moar

This is indeed a much more interesting principle. However your presentation was worse. Too many tangents and spelling errors.

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.

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

Since these detectors are not "visual" (as far as I can tell, they require electron contact or response for measurment), it is highly probable that the subatomic particles within the detectors cause interference. If we could actually "visually" observe, which is impossible at this point (and will probably remain impossible), then I imagine the result would be much different.

Actually, think of it this way. If you are at a baseball game, you can watch a baseball cross home plate without changing it. But what if you're blind? What if you have no way of "visually" observing a baseball? The only way to understand it's movement is to touch it somehow, but by doing so, you would change the path of the baseball. Subatomic particles never "touch" they interact through electromagnetic energies, but the point still holds that "visual" observing would have a different result that

than* detection observing.

lol, electrons being alive, lol

The electron leaves untouched after it is fired. If there is no path detector, it hits the final detector in such a way that can only be described by the particle traveling both paths at the same time, however, if the path detector is placed on one path and turned on after the electon is already fired, the electron acts like matter and only goes one path. So how did the electron know to collapse and act like matter leaving the accelerator when the detector was not even on at the time? By theory, it arrives at both slits every single time. But when the detector is there, it disappears from one. The only explanation is that once there is evidence of a definite location of the particle, all the other probability waves cease to exist. If the detectors where placed on both slits, exactly the same distance from the accelerator what determines which probability wave sets off which detector, thereby exterminating the other particle wave's existence?

lame, good presentation but it doesn't add up. 1st one was great btw.

It makes sense when you think on a quantum level and probability, but to actually picture that happening is mind-boggling.

cant wait till humanity thinks the concept of phisics we have is stupid, like we think that people that thought the world was flat were idiots

not enough doom music

Ya the whole it changes when you observe it is the cat in the box idea.

This reminds me.... i swear the sun is revolving around the earth, but whenever i get a telescope out... it seems like the earth is doing the revolving... the Sun must know i'm watching it.

hot pockets ftw!!!11

What bothers me themost is every *ssh*l*e who said something like "1'd 4 makn me read" or "makn me lern" or "fuk you, teacher" Jesus christ, if it bothers you that much to find out something new, you ignorant hicks, and you'd rather be surrounded by idiotic f*cking stupid entertainment for retards all day, go attend church, and if you're american, you can praise George Bush some more. F*cktards. 5 for bring some intelligence, te good, interesting kind, to YTMND. Counter-Points/Criticism would be nice, tho

"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!"

-1 for that stupid hot-pocket crap. That was more dumb than the Poland fad.

could it be possible that the detection equipment could somehow be interfering with them on a gravitational level?

hot pockets/slits its all the same putang to me

make more make more!

-2 for misleading information. Detection involves modifying the thing you are observing. In order to "see" a small object, like an electron or photon, you would have to set up your detector in such a manner as to affect the thing you are observing- and this modification collapses the probability waveform of said object- unlike with seeing large objects, photons aren't bouncing off of it. If you could "see" your object without interfering with it, you would see diffraction again, but this isn't possible.

5 for aggie.

Part 3 http://yqpic3.ytmnd.com/

Legendary Win

Quantum Man, you get an A+.

3 words: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. -1 for hotpockets

Heisenberg uncertainty principle ftw

those shy hotpockets-I mean electrons

Doesn't the detection tools affect them in some physcial way? I mean, you can't take a photo of an electron, so whatever technique they're using for tracing the electrons most be disturbing them.

That's what part 3 is for. Go watch :P

...Blaaharahararg MY DAMN HEAD! It hurts. >_

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, does it act like waves? =p

Audio could be compressed much more.

No. No it can not. It must be heard in all its full glory.

Oookay...I finally can grasp the idea. You blew my goddamn mind

I Loved your site http://quantamiscool2.ytmnd.com 5'ed, check out my page votecoder5.ytmnd.com when you have time!

Secret nazi hotpockets.

5 for hot pockets.

also, extremely small big brother much? also brings to mind "if a tree fals in the forest, and noone's there to hear it, does it make a sound"

I can stick my dick in Ariels vagina and anus at the same time beat that

way too fast, but interesting

hot pockits

The way they're observing this is somehow interfering with it making it act different. It's NOT as simple as "seeing makes it different" and there are more unknown things in play.

the very fact that they chose to build such an experiment is a result of particle movement in their brains, and can not be disconnected from the experiment itself. just like the fact that i am reading about it now.

Wait- this is retarded. We're altering the photons because we're messing them up. There's a difference between passive and active observation. Becasue of limitations in technology, we can't detect photos without complelty altering their trajectory. The current technology is like standing next to a road and the only way you can tell if there's car is if one hits you. How can you claim anything concrete about the state of the particles?

Hence Profffesor Farnsworth's complaint regarding the "quantum finish" at the horse races in Futurama: "No fair! You changed the results by measuring them!"

This stuff is absolutely amazing, 5'd and fav'd!

Actually, it's -alot- more like when you observe the particles themselves, you need to use a force. That force is going to change their ballistic pattern in a nearly random way.

you think it could possibly be that the use of devices that let us observe this cause an interference that causes the particles to all go one direction?

Watch 3 and 4.

Amazing to think what goes on in our world when no one is watching. Would it be possible for things to be very different when completely unobserved? perhaps a forest? Do animals effect probability? And insects?

Actually, you're a little less-than-accurate. If the windows were small enough, then the tennis ball WOULD interfere with itself. You'd be faced with the problem of getting a tennis ball through windows that were that small, but you never actually specified the size of the window. I KNEW there was something wrong with an Aggie talking about physics.

Schrodinger's Cat, the Many Worlds theory, EPR paradox, Heisenberg uncertainty... all good candidates for part 3! One thing I don't understand about quantum physics... why does our observation affect mindless particles that have no idea we're there or what's going on? How does it all work? Why does it do that?

Even though I explain it in the slide show as if the particles "know" we are observing them, to make it more accurate, I would say that our comprehension of reality alters its very state, for by seeing and knowing the location of a particle, you then also know that it is nowhere else, therefor the probability wave cannot exist at that instant.

5 for Jim Gaffigan. And for being really cool. You win the series of tubes.

Because I don't know the mechanics of the detectors, I can't tell... but is that the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle hard at work?

More particle-wave duality stuff, AND the whole act-of-observation-collapsing-the-wave-function thing. I like.

Enough probability to AFFECT the outcome.

Ya I make that mistake all the time.

BRILLIANT!

This one is actually completely incorrect. The mechanism for path detection has been proven to interfere. Molecules aren't conscious.

Someone isn't aware of the Delayed Choice experiment eh?

I finally got around to watching part 2. You made fewer mistakes this time, but there are still some misconceptions. Most notably, your Mach-Zehnder interferometer has some mysterious plane labelled "detector". With the way you've drawn it, there would be no interference and therefore, no interesting results. Half the photons would travel one path, half would travel the other. (Continued)

Since your title is "Quantum Physics is Cool", don't you think it would be cooler if you (correctly) explained that you can force the photons down one path while blocking them from the other just by shifting a mirror? Also, if what you labelled the "detector" is actually another beam splitter (as it should be), it should be aligned at the same angle as the rest of the mirrors.

WAHT?"

Holy Hot Pockets I'm getting a headache? Is this sh*t real? I really wish I was high right now.

always good stuff from you

The looking part: Its because, from what I've heard, we are actually sending information and wavelengths to the object we look at. Just looking at something is like blasting a stream into it, so I can see why it affected the photons.

Yep I've read about that too

This is why I love science.

these sites have great music, thanks for opening me up to a new techno artist

HOT POCKETS

You make it sound as if our sentience is affecting the outcome but that's obviously false. The observation equipment exerts some as-of-yet not understood force on the particles.

at least not understood by you, and also me

+1

horsedick

+1

Ew. Yeah, they don't "know" if they are being watched. Idiot propagandaTMND? Try again.

Proffate's got it covered.

This are awesome, do one on Shrodingers cat.

+2

hot pocket this

-1

5½

I was waiting for the funny. Still waiting...

-4 for lack of ZZZ

I thought the whole "Consciousness Causes Collapse" thing was a very marginal line of thinking these days.

I would say most physicists just adhere to the Copenhagen Interpretation. It still doesn't explain what causes the collapse. It merely keeps scientists out of theology. And many scientists will deny conscious entanglement due to the fact that either they don't truly understand the results, or they are too scared to think about it.

Oh, and I had an idea a few years back for a story where Schrödinger's cat turned into a zombie. There was also something in there about Dirac blasting people with positrons, I can't remember. I should get back to that.

yea, i learned alot of this high school cuz my teacthrr was aweosme. thanks for posting... DAMMIT WHY DIDNT I TIHNK OF THIS??? lol