@kill3465 Absolutely the detector interferes. the detector requires that photons come into contact the the electron (or some other form of EM energy). That necessarily interferes with the electron.
I don't understand what's so impossible about double slits. Doing a single slit experiment will show light acting as a wave. You just need to make the slit a certain size.
Think of it as water moving at extreme speeds, and it's not too complicated.... *=/
my logic may be wrong here but if u some how were able to get both informations concealed and then dispersed to 2 different scientists who would read the info at the exact same time what would the results be. btw this is the best video for this experiment ive seen. it actually put it in a way that an average guy like me could comprehend. i was lost with the other videos out there.thanks.....
Doesn't the action of observing necessarily disturb the experiment? Experimentally, how is this accomplished?
What role does diffraction play? The pattern changes based on particle size (or wavelength), I assume.
What if you look at the pattern, then decide whether to look at the individual slit counts? The definition of "observation" and its effects are unclear. Can someone that's done the experiment elaborate? Where can I find the details of the apparatus for this experiment?
This is a great series. I recommend watching all the way thru to 7/8, as it gets really good. HOWEVER, if u thought u saw a cross - u did. If u are not interested in a religious hijacking, then dont watch 8/8. But u dont need to, as it pretty much sums up in 7/7. :-)
@me835 there's what? there's no medium? are joking? u gotto be joking, there always has to be medium with waves, and u say there's no medium? I just don't understand how could that be
@Zee96969696 There is no medium as far as we're aware. Look up the Michelson Morley experiment for a basic understanding for that debate. The idea of the medium (known as the aether) was pretty much done away with after einstein's special relativity.
@Zee96969696 There really is no medium. for a time people believed in the "luminiferous ether" which would act as a medium for light. then we tried to measure our velocity relative to it by measuring the speed of light at different times of the year. turns out light always moves at the same speed no matter how you're moving. I dont understand it fully either, but its just the way it is.
@Zee96969696 Well, a wave through water, water is the medium. Sound waves have air as a medium. For light it is the electro-magnetic field which actually waves in the same way. Michelson-Morley was in the 1800's. They didnt have the understanding of light developed later by Maxwell, Feynman, Einstein and the like.
Funny how something can be known to be absolutely true, experimentally verifiable, and then later been shown to be completely wrong. Makes you wonder about what we believe now..
@DizzyGillespie well, you say electromagnetic feild is the medium, I assume you either studied physics or just read or heard about it, anyway, I don't know all that much about electromagnetic feild, and why do people refer to waves as real things? waves are only the effect of collaboration of the medium, it isn't reallly there, it is the medium which is moving in colaboration which is there, but people speak of waves like waves are objects, thats just so fucking untrue, get's me frustrated
@DizzyGillespie Im not sure, but I tink electro-magnetique field is not the medium, because it would mean that you sould have a constant electro-magnetique field on the path of the ''light''. It's actually a magnetique field and a electrique field that alternates.
This question is in regard to part 6/8 where he discusses Delayed Choice. I just posted here because part 1 gets the most hits. Part 6 is by far the best one. IMO
If choosing whether or not to view the detector data changes the results of the experiment, what happens if the results are viewed before we decide whether or not to view the data, AND what would happen if we did the experiment, erase the data, get an interference pattern, THEN use a data recovery tool to recover the erased data?
they misinterprate the wave in this video...a wave is a wave no matter what medium it travels through...they talk about air waves and water waves when they are the same thing...it would be better to just say "a wave in water" or "a wave in air" because they behave exactly the same...they are the same
He gets much of it right, but unfortunately in the seventh or eighth segment he (inadvertently?) misrepresents the extent of weirdness demonstrated with the two slit experiment. It is weird, but not quite as weird as as he implies.
In the end, just to put what cannot be put into words into words seperates us from the true underlying reality. We are all one. To ask a question is to create a word, to create a word is to disturb the stillness, thereby blinding us in this illusion created by our collective conscious minds. This reality no matter how far we delve macrocosmically & microcosmically will always be dualistic & thereby contradictory in its nature. It's only as real as one chooses for it to be.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
there's only one God. Call it what you like, its a simple way of life, designed to keep you healthy and teach compassion. God has sent many messengers to enlighten the people. We are all messengers of God, if we only ask humbly, we will find our way. There is only one God, and Muhammad or Jesus are only men, not Gods. Anyone who would elevate men to the status of Gods is a pagan, and should throw away their old testament.
lol, thats an interesting idea. I am an atheist, but I still have a bible, and I read it a lot. But to me, it is a story of corruption. From the gospels to revelations is the story of how a simple teacher was turned into a prophet, a king, a God.
Wait a minute!... This mild-mannered scientist bares an uncanny resemblance to Dr. Quantum!.... WoooohahaHAHAHA!.. I've got you NOW Quantum! There's no escape!
Oh my gods, is Nagzul STILL going on about it after all these months? I'll just say this. If Nazgul had done his research as much as he claims to have done it, he'd understand that there's not one evolutionary biologist that makes a distinction between macro and micro evolution. The whole "macro vs micro evolution" thing is only a debate among theologists. The terms "macro evolution" and "micro evolution" are incoherent concepts within science.
You choose the double slit experiment for your christian Religion ????? Its completely ridiculous !!
You can take this phänomenon to explain that we need new science perpectives and also methyphysical perspectives. But one of the most simple and false methaphysical speculation is the abrahamitic believes !
A wave is what energy creates as it moves through water. I am sure that phycisist still do not fully understand what energy really is and how it works. Probably they should do more work to answer this, rather than trying to understand the actions of that we call energy and nobody knows what really is it.
I'm sorry, but we're gonna have to stop this. I'm done. You are retarded and just want to seem to argue about words, yet again, you have offered the lamest argument yet, "we haven not observed evolution."
We have observed speciation which is one species evolving into another. The fact that you seem ignorant of this leads me to belive that you know little about biology and if you do you're certainly not keeping up on it.
We haven't seen evolution happen or have we seen things in the steps of it happening.
There has not been an argument yet, you haven't even offered your side. I told you the truth, if it's your will you will defend your belief and show me some evidence. Pick something out of biology if you want. I'll show you how you're over analyzing science, and making it seem with a more less logical view.
Also you act as if saying "we have not observed evolution" disproves evolution. No it only takes it out of science, beliefs may very be true in themselves, but they can't be exaltedly as true. It lacks the 2 last processes of science: observation and conclusion.
But science is perverted these days and is mixed with all of these unobserved assumptions people say are true. Of course ever since the belief of evolution polluted actual science,
Nagzul, you can say people have been brainwashed with evolution all day. But that doesn't make it true. You can make outrageous claims untill you are blue in the face.
It is obvious that you have NO scientific training because you fail to understand that when you make claims you have to provide some sort of proof. You have provided NO proof just made wild claims bout lies and brainwashing.
Do us all a favor and help yourself to a book on Biology.
Brainwashing is something I'm familiar with nagzul. I was raised in a very religious home.
However I do think you are right about dropping this as you are bent on your point of veiw with no intent of reviewing the things that can actually proove truth, that is proof and evidence. As you said, they don't mean much to you, so we cannot have a reasonable discussion.
I have had many reasonable discussions. Its usually the other way around like you say. The evolutionists who are bent on their belief as being true. I'm not here to prove it false, Im here to prove it- only-a-belief. It has nothing to do with views. Views are only part of a belief. Observation and science is the only proof. Evolution is not science.:) It only plays with science. Like a toy. Evolution itself is not the toy. Evolution is a conspiracy to science. Should only be treated as a belief.
Evolution is a scientific theory, based on the observation that organisms change over time so better suit their environment.
What the hell are you talking about, because the theory of evolution is a perfectly reasonable theory that has been based on observation, tested and made it to theory.
I choose to believe in it because it is truth proven by evidence.
You know what you're saying applys to yourself, because to back up my claims you first have to show some evidence.
But never mind, you jump to a conclusion about me without even yet starting. You seem like the type who would most likely be a wall and close-minded to any opposing discussion.
Yes I'm educated, I understand science. Biology isn't evolution it's only been groped and perverted by a belief.
It can be biology and make sense without evolution.
I can handle any evidence you throw at me and show you how you're looking to much into it.
It may be better explained a different way, and prove to be more logical than the way it seems to you. But all in all that view is science, the way I explain has been observed. Evolution just goes past "observed" and looks to far into it. Then it becomes a belief.
If you can argue evolution with an alternative logical scientific understanding that proves in itself that evolution is a only belief.
Your fundamental error is that you assume Darwinism is a biological theory. It isn't, it's a logical necessity. Evolution can be observed in any path lab any day of the week.
And just so ya know, evolution being truth doesn't mean that there can't be a god. All it means is that organisms adapt to their environment over time.. and the more time you have the more change you have from the original. I seriously don't understand what is so hard to accept about this theory.
Okey, evidence is something that furnishes proof, something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter. I got that from merriam-webster. And proof definition 1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or fact. I did as you asked and looked up the definitions. And by those definitions there is evidence of evoloution, evidence furnishes proof, proof allows us to believe something as truth.
you can make shoes back up as evidence for where a hot air balloon has gone.
The theory of evolution is only a conspiracy toscience.
Its not actual science, nor does the evidence actually show strong support for it.
Evolution is a belief,just as all religion is. Of course your going to ague with me and present to me evidence and I'm going to show you how you've been brain washed. But I really don't feel like doing that with a 10th person, so lets leave it at that.
There is proof of evolution, the only way not to see it is to close your eyes.
Adaptation over billions of years is evolution. There is proof for evolution, there ARE fossils, and there IS poof even in the human genome!!! Open your eyes.
Evolution is a proven theory not just some crazy unproven idea. If it was un provable we would not have a huge scientific community support it.
It think it's total crap to ask people to believe something that there isn't proof for.
I don't think it's crap to believe in such things one's self, but we must keep our fantasy separate from reality, and when we are dealing with reality we need to put our science goggles on because the scientific method is the best tool we have for understanding the world around us.
i dont understand how you can believe in a religion if it tells you how the world was created. when every religion has a different story as to how it happened... Christianity.. 6008 years and one day ago a thing that looked like a man was the only thing to exist, then he decided to make everything... somehow.. with his magical powers?
...and He created whole Universe with billions of galaxies and trylions of starts just to put us in the small galaxy, in the small solar system, on a tiny planet - his greatest creation - humans, and now He judges us on a base whether we believe in Him or not. Kind of lame I think... and for such a perfect being.. first commandment.. well, quite a monopoly for a Perfect Being who doesn't need anything from us. I could write a book on what doesn't add up... like most of you, I guess :D
Maybe different genes that have died out of ethnics. Maybe bones people who lived for thousands of years, we know that history backs that up. There's many ways to look at it. An idea should not be made as truth just because it's supported through acception.
About the ants, I can't believe you brought that up. xD
Thats call birth defects.
Also just becauseDNA was tampered manually, doesn't mean it his a mind of it's own and tampers its self automatically.
"An idea should not be made as truth just because it's supported through acception."
Exactly idea of God is not a truth because it's only supported by acception and only acception.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Birth defects are exactly what it's all about - RANDOM CHANGES IN GENETIC CODE and if it works in a place you are, you live, if not you die...
Those fossils show no steps, but a beings who lived for thousands of years, yeah that's more reasonable xDD
Evolution isn't science, it has not completed the method. It's the same as believing in God.
lol growing older sounds a lot more reasonable than morphing from another creature. You're only brainwashed, that's why it sounds more believable. :)
birth defects are an accident, they aren't fruitful. Why is it that smoking and drugs can cause birth defects? Do you think that we need to encourage birth defects so that we can "evolve."? lol
Like I said you have no idea what evolution is, you twist it and than say that it is not true, and you know what, you are right everything you said is not true cause you are talking about evolution how you want it to be not as it is. But tell me one thing.. if a wing was a birth defect was it still unfruitful?
Again you are in error Nagzul. Lets ignore the fact that preeclampsia is lower in mothers who smoke. Your use of the word 'defect' is a subjective term that has no place in Darwin. Remember the most successful beast on this planet is not man, but the neamotode worms. And the fossil record for humans, back to far distant Austrolopithcines, is complete. By the way, your word, 'acception' doesn't occur in the Oxford English Dictionary.
I don't care why? I need no religion to be a good man, or to have a purpose in live even though I believe that it is highly unlikely that there is any afterlife or salvation wainting for me after I'm dead.
You assume I'm speaking about religion, why don't you just read into what I'm say as far as to what I said. I said nothing about religion. Go re-read it.
These are doing signs and wonders, caring and love, hanging out with low-lifes.
The term was meant to be discriminating: "those Christians" "trying to be like Christ" I never said anything about religion, nor a perfect being. The topic we were discussing was about science and evolution. You were being biased and missing the picture because you were looking at me as a biased religion person. You won't hear me like
That is the perfect example of how you have no clue what evolution is all about... the only changes evolution mentions are changes in that program - "random changes in the GENETIC CODE".
Suntan example is also wrong, and also shows your lack of knowledge.
This suntan example is a bit similar to virus HIV example. It propagets in a number of millions and if you treat it with a drug of some kind almost all of them would die except those few who was "born" with an immunity to that drug and only those few will survive and propagate further again in the number of millions. A guy with a suntan would die(exaggeration ofcourse), but a guy with a dark complexion could survive and he would have a chance to have an offspring with even darker complexion.
I did my evolution modules in St George's church in sheffield hahaha! Irony!
When an electron is travelling? it must be a wave? B-radiation is an electron? and can't waves diffract to varying degrees dependent on the size of slit they pass through? even transverse waves? and since wavelength varies with energy, (or frequency?), couldn't an electron gun with slight variation in frequencies on each individual electron produce a range of diffractions similar to an interference pattern?
If wave collapse is dependent on an individual's actions regarding the statistics kept during observation, (which is basically the main focus of this video and the favorite QM phenomenon for the religious) please explain how simply "deleting" the results affects what will be seen on the screen? Does not QM know about computer forensics and the ability we have to reconstruct a deleted file?
Just one damn minute. I went online to look up something that matched the powerpoint presentation, and the experiment apparatus looks different. Was the detector at the slits creating another photon, entangling that new photon with the photon that strikes the photographic plate? If you create a new entanglement then the destruction of the "loop" would effect the other particle or photon.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
evolution is still a theory :)
It isnt science only a theory based on science.
Hate how schools "teach it" in science class, Evolution should be an "evolution theory class" and science class should explain, just science, not things that "might be true."
Nagzul- You obviously don't know what a scientific theory means. For the record, when scientists use "theory" it has a different meaning than in everyday use. In everyday use theory means just a guess/hunch. Something that doesn't have proof. In science, a theory isn't just a guess. It is a substantiated,supported, and well-documented explanation for observations. It can be tested time & time again with results that can be replicated. There are many real world examples of evolution.
Again, a scientific theory is not just an idea. You are confusing scientific theory and hypothesis. There can be many hypotheses. That is why scientists test them. If the tests prove the hypothesis to be correct, then they retest them. And they do that over & over again. Eventually if hypothesis keeps being confirmed then you get a scientific theory. Which, I repeat, isn't just an idea. On what basis do you say that it is impossible for a creature to evolve into another? Please do some reading.
It def. isn't fact. Who said I havn't done research. :P
You're just trying to deffend something by talking out of you ass. xD
Evolution has not een proven, plus so many tests are done in such a moronic way, and then basically say "well this is the only answer." Then they mix it with real -factual science- like gravity and kinetic energy.
Evolution, and factual science are 2 dif cattegorys.
Ok you win. It's all a lie & I'm talking out of my ass. You sir, are superior. Congratulations. I will now proceed to believe that organisms have always been as they are now and will always be as they are now. Now that that is settled, can you give me guidance on a few other things? Do I need to start believing that the earth is only 6000 yrs old? That the earth is flat? Was the Grand Canyon actually created by a huge flood? Please help. There is so much fact based science I need to unlearn. Thx
But I don't believe in carbon dating, it is flawed. It works sometimes for a short periods of time, but it's been proven that carbon dating can be waay off.
As for the huge flood? We know there was a huge flood that happened at a time period in life, but I don't think that it had much to do with the grand canyon.
You're totally right. A belief isnt fact & it certainly isn't science. But the theory of evolution by natural selection isn't merely belief/opinion. Evidence of common descent & evolution can be found in areas like genetics, paleontology, anatomy, and biochemistry. These findings are not belief. They are physical evidence that support evolutionary theory. Recent evolutionary changes can even be seen right now in organisms like Galapagos finches, Croatian lizards, countless microorganisms, etc.
Hovind has debunk most of the evolution imagination with his work, and anything I say he has already said.
I also found out he agrees with me that the "lies" need to be taken out of the school text books, and that they need to quit mixing the belief with actual science. I like his comment of comparing the idea to beer at a football game.
Read 'The God delusion'. Richard Dawkins is the foremost expert on the origin of species and is infinately more knowledgeable than you on this topic. You are just believing some nieve pastor retard.
Hovind has debunk most of the evolution imagination with his work, and anything I say he has already said.
I also found out he agrees with me that the "lies" need to be taken out of the school text books, and that they need to quit mixing the belief with actual science. I like his comment of comparing the idea to beer at a football game.
ah oK. I figured it out, youtube wont allow a full link. just add the home page youtube address in the front if what i already provided you (with a backslash after it).
Your stupid bible says the world is 6,000 years old. Now I'm sure even you are not stupid enough to believe that. Evolution is a FACT and the evidence to support it is massive and not debated AT ALL in the scientific community. I've heard the bullshit you Christians hear in church, how much longer are you gonna ignore the facts? Wake up!!
It's all in your mind. More than half of th e stuff evolutionist fanics use has been proven un-usable or flawed or hoaxes. (bigfoot style hoaxes)
But just because of some imagionation of a teenager known as darwin, you guys are still trying to prove the theory right, and use science in your explinations to make it look like science.
But science today doesn't work like your evolution theory states. :)
Evolution is only existing inthe species.Eventually our dna is
They aren't going to reform the species known as human. They can't get out of the bounderys of species. They only work they way they were designed to work.
Evolution is a logical consequnce of the imperfect reproduction and selection pressure. It isn't dependant on emperical evidence, although all the evidence supports evolution.
Carbon dating can be wrong, but this is well understood, see 'Radio Cardon dating, Fictious Results with Mollusk Shells, Keith & Anderson 1963, Science. This is part of the scientific cannon, and they're way ahead of you.
People like you are ignorent and take the imagionation that uses scientific evidence and call it science.
Evolution has very little research that suports it. The only reliable part is the DNA theory. Yet, we have never seen DNA evolve outside of how it was designed.
Evolution is fully supported but a MOUNTAIN of evidence!!! And... the DNA mapping made evolution a fact. Stop kidding yourself. You idiots will deny the truth in the face of the most conclusive evidence. You are hurting us as a speicies with your close-minded beliefs. Buddhism is the ONLY belief system that resonates harmoniously with science.
Evolution is adjusting RANDOMLY to surrounding enviroment through RANDOM changes to the genetic code, and it does NOT mean improve so NOTHING can de-evolve.
All those fossils showing steps of human evolution, DNA experiments with ants where after changing their genetic code legs grew out if their heads, HIV virus where you can literaly see it adapting to new drugs. If this is not proof, than why don't you explain it to me why, please?
But many of evolutionist look at evolving as improving. They are bent on survival of the fittest.
Lol, why do you take me seriously when i say de-evolve? Not literally, but if you believe in evolution, then you can see humans, mentally are getting less smarter, and act more like selfish instinctive animals as time progresses. It appears mentally that we are de-evolving. But the reason being is because the belief that we are animals has been introduced to culture.
There is a saying that in this world not moving forward means moving back. And believing in a greater being is thousands of years old. Dark ages are over.. deal with it.
The only thing thar prevents you from even considering facts is your ego, you think that you are better, that you are the greates creation of a perfect being... guess what?
You're missing something if all your understanding is based around science.
Thinking like that only pushes you further away from humanity, when all you think is that all there is to life is what you can see with your eyes. (this rant is not focussed on evolution this time, I'm talking about an all-you-can-know-scientific-mind) I do have a very scientific mind, but I know I'm gimp if that's all I understand. I do understand a little bit more. :)
De-evolving doesn't make sense. Fitness is all that counts. If this appears to you at any given moment, like a decrease in inteligence, or a cruder form (the Garacile anthrolopicicus were before the Robustus), then tough luck. Stupidity might not be a barrier to breeding success.
Emotions are a liability.... So is a skeletal body covered in flesh. We would have no reason to develop these characteristics if evolution was half the man you claim him to be. Not to mention with DNA and understanding how complex cells are now compared to when darwin extrapolated his theories of selective breeding, isn't "origin of species" arguments so last century?
Creatures can and do evolve into other creatures. This has been shown over and over. How much evidence do you really need? I've seen the fake science books that Christians read, DON'T believe them anymore, save yourself, there is NO God!!! We are trying to help you...
Here you mentioned a perfect being... God who created you and already saved you... yeah right xDD
What creature can you see now, you ask.. although in most cases evolution takes hundreds or thousands of years so it can't be seen by one or two generations... well virus HIV.. when you treat it with drugs it shows exactly what evolution is all about.
"I'm already saved, and I have a spirit in me known as God. Christianity is the only religion that understand science." - yeah, you didn't mention God at all I am just putting words into your mouth xDD
That's curisous, because the Quran says, 'Got to Nature, study her, and gain wisdom'. That's an injunction found nowhere in Christanity. Truth to be told, the Dark Ages started at 9am 13th January, 529AD, when Justinian closed the Accadomy in Athens. Christians have never been the friend of science.
How ignorant. Obviously you are unfamiliar with Erasmus, Aquinas, etc. By the way, what do you think happened to Ibn Rushd? Why were his works burned?
You obviously don't read the Bible! There are tons of references to studying nature. You just come off sounding like a troller, retard or fundamentalist. Either way, you are taking a unscientific approach. Christians have rejected changes to what is known...true. So has scientist, athiest and every other type of "human". That's what "we" do, resist change!
I won't claim to know what the Bible says about studying science, nor the Quran. But I will say that both of them have inaccuracies of science. And in the modern day, Christian scientists blindly defy prevailing wisdom, where Islam is licking their lips at the chance to put scientific revelations forth as fulfilled prophecy. Anyone ever heard that the Quran predicted the speed of light?
Thousand years in a day. very vague prophecy.
Religion isn't about science, its about brotherhood.
Nagzul, what about the theory of gravity? "Mass creates gravity. Gravity causes everything with mass in the universe to share a mutual attraction." We have no proof that that's what's really going on, just evidence that points to it and no evidence that contradicts it. Same as evolution. Should they not teach the theory gravity?
As for Kent Hovind. What he does is deliberately say confusing things and then claim victory when the person can't respond. He doesn't win debates, he ends them tragically. But then, it's quite obvious that you yourself have no actual education in this, and yet you argue youself an expert. They call that "The Dunning-Kruger Effect" look it up.
hahaah true that, i fucking love busting out dunning kruger effects on these idiots, dude, i prove evolution mathmatically, observably, and a whole lot of other ways, than these people just quote science text books, go on youtube and type in "super cow" and click on the first video, dude WE FORCE species to evolve via breeding, thats an observable form of evolution RIGHT THERE, we even have GENETIC EVIDENCE, evolution is in your god damn DNA
Actually it's not in your DNA or mine and naz is completely correct it's never been observed. If you want to debate evolution then start and the beginning. The big bang theory.
I do agree with you about Dunning Kruger effect tests :)that would be a kick to see their faces.
apes evolved into humans when apes learned how to use tools, the ones who could use more tools and so think harder, survived over the ones who couldn't, the ones who thought harder were the ones that had just a little more brain cells than the ones who could only use 1 or 2 tools, and so the ones with bigger brains survived over the ones with less brain matter, and so on, for millions of years until until today.
If we could breed a cow with you, there would be another species on the planet.
*sigh* Actually, we have two very important observed facts 1: There are things in the ancient fossil tables that do not exist now. 2: There are things currently living that do not exist on any fossil table. But again, this is a matter of scientific discourse. If you want to dispute the theory of evolution, provide evidence that contradicts the theory.
i enjoyed this vid
ericajjful 4 weeks ago
very interesting thanks
shellybirdy 1 month ago
I wish he'd stop asking the audience stupid questions.
frightenedsoul 4 months ago in playlist Double slit experiment
This has been flagged as spam show
add on for young's double slit experiment like you've never seen before
watch?v=Z_6XqRHrp7U
kevinstuartfr0st 5 months ago
young's double slit experiment like you've never seen before
watch?v=yNeHYhvQXic
kevinstuartfr0st 6 months ago
@kill3465 Absolutely the detector interferes. the detector requires that photons come into contact the the electron (or some other form of EM energy). That necessarily interferes with the electron.
MewCat100 7 months ago
double-slit experiment ,interference pattern OR coherence pattern
watch?v=WC6LkdBLG1k
well worth a look,it might get some people thinking :)
kevinstuartfr0st 7 months ago
I don't understand what's so impossible about double slits. Doing a single slit experiment will show light acting as a wave. You just need to make the slit a certain size.
Think of it as water moving at extreme speeds, and it's not too complicated.... *=/
dvholston 10 months ago
@dvholston with very low intensity light, you can see the pattern developing in a quantized manner. Like point by point. pretty strange.
DizzyGillespie 10 months ago
@dvholston "I don't understand what's so impossible about double slits"
Single photons are always detected on the back screen as particles.
If you don't detect which slot the photons go through
1) they hit in places not lined up with the slit
2) the accumulation of their distribution is a diffraction pattern.
When you put a detector on one of the slits the pattern changes to two stripes which line up with the slits.
There is no classical reason why having detectors wld affect the results.
chrisofnottingham 9 months ago
my logic may be wrong here but if u some how were able to get both informations concealed and then dispersed to 2 different scientists who would read the info at the exact same time what would the results be. btw this is the best video for this experiment ive seen. it actually put it in a way that an average guy like me could comprehend. i was lost with the other videos out there.thanks.....
sariglenn 1 year ago
something so important and we cant even get good sound quality.
lopytube 1 year ago 3
Doesn't the action of observing necessarily disturb the experiment? Experimentally, how is this accomplished?
What role does diffraction play? The pattern changes based on particle size (or wavelength), I assume.
What if you look at the pattern, then decide whether to look at the individual slit counts? The definition of "observation" and its effects are unclear. Can someone that's done the experiment elaborate? Where can I find the details of the apparatus for this experiment?
HarshColby 1 year ago
This is a great series. I recommend watching all the way thru to 7/8, as it gets really good. HOWEVER, if u thought u saw a cross - u did. If u are not interested in a religious hijacking, then dont watch 8/8. But u dont need to, as it pretty much sums up in 7/7. :-)
jeebersjumpincryst 1 year ago
but light, moving through space? where's the medium? is it out there?
Zee96969696 1 year ago
@Zee96969696 there is no medium
me835 1 year ago
@me835 there's what? there's no medium? are joking? u gotto be joking, there always has to be medium with waves, and u say there's no medium? I just don't understand how could that be
Zee96969696 1 year ago
@Zee96969696 There is no medium as far as we're aware. Look up the Michelson Morley experiment for a basic understanding for that debate. The idea of the medium (known as the aether) was pretty much done away with after einstein's special relativity.
Ricki145 1 year ago
@Zee96969696 There really is no medium. for a time people believed in the "luminiferous ether" which would act as a medium for light. then we tried to measure our velocity relative to it by measuring the speed of light at different times of the year. turns out light always moves at the same speed no matter how you're moving. I dont understand it fully either, but its just the way it is.
me835 9 months ago
@Zee96969696 Well, a wave through water, water is the medium. Sound waves have air as a medium. For light it is the electro-magnetic field which actually waves in the same way. Michelson-Morley was in the 1800's. They didnt have the understanding of light developed later by Maxwell, Feynman, Einstein and the like.
Funny how something can be known to be absolutely true, experimentally verifiable, and then later been shown to be completely wrong. Makes you wonder about what we believe now..
DizzyGillespie 10 months ago
@DizzyGillespie well, you say electromagnetic feild is the medium, I assume you either studied physics or just read or heard about it, anyway, I don't know all that much about electromagnetic feild, and why do people refer to waves as real things? waves are only the effect of collaboration of the medium, it isn't reallly there, it is the medium which is moving in colaboration which is there, but people speak of waves like waves are objects, thats just so fucking untrue, get's me frustrated
Zee96969696 10 months ago
@DizzyGillespie nothing is true , just aproximations and like cold temperatures we never get to the limit...
lcabosa 10 months ago
@DizzyGillespie Im not sure, but I tink electro-magnetique field is not the medium, because it would mean that you sould have a constant electro-magnetique field on the path of the ''light''. It's actually a magnetique field and a electrique field that alternates.
bl0bl1bl4 10 months ago
This question is in regard to part 6/8 where he discusses Delayed Choice. I just posted here because part 1 gets the most hits. Part 6 is by far the best one. IMO
If choosing whether or not to view the detector data changes the results of the experiment, what happens if the results are viewed before we decide whether or not to view the data, AND what would happen if we did the experiment, erase the data, get an interference pattern, THEN use a data recovery tool to recover the erased data?
dgreene11235 1 year ago
Richard Feynman --- my favorite scientist COOL
carnivourlocust 1 year ago
they misinterprate the wave in this video...a wave is a wave no matter what medium it travels through...they talk about air waves and water waves when they are the same thing...it would be better to just say "a wave in water" or "a wave in air" because they behave exactly the same...they are the same
TheOnemandigitaljam 1 year ago
is that a cross ?
nfexp 2 years ago
"WHAT IS THE MEDIUM OF LIGHT !?!"
Space/Time
rastarigate 2 years ago
"without a medium there is no wave" ok.. this begs the question... - WHAT IS THE MEDIUM OF LIGHT !?!
Is it the Aether?
I think so!
jatigre1 2 years ago
@jatigre1
"WHAT IS THE MEDIUM OF LIGHT !?! Is it the Aether? I think so! "
Wow, way to turn the clock back more than 100 years.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Pseudo-science
jatigre1 2 years ago
single slit rotating and 2 single slits merging
watch?v=vwlp9nwMueM
kevinstuartfr0st 2 years ago
He gets much of it right, but unfortunately in the seventh or eighth segment he (inadvertently?) misrepresents the extent of weirdness demonstrated with the two slit experiment. It is weird, but not quite as weird as as he implies.
endall0 2 years ago
@endall0
"It is weird, but not quite as weird as as he implies"
Indeed, it is even weirder.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Nice video!
In my video Quantum Mechanics an artist view Time has symmetry and geometry that can explain the two slit experiment of Quantum Physics.
nickharvey7 2 years ago
In the end, just to put what cannot be put into words into words seperates us from the true underlying reality. We are all one. To ask a question is to create a word, to create a word is to disturb the stillness, thereby blinding us in this illusion created by our collective conscious minds. This reality no matter how far we delve macrocosmically & microcosmically will always be dualistic & thereby contradictory in its nature. It's only as real as one chooses for it to be.
leointx 2 years ago
Easy. The map is not the territory.
corymd3470 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
there's only one God. Call it what you like, its a simple way of life, designed to keep you healthy and teach compassion. God has sent many messengers to enlighten the people. We are all messengers of God, if we only ask humbly, we will find our way. There is only one God, and Muhammad or Jesus are only men, not Gods. Anyone who would elevate men to the status of Gods is a pagan, and should throw away their old testament.
philnoll 2 years ago
And anyone who is a christian should throw away their old testament and there new testament.
Davewa5here 2 years ago
lol, thats an interesting idea. I am an atheist, but I still have a bible, and I read it a lot. But to me, it is a story of corruption. From the gospels to revelations is the story of how a simple teacher was turned into a prophet, a king, a God.
philnoll 2 years ago
Wait a minute!... This mild-mannered scientist bares an uncanny resemblance to Dr. Quantum!.... WoooohahaHAHAHA!.. I've got you NOW Quantum! There's no escape!
eluminated 2 years ago
Oh my gods, is Nagzul STILL going on about it after all these months? I'll just say this. If Nazgul had done his research as much as he claims to have done it, he'd understand that there's not one evolutionary biologist that makes a distinction between macro and micro evolution. The whole "macro vs micro evolution" thing is only a debate among theologists. The terms "macro evolution" and "micro evolution" are incoherent concepts within science.
luccaskunk 2 years ago
much as religion and beliefs in god are inherent to human consciousness, so what.
romney27 2 years ago
can we please keep talking about the video rather than start the billionth id versus evolution debate?
The double-split experiment proving the reality of quantum physics is one of the great wonders of the 20th century.
MeriaDuck 2 years ago 10
I agree, we're talking about what we can be sure of and not some invisible faith-based deity.
WillSKB88 2 years ago
@MeriaDuck double slit*
Mrtassan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MeriaDuck its "double-slit".
8tgr 1 year ago
Why is there an alter behind this guy. You can't preach physics!
tak2mark 2 years ago
don't tell me this is some christian bullshit
twincann0n 3 years ago
You choose the double slit experiment for your christian Religion ????? Its completely ridiculous !!
You can take this phänomenon to explain that we need new science perpectives and also methyphysical perspectives. But one of the most simple and false methaphysical speculation is the abrahamitic believes !
Methyl10 3 years ago
A wave is what energy creates as it moves through water. I am sure that phycisist still do not fully understand what energy really is and how it works. Probably they should do more work to answer this, rather than trying to understand the actions of that we call energy and nobody knows what really is it.
LaEspriella 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but we're gonna have to stop this. I'm done. You are retarded and just want to seem to argue about words, yet again, you have offered the lamest argument yet, "we haven not observed evolution."
We have observed speciation which is one species evolving into another. The fact that you seem ignorant of this leads me to belive that you know little about biology and if you do you're certainly not keeping up on it.
ihaveopposablethumbs 3 years ago
"you are retarded"
very mature. :)
We haven't seen evolution happen or have we seen things in the steps of it happening.
There has not been an argument yet, you haven't even offered your side. I told you the truth, if it's your will you will defend your belief and show me some evidence. Pick something out of biology if you want. I'll show you how you're over analyzing science, and making it seem with a more less logical view.
nagzul 3 years ago
Also you act as if saying "we have not observed evolution" disproves evolution. No it only takes it out of science, beliefs may very be true in themselves, but they can't be exaltedly as true. It lacks the 2 last processes of science: observation and conclusion.
But science is perverted these days and is mixed with all of these unobserved assumptions people say are true. Of course ever since the belief of evolution polluted actual science,
nagzul 3 years ago
they've had to create many over-analyzing assumptions that push past actual observations.
nagzul 3 years ago
Nagzul, you can say people have been brainwashed with evolution all day. But that doesn't make it true. You can make outrageous claims untill you are blue in the face.
It is obvious that you have NO scientific training because you fail to understand that when you make claims you have to provide some sort of proof. You have provided NO proof just made wild claims bout lies and brainwashing.
Do us all a favor and help yourself to a book on Biology.
ihaveopposablethumbs 3 years ago
Brainwashing is something I'm familiar with nagzul. I was raised in a very religious home.
However I do think you are right about dropping this as you are bent on your point of veiw with no intent of reviewing the things that can actually proove truth, that is proof and evidence. As you said, they don't mean much to you, so we cannot have a reasonable discussion.
ihaveopposablethumbs 3 years ago
nagzul 3 years ago
Evolution is a scientific theory, based on the observation that organisms change over time so better suit their environment.
What the hell are you talking about, because the theory of evolution is a perfectly reasonable theory that has been based on observation, tested and made it to theory.
I choose to believe in it because it is truth proven by evidence.
ihaveopposablethumbs 3 years ago
You have the right to believe it. :)
You know what you're saying applys to yourself, because to back up my claims you first have to show some evidence.
But never mind, you jump to a conclusion about me without even yet starting. You seem like the type who would most likely be a wall and close-minded to any opposing discussion.
Yes I'm educated, I understand science. Biology isn't evolution it's only been groped and perverted by a belief.
It can be biology and make sense without evolution.
nagzul 3 years ago
Based* key word based*
Evolution hasn't been observed itself.
You observe "Evidence" then say it's evidence for evolution.
nagzul 3 years ago
I can handle any evidence you throw at me and show you how you're looking to much into it.
It may be better explained a different way, and prove to be more logical than the way it seems to you. But all in all that view is science, the way I explain has been observed. Evolution just goes past "observed" and looks to far into it. Then it becomes a belief.
If you can argue evolution with an alternative logical scientific understanding that proves in itself that evolution is a only belief.
nagzul 3 years ago
P.S. the way people get brainwashed with evolution, is the same way people get brain washed with religion.
They force a belief and a view that looks believable and call it truth.
Evolution and stereotypical religions are both in the same, they lack life.
They force you to think restrictedly without an open mind to "maybe something else".
That's when the word -biased- comes into play.
nagzul 3 years ago
Your fundamental error is that you assume Darwinism is a biological theory. It isn't, it's a logical necessity. Evolution can be observed in any path lab any day of the week.
gamesbok 2 years ago
And just so ya know, evolution being truth doesn't mean that there can't be a god. All it means is that organisms adapt to their environment over time.. and the more time you have the more change you have from the original. I seriously don't understand what is so hard to accept about this theory.
ihaveopposablethumbs 3 years ago
Okey, evidence is something that furnishes proof, something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter. I got that from merriam-webster. And proof definition 1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or fact. I did as you asked and looked up the definitions. And by those definitions there is evidence of evoloution, evidence furnishes proof, proof allows us to believe something as truth.
ihaveopposablethumbs 3 years ago
Evidence can back up anything.
you can make shoes back up as evidence for where a hot air balloon has gone.
The theory of evolution is only a conspiracy toscience.
Its not actual science, nor does the evidence actually show strong support for it.
Evolution is a belief,just as all religion is. Of course your going to ague with me and present to me evidence and I'm going to show you how you've been brain washed. But I really don't feel like doing that with a 10th person, so lets leave it at that.
nagzul 3 years ago
There is proof of evolution, the only way not to see it is to close your eyes.
Adaptation over billions of years is evolution. There is proof for evolution, there ARE fossils, and there IS poof even in the human genome!!! Open your eyes.
Evolution is a proven theory not just some crazy unproven idea. If it was un provable we would not have a huge scientific community support it.
ihaveopposablethumbs 3 years ago
lol not proof.
That's your "evidence." look up the words. :)
nagzul 3 years ago
It think it's total crap to ask people to believe something that there isn't proof for.
I don't think it's crap to believe in such things one's self, but we must keep our fantasy separate from reality, and when we are dealing with reality we need to put our science goggles on because the scientific method is the best tool we have for understanding the world around us.
ihaveopposablethumbs 3 years ago
exactly. Observing is part of the scientific method.
Evolution is still just a belief as well.
But it's the biggest belief that has ever been shoved down peoples throats.
nagzul 3 years ago
SERIOUSLY... i cant believe you people.
Your arguing about religion..
religion- a belief system...
Evolution is a substantiated fact.
i dont understand how you can believe in a religion if it tells you how the world was created. when every religion has a different story as to how it happened... Christianity.. 6008 years and one day ago a thing that looked like a man was the only thing to exist, then he decided to make everything... somehow.. with his magical powers?
PirateTheRapist 3 years ago
...and He created whole Universe with billions of galaxies and trylions of starts just to put us in the small galaxy, in the small solar system, on a tiny planet - his greatest creation - humans, and now He judges us on a base whether we believe in Him or not. Kind of lame I think... and for such a perfect being.. first commandment.. well, quite a monopoly for a Perfect Being who doesn't need anything from us. I could write a book on what doesn't add up... like most of you, I guess :D
Vejita12 3 years ago
No fossils show steps of human evolution.
Maybe different genes that have died out of ethnics. Maybe bones people who lived for thousands of years, we know that history backs that up. There's many ways to look at it. An idea should not be made as truth just because it's supported through acception.
About the ants, I can't believe you brought that up. xD
Thats call birth defects.
Also just becauseDNA was tampered manually, doesn't mean it his a mind of it's own and tampers its self automatically.
nagzul 3 years ago
"An idea should not be made as truth just because it's supported through acception."
Exactly idea of God is not a truth because it's only supported by acception and only acception.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Birth defects are exactly what it's all about - RANDOM CHANGES IN GENETIC CODE and if it works in a place you are, you live, if not you die...
Those fossils show no steps, but a beings who lived for thousands of years, yeah that's more reasonable xDD
Vejita12 3 years ago
Who said anything about God?
I'm talking about science.
Evolution isn't science, it has not completed the method. It's the same as believing in God.
lol growing older sounds a lot more reasonable than morphing from another creature. You're only brainwashed, that's why it sounds more believable. :)
birth defects are an accident, they aren't fruitful. Why is it that smoking and drugs can cause birth defects? Do you think that we need to encourage birth defects so that we can "evolve."? lol
nagzul 3 years ago
Like I said you have no idea what evolution is, you twist it and than say that it is not true, and you know what, you are right everything you said is not true cause you are talking about evolution how you want it to be not as it is. But tell me one thing.. if a wing was a birth defect was it still unfruitful?
Vejita12 3 years ago
If evolution is just "science" and not an understanding of why? Then can anyone have there own view of it?
a wing is not inside a humans genes.
You will only get a birth defect of something that's already part of the pool.
An extra wing would be a birds birth defect.
You would only get an extra, or a lack of something. It would be a problem from a cause, it wouldn't be just random.
nagzul 3 years ago
I was rather talking about something colser to bats...
Vejita12 3 years ago
that.
God in me is the holy spirit.
Evidence.
Just as much, maybe even more than evolution evidence.
Since you can observe it taking place.
You can feel it in many senses.
I can't describe to you in how many ways God effects me, but I can tell you he's real and a relationship with him only gets you heavenly pleasures.
It has nothing to do with being better, it's called grace.
Some might call love a weakness.
nagzul 3 years ago
Again you are in error Nagzul. Lets ignore the fact that preeclampsia is lower in mothers who smoke. Your use of the word 'defect' is a subjective term that has no place in Darwin. Remember the most successful beast on this planet is not man, but the neamotode worms. And the fossil record for humans, back to far distant Austrolopithcines, is complete. By the way, your word, 'acception' doesn't occur in the Oxford English Dictionary.
gamesbok 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You say that like you saw it happen. :)
Evolutionists are fails of wanna be historians.
They us their imagination to come up with the answers of history they never saw.
I don't need to hear your bigotry spoken like you "know it."
nagzul 2 years ago
Don't desensitize yourself by taking away the meaning of life and only understanding the surface of it, the how-it-ticks part of life. :)
There's a reason why everything is made the way it ticks.
nagzul 3 years ago
I don't care why? I need no religion to be a good man, or to have a purpose in live even though I believe that it is highly unlikely that there is any afterlife or salvation wainting for me after I'm dead.
Vejita12 3 years ago
Who said anything about religion...
LOL omg you are so biased. xD
You assume I'm speaking about religion, why don't you just read into what I'm say as far as to what I said. I said nothing about religion. Go re-read it.
nagzul 3 years ago
I did...
"I'm already saved, and I have a spirit in me known as God. Christianity is the only religion that understand science."
If by this two sentences you don't mean religin than explain me what does a part about God in you mean? :/
Vejita12 3 years ago
religion isn't necessarily Christianity.
Christianity only means to be Christ-like.
These are doing signs and wonders, caring and love, hanging out with low-lifes.
The term was meant to be discriminating: "those Christians" "trying to be like Christ" I never said anything about religion, nor a perfect being. The topic we were discussing was about science and evolution. You were being biased and missing the picture because you were looking at me as a biased religion person. You won't hear me like
nagzul 3 years ago
Meaning of life???????
gamesbok 2 years ago
The only changes cells will change automatically, is the way it's programmed.
The only way that can be observed, and is accepted into science.
The only way is through adaption, and it only exists in a single being.
Just because you have a suntan and you live in a very sunny area, doesn't mean you baby is going to be born with a suntan.
nagzul 3 years ago
That is the perfect example of how you have no clue what evolution is all about... the only changes evolution mentions are changes in that program - "random changes in the GENETIC CODE".
Suntan example is also wrong, and also shows your lack of knowledge.
Vejita12 3 years ago
Evolution takes things such as a suntan into evolution, they just have different branches of evolution.
Evolution in it's self is explained as adapting to survive.
I'm sorry but go read about evolution, if you think it's only random. lol
If it was random then why didn't everything happen wrong and eventually kill off everything that exists?
Evolutionist don't just believe it's only random. They consider it long time adapting.
nagzul 3 years ago
This suntan example is a bit similar to virus HIV example. It propagets in a number of millions and if you treat it with a drug of some kind almost all of them would die except those few who was "born" with an immunity to that drug and only those few will survive and propagate further again in the number of millions. A guy with a suntan would die(exaggeration ofcourse), but a guy with a dark complexion could survive and he would have a chance to have an offspring with even darker complexion.
Vejita12 3 years ago
Did that immunity happen randomly? Or was there something already in the pool? ;o
The only thing that splits humans up are ethnics. That is our species.
Creatures don't have a gene pool to turn into a completely different creature.
nagzul 3 years ago
Ofcourse it's adapting to survive but AS A SPECIES not as an individual... this one thing makes an enormous difference to your suntan example.
Vejita12 3 years ago
Ok then why are you arguing about me not understanding it correctly? :P
You're eating your own words here.
Now you agree with me. xP
So fickle, stick to one thing bro.~
nagzul 3 years ago
luccaskunk: Catholics don't have a problem with evolution.
steve132 3 years ago
If they believed the bible as Gods word then they would.
So many people are fake and just "Choose" a religion to follow rather than actually believing something.
Religions are no more than a club now. :)
nagzul 3 years ago
"Religions are no more than a club now"
Thank god.
Justheretosaythis 3 years ago
I did my evolution modules in St George's church in sheffield hahaha! Irony!
When an electron is travelling? it must be a wave? B-radiation is an electron? and can't waves diffract to varying degrees dependent on the size of slit they pass through? even transverse waves? and since wavelength varies with energy, (or frequency?), couldn't an electron gun with slight variation in frequencies on each individual electron produce a range of diffractions similar to an interference pattern?
D4vy87 3 years ago
the distortion is terrible.
HaShomeret 3 years ago
If wave collapse is dependent on an individual's actions regarding the statistics kept during observation, (which is basically the main focus of this video and the favorite QM phenomenon for the religious) please explain how simply "deleting" the results affects what will be seen on the screen? Does not QM know about computer forensics and the ability we have to reconstruct a deleted file?
rdstechinc 4 years ago
Just one damn minute. I went online to look up something that matched the powerpoint presentation, and the experiment apparatus looks different. Was the detector at the slits creating another photon, entangling that new photon with the photon that strikes the photographic plate? If you create a new entanglement then the destruction of the "loop" would effect the other particle or photon.
Userduder 4 years ago
It could be a catholic university... you know, where Quantum Physics is an ok topic, but evolution is not.
luccaskunk 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Apparently paradoxical backwards causality wierdness isn't as speculative as Democrat-Devolution.
Userduder 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
evolution is still a theory :)
It isnt science only a theory based on science.
Hate how schools "teach it" in science class, Evolution should be an "evolution theory class" and science class should explain, just science, not things that "might be true."
nagzul 3 years ago
Nagzul- You obviously don't know what a scientific theory means. For the record, when scientists use "theory" it has a different meaning than in everyday use. In everyday use theory means just a guess/hunch. Something that doesn't have proof. In science, a theory isn't just a guess. It is a substantiated,supported, and well-documented explanation for observations. It can be tested time & time again with results that can be replicated. There are many real world examples of evolution.
jmorales18 3 years ago
Evidence can be used in the wrong theory.
It's still a theory, not fact.
There can be many other theorys. :)
But it's imposible for a creature to evolve into another creature.
The only kind of evolving that exists is climate and adaption to the point of suntan, muscle mass, etc.
nagzul 3 years ago
Again, a scientific theory is not just an idea. You are confusing scientific theory and hypothesis. There can be many hypotheses. That is why scientists test them. If the tests prove the hypothesis to be correct, then they retest them. And they do that over & over again. Eventually if hypothesis keeps being confirmed then you get a scientific theory. Which, I repeat, isn't just an idea. On what basis do you say that it is impossible for a creature to evolve into another? Please do some reading.
jmorales18 3 years ago 2
I never said it was an idea.
It def. isn't fact. Who said I havn't done research. :P
You're just trying to deffend something by talking out of you ass. xD
Evolution has not een proven, plus so many tests are done in such a moronic way, and then basically say "well this is the only answer." Then they mix it with real -factual science- like gravity and kinetic energy.
Evolution, and factual science are 2 dif cattegorys.
nagzul 3 years ago
Ok you win. It's all a lie & I'm talking out of my ass. You sir, are superior. Congratulations. I will now proceed to believe that organisms have always been as they are now and will always be as they are now. Now that that is settled, can you give me guidance on a few other things? Do I need to start believing that the earth is only 6000 yrs old? That the earth is flat? Was the Grand Canyon actually created by a huge flood? Please help. There is so much fact based science I need to unlearn. Thx
jmorales18 3 years ago 2
Believe what you want.
That's what evolution is, a belief.
as for how old the earth is, I don't know.
But I don't believe in carbon dating, it is flawed. It works sometimes for a short periods of time, but it's been proven that carbon dating can be waay off.
As for the huge flood? We know there was a huge flood that happened at a time period in life, but I don't think that it had much to do with the grand canyon.
nagzul 3 years ago
You're totally right. A belief isnt fact & it certainly isn't science. But the theory of evolution by natural selection isn't merely belief/opinion. Evidence of common descent & evolution can be found in areas like genetics, paleontology, anatomy, and biochemistry. These findings are not belief. They are physical evidence that support evolutionary theory. Recent evolutionary changes can even be seen right now in organisms like Galapagos finches, Croatian lizards, countless microorganisms, etc.
jmorales18 3 years ago 2
I'm sorry if I made many responses. ehy :/
Youtube is being retarded.
nagzul 3 years ago
I don't have to argue with you. :)
Hovind has debunk most of the evolution imagination with his work, and anything I say he has already said.
I also found out he agrees with me that the "lies" need to be taken out of the school text books, and that they need to quit mixing the belief with actual science. I like his comment of comparing the idea to beer at a football game.
nagzul 3 years ago
Read 'The God delusion'. Richard Dawkins is the foremost expert on the origin of species and is infinately more knowledgeable than you on this topic. You are just believing some nieve pastor retard.
kusalaviro 3 years ago
watch?v=8cffk0zQ33k&feature=related
I don't have to argue with you. :)
Hovind has debunk most of the evolution imagination with his work, and anything I say he has already said.
I also found out he agrees with me that the "lies" need to be taken out of the school text books, and that they need to quit mixing the belief with actual science. I like his comment of comparing the idea to beer at a football game.
nagzul 3 years ago
ah oK. I figured it out, youtube wont allow a full link. just add the home page youtube address in the front if what i already provided you (with a backslash after it).
nagzul 3 years ago
Your stupid bible says the world is 6,000 years old. Now I'm sure even you are not stupid enough to believe that. Evolution is a FACT and the evidence to support it is massive and not debated AT ALL in the scientific community. I've heard the bullshit you Christians hear in church, how much longer are you gonna ignore the facts? Wake up!!
kusalaviro 3 years ago
lol Evolution dosn't even exist.
It's all in your mind. More than half of th e stuff evolutionist fanics use has been proven un-usable or flawed or hoaxes. (bigfoot style hoaxes)
But just because of some imagionation of a teenager known as darwin, you guys are still trying to prove the theory right, and use science in your explinations to make it look like science.
But science today doesn't work like your evolution theory states. :)
Evolution is only existing inthe species.Eventually our dna is
nagzul 3 years ago
our genes are going to be spread like butter.
They aren't going to reform the species known as human. They can't get out of the bounderys of species. They only work they way they were designed to work.
nagzul 3 years ago
What do you mean by 'boundry of species'. It doesn't appear to be something nature recognises.
gamesbok 2 years ago
You say evolution is just a 'theory'. What about the bible?? Where's your evidence for that speculated load of crap!!!
kusalaviro 3 years ago
There's alot of scientific evidence that backs the bible up.
But just like evolution, it's not proof. :)
The bible is backed up by archeologists.
Places and things wouldn't have been found without the bible being historically accurate.
It also speaks in a way that is only logical if the earth was round beofre we even knew it was round.
Also they have found the real mountain moses visted.
Evidence is all over it. The top of the mountain also shows sign of an intense fire resting ontop.
nagzul 3 years ago
Yeah right, and Noah put 2 of EVERY animal in the world on ONE boat. And you say that evolution is 'just a belief'!!
kusalaviro 3 years ago
Just type "mountain of fire moses"
in youtube.
You'll be amazed at all of the evidence.
The water eroded split rock is amazing.
lol alot of you bash the story of noah without litterally reading it, because you just stated a common error that isn't true in that statement.
nagzul 3 years ago
The video has cheap and lame effects, so don't be so judgmental when you watch it.
Just be interestest in the evidence they found.
nagzul 3 years ago
Evolution is a logical consequnce of the imperfect reproduction and selection pressure. It isn't dependant on emperical evidence, although all the evidence supports evolution.
Carbon dating can be wrong, but this is well understood, see 'Radio Cardon dating, Fictious Results with Mollusk Shells, Keith & Anderson 1963, Science. This is part of the scientific cannon, and they're way ahead of you.
gamesbok 2 years ago
People like Nagzul astound me with their ignorance and unwillingness to see the facts!!
kusalaviro 3 years ago
People like you are ignorent and take the imagionation that uses scientific evidence and call it science.
Evolution has very little research that suports it. The only reliable part is the DNA theory. Yet, we have never seen DNA evolve outside of how it was designed.
nagzul 3 years ago
Evolution is fully supported but a MOUNTAIN of evidence!!! And... the DNA mapping made evolution a fact. Stop kidding yourself. You idiots will deny the truth in the face of the most conclusive evidence. You are hurting us as a speicies with your close-minded beliefs. Buddhism is the ONLY belief system that resonates harmoniously with science.
kusalaviro 3 years ago
Evolution falls in the cattegory.
You are demeaning human value, even if the ones who actually think, might try to hype human value to stay alive.
most ppl that are fed evolution, become less caring, more selfish, and more like animals. The world is de-evovling not evolving.
Humans are become more and more like animals everyday.
Evidence isn't proof btw. A mountain of that evidence you believe, is not even hard evidence, and alot of it has been proven wrong.
nagzul 3 years ago
You don't know what evolutions is.
Evolution is adjusting RANDOMLY to surrounding enviroment through RANDOM changes to the genetic code, and it does NOT mean improve so NOTHING can de-evolve.
All those fossils showing steps of human evolution, DNA experiments with ants where after changing their genetic code legs grew out if their heads, HIV virus where you can literaly see it adapting to new drugs. If this is not proof, than why don't you explain it to me why, please?
Vejita12 3 years ago
Nothing can evolve ether.
But many of evolutionist look at evolving as improving. They are bent on survival of the fittest.
Lol, why do you take me seriously when i say de-evolve? Not literally, but if you believe in evolution, then you can see humans, mentally are getting less smarter, and act more like selfish instinctive animals as time progresses. It appears mentally that we are de-evolving. But the reason being is because the belief that we are animals has been introduced to culture.
nagzul 3 years ago
There is a saying that in this world not moving forward means moving back. And believing in a greater being is thousands of years old. Dark ages are over.. deal with it.
The only thing thar prevents you from even considering facts is your ego, you think that you are better, that you are the greates creation of a perfect being... guess what?
Vejita12 3 years ago
Birth defects is not adapting lol
it's the same as cancer.
It's something of a negative effect.
It will not in means take part in changing a generation of something into something else. lol
It didn't happen randomly.
There's always a cause to a birth defect.
When did I say anything about a perfect being?
Why are you assuming you know what I'm thinking? Biasism... not tolerable.
nagzul 3 years ago
Also, there's more to life than science.
You're missing something if all your understanding is based around science.
Thinking like that only pushes you further away from humanity, when all you think is that all there is to life is what you can see with your eyes. (this rant is not focussed on evolution this time, I'm talking about an all-you-can-know-scientific-mind) I do have a very scientific mind, but I know I'm gimp if that's all I understand. I do understand a little bit more. :)
nagzul 3 years ago
De-evolving doesn't make sense. Fitness is all that counts. If this appears to you at any given moment, like a decrease in inteligence, or a cruder form (the Garacile anthrolopicicus were before the Robustus), then tough luck. Stupidity might not be a barrier to breeding success.
gamesbok 2 years ago
Emotions are a liability.... So is a skeletal body covered in flesh. We would have no reason to develop these characteristics if evolution was half the man you claim him to be. Not to mention with DNA and understanding how complex cells are now compared to when darwin extrapolated his theories of selective breeding, isn't "origin of species" arguments so last century?
n8nutrition 2 years ago
Creatures can and do evolve into other creatures. This has been shown over and over. How much evidence do you really need? I've seen the fake science books that Christians read, DON'T believe them anymore, save yourself, there is NO God!!! We are trying to help you...
kusalaviro 3 years ago
I'm already saved, and I have a spirit in me known as God. Christianity is the only religion that understand science.
You can know something, but can you understand it?
What creature have you seen evolve into another creature?
nagzul 3 years ago
Here you mentioned a perfect being... God who created you and already saved you... yeah right xDD
What creature can you see now, you ask.. although in most cases evolution takes hundreds or thousands of years so it can't be seen by one or two generations... well virus HIV.. when you treat it with drugs it shows exactly what evolution is all about.
Vejita12 3 years ago
"Here you mentioned a perfect being... God who created you and already saved you... yeah right xDD"
WHEN-?
Don't put words in my mouth. :)
Virus's work the way they are programmed, adapting to resist something is part of what they are.
Nothing else is a virus, nor does it work like one.
nagzul 3 years ago
"I'm already saved, and I have a spirit in me known as God. Christianity is the only religion that understand science." - yeah, you didn't mention God at all I am just putting words into your mouth xDD
Vejita12 3 years ago
But that's all it is.
Though these experiences are completely off topic with evolution.
Slightly off-topic with science.
nagzul 3 years ago
That's curisous, because the Quran says, 'Got to Nature, study her, and gain wisdom'. That's an injunction found nowhere in Christanity. Truth to be told, the Dark Ages started at 9am 13th January, 529AD, when Justinian closed the Accadomy in Athens. Christians have never been the friend of science.
gamesbok 2 years ago
How ignorant. Obviously you are unfamiliar with Erasmus, Aquinas, etc. By the way, what do you think happened to Ibn Rushd? Why were his works burned?
pizzystrizzy 2 years ago
I'm talking about HUMAN knowledge. Aquinas was a hippo.
gamesbok 2 years ago
You obviously don't read the Bible! There are tons of references to studying nature. You just come off sounding like a troller, retard or fundamentalist. Either way, you are taking a unscientific approach. Christians have rejected changes to what is known...true. So has scientist, athiest and every other type of "human". That's what "we" do, resist change!
n8nutrition 2 years ago
I won't claim to know what the Bible says about studying science, nor the Quran. But I will say that both of them have inaccuracies of science. And in the modern day, Christian scientists blindly defy prevailing wisdom, where Islam is licking their lips at the chance to put scientific revelations forth as fulfilled prophecy. Anyone ever heard that the Quran predicted the speed of light?
Thousand years in a day. very vague prophecy.
Religion isn't about science, its about brotherhood.
philnoll 2 years ago 3
@gamesbok Wrong.
nilbud 1 year ago
Not to say Christianity is a religion,
I mean The revelations and words that come from God.
Christianity is just a word for a people who do signs and wounders walk on water, hela the sick,c ast out demons, love the poor, and who are humble.
Christianity was a term given to people to de-mean them when they saw someone doing a christ-like work.
It litteraly means to be Christlike.
The holy spirit is his holy spirit he walked in, and is also the same as God.
nagzul 3 years ago
Nagzul, what about the theory of gravity? "Mass creates gravity. Gravity causes everything with mass in the universe to share a mutual attraction." We have no proof that that's what's really going on, just evidence that points to it and no evidence that contradicts it. Same as evolution. Should they not teach the theory gravity?
luccaskunk 3 years ago
As for Kent Hovind. What he does is deliberately say confusing things and then claim victory when the person can't respond. He doesn't win debates, he ends them tragically. But then, it's quite obvious that you yourself have no actual education in this, and yet you argue youself an expert. They call that "The Dunning-Kruger Effect" look it up.
luccaskunk 3 years ago
hahaah true that, i fucking love busting out dunning kruger effects on these idiots, dude, i prove evolution mathmatically, observably, and a whole lot of other ways, than these people just quote science text books, go on youtube and type in "super cow" and click on the first video, dude WE FORCE species to evolve via breeding, thats an observable form of evolution RIGHT THERE, we even have GENETIC EVIDENCE, evolution is in your god damn DNA
TheMetacognologist 3 years ago
Actually it's not in your DNA or mine and naz is completely correct it's never been observed. If you want to debate evolution then start and the beginning. The big bang theory.
I do agree with you about Dunning Kruger effect tests :)that would be a kick to see their faces.
polidic 3 years ago
unfortunately, that proves nothing.
we can breed different types of cows, but it are still cows..
we never get a new species..
evolution critics say: how did a monkey evolve into a man.
how does a cow change in a new species.
we cant do that. we can only create new types of cows.
so there must be more to it then just breeding..
cathy2708 3 years ago
apes evolved into humans when apes learned how to use tools, the ones who could use more tools and so think harder, survived over the ones who couldn't, the ones who thought harder were the ones that had just a little more brain cells than the ones who could only use 1 or 2 tools, and so the ones with bigger brains survived over the ones with less brain matter, and so on, for millions of years until until today.
If we could breed a cow with you, there would be another species on the planet.
DVAFP 3 years ago
The bit about apes was never observed.
The only evidence to that propaganda is some bones of an irrelevant creature or greatly aged human being.
We don't know the history of those bones.
To assume one theory and not consider others is ignorant.
Especially when the theory chosen for it has no sound proof and is only creative thinking.
nagzul 3 years ago
There's no sound proof for your god either.
moonlightlupine 3 years ago
Not in the mainstream of society.
You're right there is no -established- proof for God ether.
I'm glad you have some sense. :)
Though believing in intelligent Design is a theory as much as evolution with much evidence as that in evolution.
nagzul 3 years ago
I know that I've just agreed to saying that the ID/Evolution debate has no place here but your comment pmo.
ID IS NOT IN DEBATE WITH EVOLUTION> END.
WillSKB88 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
no but science is a debate with evolution.
So is animals the defy evolution, if you want to call them id, then go ahead it's all a belief though.
nagzul 2 years ago
Not the same.
The theory of gravity is based on observation.
We came up with the theory after we observed something.
We havn't observed evolution.
Don't provide the micro examples, that's just bs. :P
The theory of evolution wasn't birthed from observing real observed adaption different creatures are programmed with.
That's just the "son" evolution adopted and called his own.
The birth of evolution wasn't even a serious idea at first, it wasn't formed from a hypothesis.
nagzul 3 years ago
*sigh* Actually, we have two very important observed facts 1: There are things in the ancient fossil tables that do not exist now. 2: There are things currently living that do not exist on any fossil table. But again, this is a matter of scientific discourse. If you want to dispute the theory of evolution, provide evidence that contradicts the theory.
luccaskunk 3 years ago
lol you'd use that evidence?
That's your weakest evidence you have. xD
I already do.
I provide observable evidence.
The same observable evidence you provide, but without the over analyzing that steps over observation.
nagzul 3 years ago