Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt. 4 (Big DL)
Created on: October 3rd, 2006
Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt. 4 (Big DL)
Continuation of http://quantumiscool1.ytmnd.com/
None ( ._.)

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
<< 1 2 >>
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
i think you just blew my mind
October 3rd, 2006
(-2)
F, Late grade.
October 3rd, 2006
(-1)
I love these, but modern physics has made a grave assumption in the realm of particle physics. It's something ridiculously simple.
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
dude, this is the most awesome thing ever
October 3rd, 2006
(1)
I didn't understand most of it, but you mispelled "haveing".
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
Another reason why you do it is make sure that idiots like Dr. l337 (who made fun of this btw) don't completely invade YTMND. 5'd
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
Clever, but how is this experiment reproducible. We simply can't put detectors 5 light years away. We can't even put detectors a light minute away.
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
Outstanding series. Well done. Fascinating how quantum physics ignores/seems to transcend time.
October 3rd, 2006
(-4)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-4)
I ALREADY MADE PT. 4 *SSH*L*E http://quantuml337.ytmnd.com/
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
It's demonstrable because in the experiments that have actually taken place, the path of the idlers is farther than the path of the signal photons. Even though it is in nanoseconds in the future, the signal photons land and produce data before the idler photons either help us detect or erase the which path data. You can extend the idler photon splitters as far off as you wish, it is proven that the results will always be the same.
October 3rd, 2006
(1)
LAWL DR NUB. That's teh funneh. But l33t minded peeps can enjoy intelligence and hawt chix all at teh same time. It's called multi-tasking.
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
dammit, you made my colonoscopy bag burst...
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
man, i love quantum physics i think i'm still a year or two away from studying it, though.
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
5'd for educationtmnd
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
me gusta four
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
I'll 5 this if you get me some scientific paper.
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
1
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
Scientific paper? Like dis? http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047.pdf
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
Amazing stuff
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
to be honest the music really makes this. If you put some queer fad song like wonderful time or break my god damn stride it wouldn't have been nearly as good. Please PM me your whole playlist ASAP lol.
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
nice
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
aggies = f*gs go burn in another bonfire homo.
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
the music is pretty kickass
October 3rd, 2006
(-4)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-4)
Seriously this sh*t really is not for this website. I mean the f*cking site was started with a picture of sean connory pointing at a video camera, not quantum physics... why does everyone take YTMND so seriously sometimes? sheesh PS No HORSEDICK or NEDM makes this an insta fail classic
October 3rd, 2006
(0)
That's great Howdy, trying to educate people about the history of YTMND and you don't even spell Sean Connery's name right.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I'm sure CaptainHowdy would rather see some stupid fad(something that many other people have done many times) than learn something... what a douchebag...
October 4th, 2006
(-3)
Sir, you have just wasted 30sec of my time, this is not what ytmnd is for. As the great immortals once said, NO WIRE HANGERS EVER!!!! This goes for you as well.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
quantum physics is freaky
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I like the "we can't outsmart them" part. It's not that we're trying to trick them, it's that we're trying to understand the fundamental laws governing quantam physics. Again, the "whether or not we observed" is a cognitive claim... which makes it seem like if the path was measured but we didn't look at it we would get an interference pattern but when we look back and see which path it took it magically changes to a non-interference pattern.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
If the wording were changed it would clear things up... as in "when the path of the photon is measured" not "when we observe the path of the photon".
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Unfortunately the "ooh, ahh" factor is just that, as I take it nobody understands the cause for these discrepancies between measured/non-measured paths? Like, "Why do the seasons change when the sun is just revolving around us once per day? Is the earth rotating on an axis once every 365 days?" A change of perspective is needed... and I don't think part 5 is going to give us any answers =(
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I know why these particles act this way....it is God's firewall to prevent hacking. If we knew the future we could hax0rz it. (i.e. alter it in a way we want).
October 4th, 2006
(0)
rather...if we could alter the future (not necessarily know it), we could use it for our benefit.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
ok this is creepy.... I need to stop thinking...
October 4th, 2006
(0)
The measurement if you include the act of us knowing the results dictates the final result, however a measurement, without us knowing, will yield an interference pattern. This is proven with the Delayed Choice Experiment. Simply the observer KNOWING affects the outcome. There's no 2 ways about it.
October 4th, 2006
(1)
Techno? It's called Trance ya n00b :P
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I have a question (that will have to be broken into multiple parts) I was wondering if you could answer, as this is really starting to get creepy in a "wow, that's really amazing" sort of way. Suppose you had a detector, but you rigged it such that it wouldn't tell you whether or not it detected anything until you prompted it for this result, and such that you could delete the recorded result, making it impossible to ever know what the detector saw.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Basically, the situation is that the information is stored, but the human has no idea what it is, and could conceiveably never know. Here's the question: would this produce an interference pattern or a non-interference pattern? Alternatively, if the detector recorded the info but could NEVER release it to the human (it always deletes it, say, a minute after recording, and produces no output), what would show here? I suppose the basis of my question is that I'm wondering if the non-interference pattern is
October 4th, 2006
(0)
caused by a human knowing concretely the result, or if it's caused by a human having the POTENTIAL to know the result, whether or not he or she actually does.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
5 for music, this is the first one i watched lol MUSHROOMSS!!!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
WOOOOOOH.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I also just realized that this was sortly partly answered above, for which I apologize. :) If you care to directly respond, though, it would be appreciated. This is fascinating stuff.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Well. Theoretically, it can never be tested outright. Because if we never know, there is no way to know the results. However, this Delayed Choice Experiment, that produces potential to know the result, after the main detector has recorded an interference or noninterference pattern, shows that only if we completely erase the evidence of the path, does it produce a wave pattern. Another way to describe it would be to say, we don't really change the results by knowing, we simply understand the past better.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
When we didn't know why the earth spun, did we think the earth had outsmarted us? Not understanding doesn't mean things are "clever" or "smarter" than us. Your YTMNDs fail to make your points apparent. +1 just cause you're only doing it for music.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I'm not sure why you say that it can't be tested outright. Basically, my question is just this: if you can possibly know at a later time where the particle went, but if it's also possible for you to never know, which pattern would you see? Would the particle "know" in a sense whether or not you'd see the results in the future?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Sounds like multiverse proof! On a quantum level, perhaps they travel all possible routes through all possible universes, or something like that? Matrix....hmm lol
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I understand that humanizing the particles is not scientific, but this is science for the masses. If you understand Quantum Mechanics, WTF are u watching these in the first place? Gabu, the only time it has produced an interference pattern when they still had the potential to know is when they found out the evidence was erased. But this happens in nanoseconds. We haven't the technology to actually place detectors light years away.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
October 4th, 2006
(-1)
You forgot Poland
October 4th, 2006
(0)
So, if I understand you, the pattern actually changes not based on the apparatus that is set up but based on the actual cognition? To restate: The pattern actually changes from an interference pattern to a non-interference pattern after looking at a printout of the results? I see an interference pattern, I look at the results, I look back, no interference...? If this is your contention... it seems ludicrous. And if it isn't then your post is extremely misleading.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I say ludicrous because that means that the physical position on the detector have moved merely because you read a piece of paper. Also, it would imply that a person who has not read the results could look at the detector and see something completely different that another person who has just read the results. It's ludicrous.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I'm not sure if I'm being clear enough regarding what I'm talking about, for which I apologize. I'm not talking about the detectors in part four, 5 light years away - obviously, this isn't going to happen. I'm just talking about a theoretical detector not found in these slides, much like the ones found in part 2, with the added features that it doesn't tell you what it saw until you ask for it and that you can erase what it saw without looking at it, and am simply curious what you'd see with it in use.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Hook 'em horns!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
What has to be understood is that the electron or photon is never moving in two places at once, rather the sum of all paths creates a number of possible paths the given electron or photon can take. This reason, above all, makes the behavior seem spooky. Moreover, the lack of a timeliness in the interactions only proves that the given sum of all paths forms ahead of the given electron or photon.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Thus, proving there is no magical splitting particle. What this concludes is that observation has some 'sub-quantum' interaction that alters the sum of all paths, e.g. a non-local 'membrane' interaction [if you accept M-Theory]. Which means, quantum mechanics has also hit a threshold for its possible calculations of quantum entities since it has no means to 'normalize' the conception of sub-quantum interactions and/or entities. -- Bridget Armozel
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I just find it stupid (I give you props for the effort). You humanize the photons so when those of us who actually understand relativity (and other empirically proven theories) try to open our minds, we are bombarded by incomprehensible notions of photons "knowing" we are watching. It makes you sound like a new age nut trying to push that photons make up our souls (a la What the Bleep do we know). Please, if you want us to take you seriously, make a part 5 for the science-initiated.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Otherwise, we will just make deductions (e.g. mine) of the detectors lowering the frequency of a photon, rendering it an electron. Either that, or it just destroys the photon altogether.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Gabu's and Texaggie79' conversation reminds me of Star Trek.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Interesting, but I highly doubt any of us actually come to YTMND.com for it's educational value.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
PS: What the hell is with all this new-age raver crap you're calling music?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Ugh. Let me simplify. If we can possibly know the path it took, it goes one definite path, and acts like matter. If we don't know and can never know the direction it acts like a wave.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I was completely lost by 5-6 frames in.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
" make a part 5 for the science-initiated"???? Why so I can have 30 views?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
"That's great Howdy, trying to educate people about the history of YTMND and you don't even spell Sean Connery's name right." lol
October 4th, 2006
(0)
"Ugh. Let me simplify. If we can possibly know the path it took, it goesone definite path, and acts like matter. If we don't know and can never know the direction it acts like a wave." - Ah, okay, thanks; that's basically exactly what I wanted to know.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Ah yes. I love this series. Do you plan on discussing the existance of the particle in all possible positions at once (thus explaining the interference pattern) or are you just going to leave their minds relatively intact? *laughs*
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I raly doubt even 15% of ytmnders understood this sh*t i want a f*cking lazer light show............ is that to much to ask? i got moscow and iron madien but no dam lazer light show......grr
October 4th, 2006
(0)
too bad that by subjecting single binary-value (detect/nodetect) photons to 50/50 probability splitters, you are actually erasing any information you could have transmitted instanteneously across 5ly by tweaking the detectors 5ly away. nice try though.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
this would have blown my mind 40 years ago.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I don't get it. Maybe I should have watched the first 3 parts.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I love u!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
F*ck the haters, I could watch stuff like this all day.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
d^_^b
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I only saw your first one... but... you're an Aggie!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Love it, love it, love it. This is the future of classroom educational films!!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Mr Worf, fire photon torpedoes.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
4'd for the last sentence
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Cool! /SU Engineering
October 4th, 2006
(0)
4'd for being really smart. -1 for frames to move too fast i couldnt read the text in time. good job overall though!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
pew pew! I don't really care!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
My head did just explode. That's f*cking insane in the membrane.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Texaggie79 - This merely demonstrates that the Copenhageninterpretation still lasts.. 5 though for bringing something interlectual to YTMND
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I was waiting for this at the end.... oh yeah.... I also forgot to tell you... NEDM!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
one one one one one
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Very nice, despite the fact that i didn't really understood it all that well :O
October 4th, 2006
(0)
5 for being an aggie!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Dumb. No funny.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
win!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Gold, whatever anyone else is saying, this stuff is great!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
lol, science and nugget, you're not a teacher
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Alright f*cker. You can't get away that easy! I still want to know just wtf is going on with these mother-f*ckin' protons! OMG! How do they KNOW!?!!?!?!?!!11Eleventy!! Do people just not talk about this sh*t on the news because they're afraid people will run mob-like through the streets, looting and pillaging?!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I'm going to come down to your campus and walk on your grass. what do you think about that?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
See me after class.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
F U C K Y O U R M O T H E R
October 4th, 2006
(0)
5'd for coolness. You sir are intelligent. Those that 1 this either lack understanding or would rather be amused by looking a c*ck pictures or making stupid f*g jokes.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
gay, like EVERY OTHER ONE
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Wow sir, you are almost getting at much hate as whetstone.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
old news, also the music wasnt that great
October 4th, 2006
(0)
You lost your 5 for doing this just for music Doing it for gaining knowledge would have been better,
October 4th, 2006
(0)
This one is much, much harder to understand. And your pale blue dot YTMND was very wrong. Hope you redeem yourself soon. =(
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Borring. One.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Predicting the future with Quantum Physics? A single splitter sends 1/2 of all the photons 5 LY away. While a detector will observe if an interfereance pattern is seen within a few seconds. If you see an interferance pattern... it tells you that the detector 5 LYs away did not see the photons. If you see an normal grouping pattern... it tells you that the detecter will see the photons. Using this experiment, it will tell you if something in the future is in a position to block the stream of photons? Wow.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
lol, bonfires
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I've been enjoying this series, but this one's a bit more confusing.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
So how the f*ck is that possible. I see the info, I see the results but WTF!!! God i love quantum physics. so the particle acts like a particle when we can detect its path, but a wave when theres no way for us to know, so by us observing the photon we make it matter but if we have no way of knowing what path it took its a wave pattern. how is that possible. Just by us knowing what way the photon travels and seeing it do so makes it matter, like we see it so therefor it exists, but if we dont observe
October 4th, 2006
(0)
it just dosn't exist as matter.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
4 because (a) its the rating it has now, and (b) half the time it sounds as if youre trying to lead the viewer to believe a non-truth, partially because of fast explanations. now i do believe all this, and now plan to take a few ...quantum physics classes later on......but i cant help but feel mislead.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
also "2006-10-04 14:00:48 hhhh64 I've been enjoying this series, but this one's a bit more confusing. "
October 4th, 2006
(0)
No Kick-Ass moving at all....
October 4th, 2006
(0)
could it be that the interference pattern on the detector actually determines which detector is hit 5 light years away, and not the other way around? Also is it not true that in the photon's frame of reference no time has passed between the events of original detector bing hit and the detectors 5 light years away. In the photon's frame of reference its simultaneous? That would make a lot of sense then, if you think about special theory of relativity.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
"If we can possibly know the path it took, it goes one definite path, and acts like matter. If we don't know and can never know the direction it acts like a wave." Thanks for clarifying.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
GG Heisenberg.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I love you. STRING THEORY!!! Screw you nugget. Quantum physics is the single most interesting thing I have ever heard of. I applaud your presentation as well. Well done, good sir!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
ona side note... you get a 5 for a grand science presentation, thank you sir.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
wait, Trance? in that case..... FAV!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
what am trying to wrap my head around.. isnt it the case that all of these events, the hitting of all detectors splitters mirrors , is all determined simultaneously in the photon's frame of reference? I seem to recall that in the lightspeed moving frame of reference time is much diferent then in the stationary lab reference.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
i like these, keep it up!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I'm bored. You're boing, Zoidberg.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Them thar photurns be some slylike lil buggers. Time travellin n whatnot. This'rs a rill humdinger.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Did you hear that? That was the sound of my head 'asploding.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Outstanding work. Well done, sir. Well done.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Wh...huh?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Have you ever touched a tit? No seriously I really want to know. Do you use your extensive and mundane knowledge of quantum physics to pick up women? Does it work at all? No one who is getting laid gives sh*t about some acne ridden teeangers obssession with science. GTFO and MORE N*GG* CAWK
October 4th, 2006
(0)
down with f*ucken racoons
October 4th, 2006
(0)
"could it be that the interference pattern on the detector actually determines which detector is hit 5 light years away, and not the other way around?" Yes, but that's not as fun :-P
October 4th, 2006
(0)
sweet, it's like school, except on a joke website! where do i sign?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Milky, would you like to enlighten us with what you do for your career and your salary?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
The music really isn't THAT kickass... but still an awesome YTMND series.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
That was fun. Educational. Good music too. props for attempting to teach ytmnd'ers lol
October 4th, 2006
(0)
This isnt a ytmnd.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I love that people here are trying to like dispute this stuff... It shouldn't be shocking or a revelation or hard to believe, because everyone on the internet should have already found the basics of quantum physics out on their own automatically just out of interest. It's basic human knowledge. If you havn't already taken the time by now to find it out then i'm surprised you can even read/type.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
good job! 5'd
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Milkly, it's not about butthole pleasure. Just repeat that to yourself and everything else will be made clear.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Nice. But I'd suggest slowing down the slides to let the info sink in.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
keep up the good work.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
By controllin how they travel are we not outsmarting them? :0
October 4th, 2006
(0)
your excuse note is accepted, and approved
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Well if I were a photon, I'd be pretty bored. If someone started playing games with me, heh, I'd have my fun and screw with his interference pattern. Heh! Think about that!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
K.. so... does this mean we can like travel in time now?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
you can outsmart the particles... turn the lasers off.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
an end to our linear existence?..
October 4th, 2006
(0)
*doesn't understand how we can make a trail for the photon that is 5 light years long* Maybe I need to watch it again or something.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
cool thought but um, 5 light years... its not gonna take 5 years for light to travel 5 light years, mabey like 45 min
May 10th, 2007
(2)
HOLY F*CK KID! please do not have children!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
LMAO did you just say that?? Go lookup the definition of lightyear.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
love the music. it goes very well with your ytmnd
October 4th, 2006
(0)
I have one question- If the detectors record the result, but before we check and see what esult theyrecorded, they self destructed (in other words, the result was recorded, but the recording was destroyed) would the photons land in an interference or non interference pattern?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
lol... lightyear definitions notwithstanding... yeah it's pretty cool although not much beyond what I already knew cause I'm a nerd. And you got me with the music too... I was thinking about putting DI on after YTMNDing ;P
October 4th, 2006
(0)
4 stars because for all your knowledge about QP you misspelled "honesty." "In all honestly" oops. 4 stars. B+.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
"cool thought but um, 5 light years... its not gonna take 5 years for light to travel 5 light years, mabey like 45 min"....................................... GTFO LIL KID
October 4th, 2006
(0)
What The BLEEP Do You Know?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
You forgot Poland
October 4th, 2006
(0)
sure. kick-ass music...
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Dude, I just love these. Keep 'em coming.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Your detectors indicated a 5 for me, but it turned into a one! :0
October 4th, 2006
(1)
I make dildos and my yearly salary is one trillion dollars. ...
October 4th, 2006
(0)
wow... you finally got beyond the blatently obvious and relativly simple principles of QM. I applaud you even if it took you 4 pts.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Quantum Physics ftw
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Okay already, my mind is BLOWN. But seriously dude, that was a little too long.. perhaps you ought to work on breaking it down a little simpler? I found Wikipedia's article on this experiment much easier to understand than your four-part YTMNDs. (And I have a general understanding of particle physics - I
October 4th, 2006
(0)
[Repost because my original comment got hosed] Okay already, my mind is BLOWN. But seriously dude, that was a little too long.. perhaps you ought to work on breaking it down a little simpler? I found Wikipedia's article on this experiment much easier to understand than your four-part YTMNDs. (And I have a general understanding of particle physics - I *heart* Brian Greene) Still, I give you three stars for effort and for a good choice of music.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Good job of simplifying it, but there's alot more to it then this right? any suggestions on what to read about this?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
i cant follow it at all but good music
October 4th, 2006
(0)
this was more boring than my real physics class.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Jesus. It's like the freaking flying spaghetti monster.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Interesting.Good music btw.How do you know this sh*t? :)
October 4th, 2006
(0)
also c*cks (-4 for aggie)
October 4th, 2006
(0)
WIN.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
what really bothers me is when people who have obviously done quantum physics, etc. in university complain about these ytmnd's being too simplistic. yes, because we are all born with a basic knowledge of quantum physics, excuse us for being your mental inferiors. even if it IS relatively simple, just because someone hasn't learned something that they don't need to know doesn't make them stupid.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
OMGWTFBBQH4X!
October 4th, 2006
(0)
this is the basis of how communication can be made quicker than light speed for future space ventures.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
i appreciate the effort you take into making these, but this just isn't entertaining. Most people come here to be entertained. Do something more fun like dark matter and string theory.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!!!!!!!! F*CK DALLAS & FUKC T.O>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111
October 4th, 2006
(0)
heh, it was great until i noticed "In all honestly"....would have been 4'd without spelling mistakes, simply for sounding cool.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Why do quantum physicist always forget to take a little thing known as chaos into account?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
mid voted . i didn't understand it, but good song.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
oh, and i wish after this whole ytmnd you explained it in laymans terms to us 'n00bs' who didn't major in quantum physics.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
It's not that its bad, but I want to see funny sh*t when I log on to ytmnd
October 4th, 2006
(0)
^^ Well don't blame me because you want to make your own definition for YTMND. Let's see what the creator has to say......Ok, so what's YTMND? YTMND is a site created for the purpose of furthering the creativity of its users. It stems from an idea that, using sound, and image, and some text, the users can convey a point, funny, political, or otherwise, to the general media.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
That's a lot of text, and kind of quickly. But it's good info and, yes, kickass music.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
ur a smelly chink
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Very nice
October 4th, 2006
(0)
this is a comment.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Sorry if I insulted you(as it appears), but you are the one who is trying to convince US. There are more than 30 comments on your previous ytmnd's from people who feel the same way. Please, derive SOMETHING from SOME empirical formula. Show a shread of integrity instead of just being offended of someone questioning you. It is the very nature of science.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
What are you talking about tool? You think that the detectors make the photons act like matter? Even though the delayed choice experiment in pt4 shows that without changing one single measurement on the signal particle, we can affect the result of it by measuring it's idler photon. What is there left to explain?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Hey, here's the thing about convincing people with average cognitive ability: they aren't scared of people who tell them things they don't understand. Here's the thing about people who have the education equivalent to a goldfish: they want more n*gga cawk.
October 4th, 2006
(0)
why would anybody with a sex life want to learn about this boring *ss sh*t?
October 4th, 2006
(0)
NEDM
October 4th, 2006
(0)
Good answer.... We will all assume you are a janitor. kthx
October 4th, 2006
(0)
surely this is just a case of things relected being interfered with, and things that pas straight through the splitters not being? What's so confusing?
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Milky could also be unemployed...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Okay, you're misleading these people. The detection of the photon means that something must be fired at it, ultimately collapsing the wave function by touching it and throwing it off course. The uncertainly principal says that you cannot know the exact position and velocity of an electron, photon etc. Either you know 100% where it is and 0% velocity and so on. The photon does not "know" it's being observed. Wikipedia "Uncertainty Principal".
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Principle* sorry!
October 5th, 2006
(0)
5'd for confusing the hell outta me. I'll read it again when it isn't 2:15am.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Misleading? Watch pt 4 again. I don't know how I can make it any more clear. They affect the outcome of the SIGNAL photon without every doing anything additional to it. Simply by detecting the idler photon (and only if it relays which path info) they can affect whether the signal photons will produce an interference pattern or not.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman I still don't understand quantum mechanics. Does that mean I understand it? F*cking photons got me all confused.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Simultaneously a particle AND a wave ?! It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping ? Strudel from a toaster ?! And we'll never know for sure ? Wow ! There really IS no God !
October 5th, 2006
(0)
What milky is TRYING to say is "Any sort of thinking beyond "What McDonald combo do I want today?" requires too much effort as it is. That's all. Milky isn't trying to insult you, just try to explain to the public at his/her preference to think less, and be controlled by our instincts more. It's not wrong, it's just different.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Simple similar example -not the same- If I had a camera in two hallways, that met one point (like a V, with one hallway to the left, and one to the right) and I (not looking), threw a ball down into the hallways, it could go in the left or right hallway. If I don't look at the camera footage, it would have gone in both hallways (setting it in stone. Once the information is know, it's not something you can change). If I watch where the ball goes, it will go in A OR B, and never have the option to go in both.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Ummm I think I refering to the first YTMND that talked about lasers. Not player h8ing or anything, I love you if anything since people who have a decent understanding in these kinds of sciences are rare.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
That made my head hurt.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
So, time is irrelevant to the pattern? The only factor affecting it would be whether it is ever observed? Which means, according to the particle, the future is already determined... Hmm..
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Fascinating. (And I have lots of sex, btw. no rly. ;p)
October 5th, 2006
(0)
This actually makes Schrödinger's cat make more sense to me. You should cover that in your next one.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
One more time...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I want to know more...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
In conclusion to all that has been said so far I think it is obvious that, as I said before, we know very little about this strange phenomenon(sp?). Much is to be learned, just as much was to be learned 1000 years ago.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
didnt look at ur ytmnd but with enough cash and f*ggot friends you can become the next dr-leet
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Don't forget hawt chix
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I don't care what you learnt on wikipedia today.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
5 for lasers
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Ooh, shiny.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Protip: being a dumbass doesn't make you cool.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
hmm, Is there a way to switch between the interference pattern and the deterministic pattern? Could you say, have a switch that when you hit one way, a deterministic pattern would show up and hit another way, an interference pattern would show up? because if you could, you'd just have invented an inter-galactic telegraph *mind blown* although I'm still not 100% you aren't getting your facts messed up
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Well, an intergalactic telegraph wouldn't work with this experiment. Remember, the possibility of knowing which path will render a noninterference pattern. So simply switching it off for a second, doesn't completely destroy the possibility of ever knowing which path. Now there are theories of an "intergalactic telegraph" as you say with manipulating the spin of entangled particles. Maybe 5 will be on that. Not really alot of good graphics and experiments that I know of that I can throw out in 5 mins.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
5 for the trance, play something from ASOT next time. =P
October 5th, 2006
(0)
You lost me at WQPIC
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Hmm interesting. There's a pretty cool flash game here that sums it up better: http://www.sweetflashgames.com
October 5th, 2006
(0)
These are really pissing me off. There are better mediums than ytmnd to spread your gospel. preacher.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Yes. sweetflashgames.com is much easier to comprehend.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I Loved it! Great music.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
These are... amazing. As a phsyics major, I can't wait to start taking Quantum Physics.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I'm fiving you because you're an Aggie.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I love this! But its not going to get me laid! There for I digress I am a sexless loser.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
So what we need to do is get the photons drunk, so they don't know we're watching them and then they won't know to not screw up!
October 5th, 2006
(0)
YOU WIN.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Awesome
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Awesome, but seriously, why is this concept so hard to grasp? I mean it's no more complicated than the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in that instant, and vice versa." Maybe you could make one on that.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
The music is awesome, I must confess.
(0)
it WAS some kick *ss music. i think u lost me near the beginning, but i guess the point is photons or whatever are really smart - and will someday take over the planet. is that correct?
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Ya know, another thing that would be cool, is a YTMND that explained Black Hole and Wormhole physics
October 5th, 2006
(0)
wooo quantum physics rave!
October 5th, 2006
(0)
sdgvsfdjnbredtjeetrdjdofigdarogedalrjdfjgfshsjidhgoidjrgioedhetoihjetrdhloegjgofdjhgodijgoiegoeieijhgdlojidlohjiedosjrjiohglojthgloesjhglohgelojhjitrejio sdgvsfdjnbredtjeetrdjdofigdarogedalrjdfjgfshsjidhgoidjrgioedhetoihjetrdhloegjgofdjhgodijgoiegoeieijhgdlojidlohjiedosjrjiohglojthgloesjhglohgelojhjitrejio sdgvsfdjnbredtjeetrdjdofigdarogedalrjdfjgfshsjidhgoidjrgioedhetoihjetrdhloegjgofdjhgodijgoiegoeieijhgdlojidlohjiedosjrjiohglojthgloesjhglohgelojhjitrejio sdgvsfdjnbredtjeetrdjdofigdarogedalrjdfjgfshsjidh
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I recall a little of quantum physics... could this cause a causality violation? I.e. the guys five light years away decide to randomly smash all the detectors halfway after the photons start arriving, and back on earth suddenly you get nothing but wave pattern. Doesn't that imply that information that the detectors will have stopped in five years travelled faster than light (and therefore back in time) to you?
October 5th, 2006
(0)
what the f*ck was this about
October 5th, 2006
(0)
No information was transferred. Probability waves extent, theoretically across the universe. When it collapses, it collapses across the universe instantaneously. Nothing travels.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I submit to the "crazy" aspect of this, but ever since the flashlight on the wall, all of these are just increasingly complicated ways of coming up with the same answer. I know no one will read this because this comment page is huge...
October 5th, 2006
(0)
yeah dude you need to like send me all the artists and musics from the series
October 5th, 2006
(0)
i read it doombass!
October 5th, 2006
(0)
It pains me to think that I will never get as smart as Gabu or Texaggie. Great work (and music) even though I am ay past confused and my mind is in chaos trying to think about this concept.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
Yea the stuff makes sense but wouldnt it just be easier to say that light just goes where its pointed to go lol.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
I got bored after a while, [too many words, repeating of same words, repeating simple concepts over and over, etc] and couldnt make it through. Maybe make the next one with the mind-blowing part first, then explain how it happened.
October 5th, 2006
(0)
mind blowing music and the awesomeness of physics? Sounds like a 5 star to me.
October 6th, 2006
(0)
I want part 5. explanation for this: damn god, we cant have the answer can we?
October 6th, 2006
(0)
f*cking particles are kicking our ass
October 6th, 2006
(0)
Seriously man...could you like...AIM me your playlist...I love your taste in music.
October 6th, 2006
(0)
About half of my YTMND sites have been made entirely for the sake of being an excuse to use the music I put in them...
October 7th, 2006
(0)
Awesome, I mean, I still don't understand anything, but now I feel like I don't understand anything on a higher level.
October 8th, 2006
(0)
Physics kicks my ass, but I love it anyways. It makes you look so smart. Case in point, this ytmnd. Nice music, btw. :D
October 9th, 2006
(0)
crappy music
October 9th, 2006
(0)
That's because you didn't turn it up loud enough,,.
<< 1 2 >>