Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt 3 (Updated Pt 4 Link)
Created on: September 26th, 2006
Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt 3 (Updated Pt 4 Link)
Part 1 at http://quantumiscool1.ytmnd.com Part 2 at http://quantamiscool2.ytmnd.com Part 3 at http://wqpic4.ytmnd.com/

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
i win
September 26th, 2006
(1)
damnit
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Yes! Moar quntum fizix, plz. +1 for music too.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
this doesnt make any sense :(
September 26th, 2006
(0)
This sounds like it supports, strongly, the mulitiverse idea. In which all possible realities exist in an infinite number of universes. However, please explain how Heisbenberg's uncertainty principle plays into this.
May 11th, 2007
(0)
Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not apply.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
YAY Circular reasoning FTW!!
September 26th, 2006
(0)
in b4 weenies.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
The uncertainty principle is mainly about being able to know the location or the velocity of a particle, but never both at the same time. Also it includes not being able to know the spin of more than one axis per particle. Neither really play into this, as we simply need to know the location at a given time.
September 26th, 2006
(1)
The problem is: If the results (wave pattern/no wave pattern) are correlated to the presence of a detector, then the detector has an effect on the results. If the detector changes the results, then you are talking about 2 different experiments, not one. In one expiriment you produce a wave pattern because no detector is present. In another, you do not produce a wave pattern because a detector is present. The results are not duplicated. It is not the same.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
This is probably made of win
September 26th, 2006
(0)
OMG 10th! Also qontam fizziks ftw. I vote make the text stay up a bit long so you can have time to read it then examine the pictures for more than a split second.
September 26th, 2006
(1)
I'm still working on fractions and long division.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
No. I just showed how having the detection devices ON, yet erasing the evidence brings back the wave pattern, just as if the devices were not on. I can go further into this with the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment with laser splitting to further illustrate the point. But the point remains, we can even leave the particles in question unaltered, without any measurements, and only measure their idler photons, and the only factor that determines an interference pattern is us knowing the path or not.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
They are teh same pics from teh 1 and teh 2.... keep up now... :P
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Not only does this inform but the music ends and loops perfectly. Well made.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
It's not peek-a-boo, though... you can't just say that cognition is the determining factor. The determining factor is ___________. We may not know what it is, but it certainly isn't "us knowing the path". Actually, I'll even give you that it could merely be a cognitive faculty. They haven't isolated the cognitive faculty and shown that this is the cause. The results change. There is a cause for this. The cause is unkown. That seems to be all that the evidence points to.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
The photon knows where it is at all times. The photon knows this because it knows where it isn't. If we subtract where the photon is by where the photon isn't, or where the photon isn't by where the photon is - whichever's greater - we get really confused. X3 Just kidding around. I love your sites, SCIENCE RULES
September 26th, 2006
(0)
LOL I WAS THINKING THAT MARISAMA
September 26th, 2006
(0)
The sheer enormity of this sort of thing is mind-boggling. I really enjoy these YTMND's.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
cool
September 26th, 2006
(0)
1'd for politics
September 26th, 2006
(0)
!!!
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Quote, "the the," and your image did not match up with text, you said destroy A, yet B was on fire.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
fix the, "the the" line and put iamthenra is teh sex for nothing since I already 5'd it.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
raymond chiao taught one of the physics classes i took a couple years ago. keep up the good work! these kind of educational slideshows are actually interesting. i look forward to further installments of the series. =D
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Where's the the?
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Don't forget to mention Schodingers cat, and Stephen Hawkings quote.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Fix typos for 5 and my head a splode.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Fixed
September 26th, 2006
(0)
So much to read.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
^ha, what a generalization. There is no changing the past, it's observation of the present that determines how we observe the past.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
albert einstein said this sh*t scared him, god i love science. 5 for education.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Why do you mock me so with your butterscotch pudding?
September 26th, 2006
(0)
+ 7 for attempting to make an educational ytmnd - 5 for quantum physics, which fails at logic
September 26th, 2006
(0)
"Imagining the Tenth Dimension" is a good read if you are into this kinda stuff. You also have to be open minded.
September 26th, 2006
(-1)
2'd for posting some crap you just learned in a physics course and thinking were all idiots and do not understand it.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
YTMND Makes learning fun! I look forward to your next episode, although it makes me feel like this is newgrounds. Minus all the hentai links.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
these aren't good
September 26th, 2006
(0)
D-, Black slides? See me after class.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Yes, please.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
4 for educating us. Yes, Quantum Physics is cool. I couldn't even follow most of that, but it does sound just about right from what I've learned about it in the past.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
I need more!!!! MAKE ANOTHER ASAP!!!
September 26th, 2006
(0)
â—„I know you don't really come to a conclusion in the piece, but what IS your conclusion? That the particles can travel through time? That they are sentient? I'm curious to know.â–º
September 26th, 2006
(-1)
Let us consider a free particle. In quantum mechanics, there is wave-particle duality so the properties of the particle can be described as a wave. Therefore, its quantum state can be represented as a wave, of arbitrary shape and extending over all of space, called a wavefunction. The position and momentum of the particle are observables. The Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics states that both the position and the momentum cannot simultaneously be known with infinite precision at the same time. However, we can measure just the position alone of a moving free particle creating an eigenstate of position with a wavefunction that is very large at a particular position x, and zero everywhere else. If we perform a position measurement on such a wavefunction, we will obtain the result x with 100% probability. In other words, we will know the position of the free particle. This is called an eigenstate of position.
September 26th, 2006
(-1)
If the particle is in an eigenstate of position then its momentum is completely unknown. An eigenstate of momentum, on the other hand, has the form of a plane wave. It can be shown that the wavelength is equal to h/p, where h is Planck's constant and p is the momentum of the eigenstate. If the particle is in an eigenstate of momentum then its position is completely blurred out. Usually, a system will not be in an eigenstate of whatever observable we are interested in. However, if we measure the observable, the wavefunction will immediately become an eigenstate of that observable. This process is known as wavefunction collapse. If we know the wavefunction at the instant before the measurement, we will be able to compute the probability of collapsing into each of the possible eigenstates. For example, the free particle in our previous example will usually have a wavefunction that is a wave packet centered around some mean position x0, neither an eigenstate of position nor of momentum. When we measure the p
September 26th, 2006
(-1)
After we perform the measurement, obtaining some result x, the wavefunction collapses into a position eigenstate centered at x. Wave functions can change as time progresses. An equation known as the Schrödinger equation describes how wave functions change in time, a role similar to Newton's second law in classical mechanics. The Schrödinger equation, applied to our free particle, predicts that the center of a wave packet will move through space at a constant velocity, like a classical particle with no forces acting on it. However, the wave packet will also spread out as time progresses, which means that the position becomes more uncertain. This also has the effect of turning position eigenstates (which can be thought of as infinitely sharp wave packets) into broadened wave packets that are no longer position eigenstates.
September 26th, 2006
(-1)
Some wave functions produce probability distributions that are constant in time. Many systems that are treated dynamically in classical mechanics are described by such "static" wave functions. For example, a single electron in an unexcited atom is pictured classically as a particle moving in a circular trajectory around the atomic nucleus, whereas in quantum mechanics it is described by a static, spherically symmetric wavefunction surrounding the nucleus.
September 26th, 2006
(-1)
The time evolution of wave functions is deterministic in the sense that, given a wavefunction at an initial time, it makes a definite prediction of what the wavefunction will be at any later time. During a measurement, the change of the wavefunction into another one is not deterministic, but rather unpredictable, i.e., random. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics thus stems from the act of measurement. This is one of the most difficult aspects of quantum systems to understand. It was the central topic in the famous Bohr-Einstein debates, in which the two scientists attempted to clarify these fundamental principles by way of thought experiments. In the decades after the formulation of quantum mechanics, the question of what constitutes a "measurement" has been extensively studied. Interpretations of quantum mechanics have been formulated to do away with the concept of "wavefunction collapse"; see, for example, the relative state interpretation. The basic idea is that when a quantum system interacts
September 26th, 2006
(-1)
In the mathematically rigorous formulation of quantum mechanics, developed by Paul Dirac and John von Neumann, the possible states of a quantum mechanical system are represented by unit vectors (called "state vectors") residing in a complex separable Hilbert space (variously called the "state space" or the "associated Hilbert space" of the system) well defined upto a complex number of norm 1 (the phase factor). In other words, the possible states are points in the projectivization of a Hilbert space. The exact nature of this Hilbert space is dependent on the system; for example, the state space for position and momentum states is the space of square-integrable functions, while the state space for the spin of a single proton is just the product of two complex planes. Each observable is represented by a densely defined Hermitian (or self-adjoint) linear operator acting on the state space. Each eigenstate of an observable corresponds to an eigenvector of the operator, and the associated eigenvalue corresponds t
September 26th, 2006
(-2)
The time evolution of a quantum state is described by the Schrödinger equation, in which the Hamiltonian, the operator corresponding to the total energy of the system, generates time evolution. The inner product between two state vectors is a complex number known as a probability amplitude. During a measurement, the probability that a system collapses from a given initial state to a particular eigenstate is given by the square of the absolute value of the probability amplitudes between the initial and final states. The possible results of a measurement are the eigenvalues of the operator - which explains the choice of Hermitian operators, for which all the eigenvalues are real. We can find the probability distribution of an observable in a given state by computing the spectral decomposition of the corresponding operator. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is represented by the statement that the operators corresponding to certain observables do not commute.
September 26th, 2006
(-2)
The Schrödinger equation acts on the entire probability amplitude, not merely its absolute value. Whereas the absolute value of the probability amplitude encodes information about probabilities, its phase encodes information about the interference between quantum states. This gives rise to the wave-like behavior of quantum states. It turns out that analytic solutions of Schrödinger's equation are only available for a small number of model Hamiltonians, of which the quantum harmonic oscillator, the particle in a box, the hydrogen-molecular ion and the hydrogen atom are the most important representatives. Even the helium atom, which contains just one more electron than hydrogen, defies all attempts at a fully analytic treatment. There exist several techniques for generating approximate solutions.
May 10th, 2007
(2)
Good job copying and pasting.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Uhm.. I dont know how other people think about it, but a lot of the stuff is out there. You have enough time to read the stuff, but not enough time to really get it. Because it's counter intuitive. At least for me
September 26th, 2006
(0)
You made my head hurt. 5 for TX, 5 for making me feel dumber than I really am, and the end result is the product of the Law of Diminishing Returns.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
I learn more on YTMND than I did at school. Well done, Tex! :-) jorrar, I'd like to read your comments but I'm tired so I'll read them later. I don't know if I'll understand them but I'll try.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Yeah...circular reasoning w00t.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Quantum Physics are the way to go man, and quantum physics isnt even new.. Researchers were studying it back in the 60s.. And NOW people are starting to think that maybe theyre right.. Anyways 5'd and FAV for explaining some cool stuff!
September 26th, 2006
(-1)
the skeptics are morons who can't grasp a simple breakdown of quantum mechanics
September 26th, 2006
(0)
4 thumbs up :)
September 26th, 2006
(0)
the aggies SUCK
September 26th, 2006
(1)
If you can convince me that if you fire one photon, it travels BOTH paths for sure, but if you use the detector, it only travels one, then you win. But what you SEEM to be saying is that you put a steady beam without observation, and half go each way. And then, you observe, and half go each way. I dont see how your observations changes this!!! Probability != positiion.
September 26th, 2006
(1)
Its like saying "There is a ball in one of two boxes... at any given time, half is in each box. But when you put scales under them, the ball is only in one box! OMGWTF!" Probability is NOT reality
September 26th, 2006
(0)
FTL. Quantum Physics has done nothing for the science community. We need another great scientist to throw these quantum people in the garbage.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Clearly the universe uses hax.
September 26th, 2006
(1)
(Also, by viewing this YTMND, I have altered its rating.)
May 11th, 2007
(0)
LOL
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Ready photon torpedos. Target: God. lol
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Quantum mechanics is non-local. Good times. Also, EPR.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
I've studied quantum physics myself and still think it's quite mind boggling. For the rest of everyone else: instead of calling the author a liar, how about you do some research yourself. This stuff is obviously too much for the simple minds of most YTMNDers. But then again, most of them are about 13 years old. Look up the information yourselves...read this to start off: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html
September 26th, 2006
(-1)
I'm tired of hearing of this psuedo-intellectual bullsh*t invading this website like everyone is a f*cking nobel prize winner in Physics. You guys have no future in these fields, so go get f*cked.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Your mom is Quantum Physics
September 26th, 2006
(0)
this would make a pretty cool science project
September 26th, 2006
(0)
HE'S A WITCH!! BURN HIM!!!!!!!!!11!1
September 26th, 2006
(0)
yeah, lets burn him
September 26th, 2006
(-1)
It's teh funneh. The more of these I post, the more ignorant the comments get.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
+5 for purple haze.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
make sure you make 4th too. and 5th. and 6th.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
yeah...screw all the haters. these are cool
September 26th, 2006
(-1)
Existence is nothing more than a sea of mathematical quantum probabilities. We exist by chance.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
...
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Physics rules, we need more of these sites.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
actually, its not that cool.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
The thing is that this isn't shocking. Most people think of photons as infinitessimal THINGS being flung about through space, like microscoping tennis balls or atomic nuclei. They are not. Photons are "packets" with no mass; they're not physical things. They're a way of visualizing a subatomic force. We think of them as tiny dots being shot out of a laser and find is mind-boggling that they could be in two places at once, but the reality of the situation is they're NOT tennis balls, they don't have any mass
September 26th, 2006
(0)
...to speak of and they're not OBJECTS. That a photon is representative of all of its possible paths (think the electron cloud model) is bizarre only because we try to compare them to things they are not. If we inacurately compare a photon with an object, then of course it is shocking. But photons are something else entirely. it is the model that is faulty. It's similar to how molecules are constructed for observation with little bars between them; they're actually nothing like this, but it helps to think
September 26th, 2006
(0)
of them that way. Likewise, it helps us to think of photons as particles moving in predictable patterns, but this is not what they actually are. On another note, the idea that OBSERVING a photon's location forces it to act like a particle is not accurately represented. It is the MEASUREMENT of their location which causes it, because in measuring a photon its potential path has changed. If a photon has a series of infinite paths between the laser and the paper, it is considered to be in all of those
September 26th, 2006
(0)
places. However, when a device used to measure their location is introduced into the system, they can no longer represent "all potential paths between laser and paper" because there are two distinct sets: "All potential paths between laser and paper" (the one slit), and "All potential paths between laser and measuring device". It is the device which interferes with their paths and causes them to behave as independent systems, rather than a single system. The measuring device isn't invisible, THAT'S the
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Go away.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
To the above poster, photons DO have mass. Think about F=ma. Ever seen that thing that looks like a handheld fan, except one side of each fan blade is black and the other white? It spins when put in sunlight, because SOMETHING is pushing harder on the white side.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
relevance of Heisenberg. As to the spin experiment, I may not iunderstand exactly how it was carried out, but if my comprehension serves me it is the fact that a tool is used to "erase" them that causes them to behave like waves again, not the thing being erased. See, they would not hit the erasing tool in a wave pattern, but leaving said tool they change, this time representing the set of "All possible outcomes between erasing tool and paper".
September 26th, 2006
(0)
In fact, you could get a close estimate of a photon's mass with this instrument. Using F=ma, you can calculate the force directed on the blades through its mass and velocity, then compare this to the number of photons hitting the blades (lumens/surface area X constant), that gives you force per photon. Since we know the velocity of the photon we can get it's acceleration, we have force per photon = mass times the newly acquired acceleration. Solve for M :D
September 26th, 2006
(0)
@GDroxor (from Wikipedia, which is the first source I found): "The photon is massless,[6] has no electric charge[7] and does not decay spontaneously in empty space." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photons
September 26th, 2006
(0)
yes, technically the photon has no mass "at rest"... but the point is the same, which is that it is not an object in the conventional sense. It has mass for certain functions, but it is not a THING, in that its size is directly related to its motion. The point is not technicalities, it's to demonstrate that a photon is not an object (and I'd assume you'd agree), but can best be represented that way in our imaginations. I guess what I mean is the sooner you stop visualizing a tennis ball as your photon ...
September 26th, 2006
(0)
It's really sad when the ignorance of people gets in the way of actual scientific data. How many of these any-sayers have actually been in a quantum physics class? How many of them would argue the same arguments with the professor? The answer is ZERO. Because they would be wrong. Just as they are wrong now. ----- If anything, the whiny nay-sayers are just looking to refute something using their own perception of logic...morons.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
..the sooner this makes sense.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
It has no electric charge because it does not associate with electrons. For all intents and purposes we consider photons to be massless simply because it makes the math easier. They do exhibit work on their surroundings, therefore they have energy, and must have mass.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
@thegoat: You don't argue with professors because in lower-level physics courses (not Masters Thesis stuff, just the basic prereqs) you'd rather pass that pick a fight. I've had too many foolish professors in too many subjects to take their word as golden. I'm not trying to refute any experiments here. I know full well what the double-slit experiment is and says. I'm simply trying to put it in a different perspective, void of all the stoner psychological implications. We're NOT talking about one thing
September 26th, 2006
(0)
... also c*cks
September 26th, 2006
(0)
being in two places at once because it's not a conventional "THING". And we're not talking about the very act of observing the photon, we're talking about how "observation" in the world of quantum particles means "measurement", and placing any object in the potential path of a photon is going to alter its behaviour. Heisenberg isn't a principle only for subatomic particles: If you go into the wild and study primitive tribes, don't you think that the fact that you are there is going to change the way they
September 26th, 2006
(0)
act? It's not because of some trippy psychobabble, it's because "observing" them by definition means interacting with them. The same is true for the photons; it's not, nor can it be with modern technology, possible to observe without interaction.
September 26th, 2006
(-1)
boring
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Summary: It's a wave until you look at it. Then it's not. I hope that cleared things up for a few of you.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Again, though, "Look at it" only applies because in order to look at it, you must interfere with it. If, as the author said (in either this or the last one), you could shrink down to a microscopic size and watch it fly by, it would never have a wavefunction collapse because your observation does not interfere with it, causing its nature to change. OOH! Do Schroedinger's cat and quantum suicide for the next one.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
I don't understand this 'science'.... it must be... what do those science folk call it... CIRCULAR REASONING ARRRGGHHH
September 26th, 2006
(-1)
wtf is ytmnd becoming?
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Toxikator does a much better job explaining the experiment, in my opinion. You two should collaborate. Also, F=ma, the velocity of a photon = c, c is constant, a=0. That solves that problem (gdroxor). F=ma is for mechanics.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
D'oh! You called me on it, Korf41. I stand corrected. I keep forgetting you can't apply quantum mechanics principles to quantum physics applications. If we could, that would solve a hell of a lot of questions.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
(or any mechanics principles)
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Einstien never did believe Quantum Mechanics was anything more than a probability-representation of something more fundimental that we don't yet understand. "God does not play dice." Being a determinist, myself, I'm in that same boat with him. Quantum physics makes some good points, but it is not going to be a part of the unifying theory of everything, if and when we wrap our minds around that one.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
What the f*ck, get this boring sh*t off YTMND now.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Man I love these YTMNDs, such interesting comments! Kinda better than rolling a quarter to a group of mentally challenged kids!
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Excllent series of sites. Though if you want my advice (which you probably don't), I'd leave off with attempting to convince skeptics. People who're 1-ing you are going to continue to 1 you, and those of us who can grasp the simplified concepts expressed here are going to continue to learn and be amused.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Keep the EduTMND's comin. Also, STRING F*CKING THEORY!!! Also spocks.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Its like saying "There is a ball in one of two boxes... at any given time, half is in each box. But when you put scales under them, the ball is only in one box! OMGWTF!" Probability is NOT reality - Pettitman On the contrary, it is. FTL. Quantum Physics has done nothing for the science community. We need another great scientist to throw these quantum people in the garbage. - w1ngzer0 It's been proven. It's helped us understand the universe on the most basic scales.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
And to everyone else who downvoted because they didn't understand it, just don't vote. If you're too stupid to understand it, it's not our fault. Nor is it Quantum Physics' fault.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
slideshows are cool and interesting
September 26th, 2006
(0)
PAUL KWIAT!? I TOOK ONE OF HIS CLASSES!! He dresses as Spider Man for Halloween.....
September 26th, 2006
(0)
Legendary Win
September 27th, 2006
(0)
i love this stuff dude. please, please keep it coming.
September 27th, 2006
(0)
in b4 preload
September 27th, 2006
(0)
These are really interesting. Keep up the good work!
September 27th, 2006
(0)
I'm freakin curious here. I can't seem to find any information about this or not, but, were these experiments (the lazer one and the double slit experiment) performed in a vacuum enviroment? If not, then the molecules of air floating around should theoretically cause some sort of interference, correct? or am i on some sort of wrong track, here?
September 27th, 2006
(0)
Vacuum is a given. Be pretty pointless not to do these in a vacuum.
September 27th, 2006
(0)
mmk, thanks! Fascinating stuff, though.
September 27th, 2006
(0)
Hey everyone lets look at Eekdacat, he must be really smart and know alot.
September 28th, 2006
(0)
WTF IS THIS! HUMAN EYE EFFECTS PARTICLES! Holy sh*t they are like Shy Guy...
September 28th, 2006
(0)
5 for fixing the internets
September 28th, 2006
(0)
your broccoli is in danger.
September 28th, 2006
(0)
I approve.
September 28th, 2006
(0)
don't keep your hopes up about educating YTMND. The fads and constant use of "^_^" here tells me that it would be easier to explain it to a donkey. YTMND is retard central.
September 28th, 2006
(0)
how long did this take you :D
September 28th, 2006
(0)
I like Dr-L337's part 4 better.
September 28th, 2006
(0)
Where's my warp drive suckas?!? (5 for interesting topic + 1 for YTMND presentation )/2=3 stars
September 28th, 2006
(0)
Magic is in the air!
September 28th, 2006
(0)
GLOWING TEXT!?!?!?!
September 28th, 2006
(0)
Pick a f*cking font and stick with it.
September 28th, 2006
(0)
5'd because of the subject and music.
September 28th, 2006
(0)
lol, edutainment
September 28th, 2006
(0)
"It is the device which interferes with their paths and causes them to behave as independent systems, rather than a single system. The measuring device isn't invisible" Here's the point I was making all along... if a = b and a = c then b = c. b =/= c, therefore a =/= b. By saying, "simply by obseriving the path of the particle we change the results" is misleading when you actually mean, "simply by using a measuring device we change the results".
September 28th, 2006
(0)
you forgot poland.....and humor.
September 28th, 2006
(0)
get some secks instead
September 28th, 2006
(0)
Intelligent people DO visit YTMND. Wow.
September 29th, 2006
(0)
I just dont get how all this is possible.
September 29th, 2006
(0)
We know where the particle is, because the particle knows where it isn't.
September 29th, 2006
(0)
No one does. It just is.
September 30th, 2006
(0)
make another one pleeeeease D=
September 30th, 2006
(0)
Pure genius. Indeed rather eye opening. Makes me laugh in my drunken stupor that these photons know im watching lmao.
September 30th, 2006
(0)
I'm considering making another. But 2 things give me pause. 1st, each one of these I do drops in numbers of views from the last one by about half. 2nd, I'm trying to think of another cool fact in Quantum Physics/Mechanics that wouldn't take me a 2 hour long gif to describe in a way that everyone could get it.
September 30th, 2006
(0)
This one also sucked.
October 1st, 2006
(0)
These rock, screw the retards.
October 1st, 2006
(0)
It really saddens me that there are so many people who are just skeptical and don't even give quantum physics a chance, or because they don't understand it they plead ignorance and just reject it. I pity these people, because it's things like this which show how amazing and mysterious the universe really is. 5'd
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
rocks!
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
part 4 out http://wqpic4.ytmnd.com/
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Texa, keep it up! These sites are awesome! science ymtnds, has always been one my favourites! nice work!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Pure win
October 4th, 2006
(0)
This isawesome! But -1 because some of the slides pass too quickly and I read slow.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
What if all possible realities exist at once in one reality?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Sumguy21 approves of this message.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
the only way to get a real infinite improbability drive is to make everyone look away or close their eyes when it is turned on
May 10th, 2007
(0)
Or at least to have no senses whatsoever. One might observe results via ear or touch. I suppose by killing everyone and everything we can obtain perfection.
May 10th, 2007
(0)
...I bet that's just what Cho was trying to do, Hahahhahaha
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Quantum physics....if i were smart enough i would major in it. We know so little about the things that everything is made of. Look at humans in the present day and the way we think, then look back 1000 years and observe how they thought. Could we be as clueless as we once were 1000 years ago, still? Absolutely.
(0)
god is smart.
October 6th, 2006
(0)
^^ Agrees
October 6th, 2006
(0)
What? Way too fast.
October 6th, 2006
(0)
"Part 3 at http://wqpic4.ytmnd.com/" Really? :D ..5'd
October 7th, 2006
(0)
Wow, i didn't know what a true retard was until I read some of the 1 star comments. good job
October 7th, 2006
(0)
Is it the act of measuring the results, or the act of observing the measurements, that causes the wave to collapse? (The latter implies that sapience is required, while the former could be done in the absence of any life at all.) Is there any way to tell the difference? We can't very well analyze our measurements without observing them first...
October 7th, 2006
(0)
There's detection, and there's measurement.
October 7th, 2006
(0)
The more basic you get in physics ( as in, the deeper you reach down into the explanantion), the less concerned about time the laws are. Quantum physics, as far as I know, doesn't give a damn about the arrow of time, which means that this probability wave collapse thing can take place. Awesome.
May 11th, 2007
(0)
BINGO. This guy gets it.
October 29th, 2006
(0)
4, because this time, you didn't make any obvious mistakes.
November 4th, 2006
(0)
I r smarter four having whatch'd dis!
November 29th, 2006
(0)
thanx for the upvote
January 27th, 2007
(0)
Your skeptics are stupid. All electronics work on this principle. That's why they're called ELECTRONics.
April 1st, 2007
(0)
nice, lol I'm afraid I did not read that far in because I ended up gettin a fever in the middle of reading it lol
May 10th, 2007
(0)
man, I will find the answers.
May 10th, 2007
(0)
but look. how can a particle travel through 2 PLACES in SPACE at the SAME TIME? I understand, that is what you are proving to us. These sites are mind-blowing proof that it does happen. But HOW???? or is that the question that scientists still can't figure out, how and why?
May 10th, 2007
(0)
Becasue Jesus wants it that way. There. Keeping it religious means to keep it simple, and therefore you can spend more time praying and adding to the collection plate, and less time actually thinking. Byaah!
May 10th, 2007
(0)
Sentient particles? Sentient particles that can alter their own detection results backwards through time? Matter and energy does not "choose" where it travels- it is merely probability. It's all very mucky. Intriguing nonetheless.
May 15th, 2007
(-2)
1, just because the creator of this denies global warming to be cause by men.
May 15th, 2007
(1)
lmao, forgive me for not being a gullible bandwagoner and making my conclusions from silly cartoons with treehugging heros.
June 12th, 2007
(0)
actualized quantum infinacy, impressive! A++
June 23rd, 2007
(0)
FIVE!
July 4th, 2007
(0)
I was waiting for the funny. Still waiting...
July 5th, 2007
(0)
-4 for lack of ZZZ
January 1st, 2011
(0)
oooh this is the stuff they were talking about in the book "Thrice Upon a Time". Realistic time travel ftw