
You know they had this stuff figured out way back in the 1920s.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Pretty much they are creating a testable proof of the cat of Schrodinger. Until observation neither alive nor dead nor even a cat. Potential cat. If phenomenon, like god is unobserved it does not exist materially.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
5 for Jim Gaffigan Also 5 for learning from this.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
texas A&M ftw
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
interesting
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
umm... if you're referring to the principle of "one cannot know the position and direction of an electron without changing it," common science knowledge- that's because the only way to detect something as miniscule as an electron is by using electrons.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
I remember this from grade 12 physics.... so cool... NOTHING EXISTS WITHOUT AN OBSERVER!! (like schrodinger's cat!) poor litte guy..
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Slit is another word for vagina.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Yeppers...hmm. Sound like "they" are trying to tell us something. Gee, I wonder what "it" could be?
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
IN CANADA, LAZERS COME IN BAGS
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Yay science~
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
my protons go through a slit between a pair of female legs
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
You see, I was gonna give you a 1, but then someone started watching me... o_0
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
5 for "HOT POCKETS!" and then back to serious
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
►◄◄►►►◄◄◄►►►◄◄◄◄►►►►◄Cool!◄◄►►►►◄◄►◄◄◄►►►◄◄►►◄◄
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
werner heisenberg
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Bravo, although I almost closed the window at Hot Pockets.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Gedankenexperiment
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
You sure did your homework.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
the.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Should have ended with Hot Pockets. After Hot Pockets, I went to the kitchen, made a Hot Pocket, ate it, came back, and the slideshow was still running. TLDR.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
"That movie was a nutjob new age hippie fest that needs to never be called science." You are 100% right on that.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Wow, 5'd for ignorant comments like "light is a wave, that's it." You should parallel this uncertainty experiment with a site called "lol heisenberg!"
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
HOT POCKETS!!!!1
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
What we need is a Heisenberg Compensator from Star Trek...
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
GO AGGIES!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
lol Heisenberg
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
add a camera lolz
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Hahaha, Firing into a slit
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
5 for an aggie... and I suppose all of that physics stuff is cool, too.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
I just noticed your screen name too... Awesome. An insta five regardless of this site's coolness.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
"its becuz of teh measuring device its so simple" No bitches, its not because of the measuring device. Exactly how would a measuring device affect whether or not an electron is matter or wave ? If the answer would be so simple that even you could answer it, chances are it's not good enough.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
-4 for no NEDM, but 5 cuz it's awesome. I remember my 10th grade science teacher telling me about this.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
5'd on principle, to counteract downvoting *ssh*l*es. But that F*CKING "What the bleep" movie is a cinematic abortion and a perversion of scientific principles.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Quantum Physics makes my brain go bulimic.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Slideshows suck, predictable non sequiturs suck and Jim Gaffigan sucks.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
5'd it for sure next time talk about quantum computer.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
*claps like retarded child* Mooooore!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
how dare you attempt to bring hot pockets down to the level of this sh*t
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
please slow it down a bit...then I'll five
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
"Also, if we were shrunk down, how would watching it with our own eyes change from if we were regular size." You would actually be able to see the evidence yourself. So i guess you could say it doesn't seem to be the physical action of watching, but rather the conscious act of seeing and knowing. Of course many argue that the measurement taints the evidence, but sight is also our form of measurement. So it's impossible to take all measurement out and have a truly unbiased truth. However, if the electron is going through both slits, in order to make the wave pattern (which it must since it doesn't with one slit) how does measuring it passing through one slit prevent its probability wave from traveling through the other???? Things to ponder.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
You can't exactly bounce photons off an electron to "see" it. I'm not sure, but I think the scientists are using some type of magnet the electron has to pass by, or "shield" that the electrons has to pass through. Otherwise, how would you detect it? Either one of these (even bumping a photon off it) disturbs the path of the electron. I don't know exactly why this would cause it to act like a particle instead, but it is not simply just "watching" an electron that makes it do this. It's interference.
November 11th, 2009
(0)
The "detection" is actually by magnet type devices that put spin on the particle, and the spin is then detected on the final detection film. A different direction of spin for each slit.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
The particles are watching us! IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
YAY, you're taking an "intro to quantum something or other" course, why don't you just post the syllabus so we don't have to sit through another one of these.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
my god i want a hot pocket now... DAMN YOU
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Hot pockets and science for the 5
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Actually I've known all this for quite sometime now. I'm no physicist but I still remember how much it blew my mind to learn this stuff. A Small Glimpse inspired me.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
"No fair! you changed the outcome by measuring it!" -Professor Farnsworth
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
I'm f*cking scared man... also, 5'd for 'Hoooot, Poooockets!'
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
See this is why I don't believe in the concept of supercomputers. You have to believe they work otherwise they don't. It really irritates me.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Through me, you have found the stars you have been seeking.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
What the hellll...
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
In the future, all science education will be via YTMNDs. ALL HAIL THE RISE OF THE ADD GENERATION!!!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
God told me to 5 this.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Thing is, they don't know they're being watched BY PEOPLE. Just as pointing a flashlight on something makes light physically bounce off it (returning info to our eyes), the detector must be affected in a specific way by what it detects. Passive sensors, ala Star Trek, are not here yet.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
link to some source material to where you found this information
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
This one, and the first one, where stupid.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
"A cat is placed in a sealed box. Attached to the box is an apparatus containing a radioactive atomic nucleus and a canister of poison gas."......Not even quantum physics justifies the experimentation on innocent cats....NEQP!!!!!!!1
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
(link to some source material to where you found this information) MMM ok http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Texture-Reality-Vintage/dp/0375727205/sr=8-1/qid=1159066966/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6652836-9807224?ie=UTF8&s=books http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/076790818X/sr=1-1/qid=1159066997/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6652836-9807224?ie=UTF8&s=books There's a start. I didn't get any of this off the internets :(
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
NEQP FTW!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Meh, sounds like bullsh*t to me.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
you WIN, please try again ^_^
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
This could make a good intro video in school science classes. At least students would pay attention. :-) Good work Texaggie79!
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
baylor bear. rrraaawwwrrr
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
If this is true, then it disproves god even more, because since electrons behave differently when being watched, and god sees everything, yet they still act as though they are not being watched, then that means that god can't see them. There you have it.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
If you shrunk down to electron size, you still wouldn't be able to see the electrons unless you bounced photons off of them. (Or took energy out of their EM fields, or some other action which modifies the electron's properties). This action is much more likely to be what collapses the wave function, not the conscious act of seeing.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Just watch Elegant Universe presented by nova. More full presentation, plus you get to learn about strings which are even crazier.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Goddamn, Quantum Physics is so cool.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
dident understand it one bit.. you lost me right after the hot pockets (that was funny BTW) anyway 5'd because if i had gotten it im sure it would have been intersting.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
So many things wrong with this. The most obvious thing to say here is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Of *course* things change when we observe them, because our very act of observation changes them. Next, cite your sources on those experiments. And take some physics courses.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
-4 for "physics is". It's physics ARE. You could have salvaged a 5 by simply placing also c*cks at the end... or by, you know, explaining why the particles behave differently when the detectors are placed on the two mirrors. But oh well.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
I love this kind of sh*t
September 23rd, 2006
(1)
"-4 for "physics is". It's physics ARE." Quantum Physics, as a subject, is cool. PWNT
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
its human brainwaves affecting the particles, lol. but very good stuff.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Awesome.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Ugh, um, you kind of fail at logic. Photons arent concious. When you fire them at a detector, the detector has to absorb them to detect them. So when you fire the individual photon off it gets destroyed. Or more likely, some of the energy is absorbed and that turns it into a particle.... Something like that.... Either way, I dont know why people do not see that.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Wow, I remember hearing something about particles knowing we are watching them, but I dissmissed it as true lunacy...guess I was WRONG!
September 24th, 2006
(0)
Weezer: if he could explain why the particles acted differently, I would image he would receive a lot more than a 5. Try the Nobel Prize.
September 24th, 2006
(0)
Gig 'em and please make a part 3.
September 24th, 2006
(0)
uh yeah observation only happens due to energy being exerted.
September 24th, 2006
(0)
No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!
September 24th, 2006
(0)
"The act of watching the photon doesn't change the experiment the act of measuring the photon changes the experiment, please don't start with this whole O YOU CHANGE THE RESULT bullsh*t, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem to find the truth behind the problem, the problem lies with measurement not with observation" Note to self, read comments BEFORE posting your own...
September 24th, 2006
(0)
The reason they act like particles when you're trying to observe them is because you have to pelt them with subatomic particles to locate them (photons?). It ruins it's individual probability wave when it interacts with another particle fixing it's path. The reason you can use photons outside of a vaccum in this experiment is because they're so small that the chances of them interacting with atoms in the air are slim. All matter behaves like a wave it's just waves cancel themselves out like you said.
September 24th, 2006
(0)
Don't get spiritual. It pisses me off. You're not taking so many things in consideration. You're not even a dilettante on the subject.
September 24th, 2006
(0)
Number 3 please!
September 24th, 2006
(0)
lol mind rape
September 24th, 2006
(0)
moar
September 24th, 2006
(0)
This is indeed a much more interesting principle. However your presentation was worse. Too many tangents and spelling errors.
September 24th, 2006
(0)
You still didn't answer my question about DeBroglie wavelengths. Plus it is impossible to observe electrons with the eye. In order for such a thing to occur, the eye would have to shrink to the atomic level; in order for that to occur, the atoms and their subatomic particles would have to shrink. Using the eye to observe electrons is impossible; using a detector is different. Plus, it seems like kind of an old scientific postulate that, at the atomic level, something changes when observed.
September 24th, 2006
(1)
The detectors themselves are made of different material (different molecules, atoms) than the mirror, and it doesn't seem so extraordinary that some kind of change would occur due to electron projection interference. Electrons don't "know" they're being watched, they simply respond to the attractions and repulsions of other subatomic particles.
<< 1 2 >>