you cannot explain this with science... you need to step out of the box and enter the realm of spirituality, energy is consciousness.... electrons are " conscious " I the particle.
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
@jclemons920 by making it sound like a 100% passive device that has no environmental consequences, the natural conclusion many arrive at is that the electron "knows" it is being observed
perhaps this is the case... I don't know that much about this subject... but I have strong doubts that the "electron measuring device" is quite as passive as he makes it sound... he should have named what it is
@leet512 a few things i've read suggest that even when the detectors are switched on, if they turn off the device which actually records the results (ie datalogger) the wave function doesn't collapse, i've also read the opposite from some other sources (though none of these sources of the opposite opinion were qualified physicists). This experiment is very confusing, I'm tempted to go do it myself and actually see what happens one day lol.
@nickyaz111 hehe yes, it is very confusing! and I too would like to run my own version of it some day... what you just said about the datalogger sounds downright mystical... unless there is something physical about it perhaps... maybe the recording device is emitting some kind of EM field, and it has been placed too close to the detectors... or well who knows... best for me not to speculate without seeing what their setup is
@nickyaz111 hehe yes, it is very confusing! and I too would like to run my own version of it some day... what you just said about the datalogger sounds downright mystical... unless there is something physical about it perhaps... maybe the recording device is emitting some kind of EM field, and it has been placed too close to the detectors... or well who knows... best for me not to speculate without seeing what their setup is
@jclemons920 if they measure the temperature of some liquid they should say "we thermometered the helium and found it was at 73F"...
this will remind the readers of their literature that all these measuring devices that are used in the field come with their own limits, medium interactions, and peculiarities
while Dr. Plunkett did a great job explaining DeBroglie waves, at the end there he unfortunately did not name the device used to measure each slit, nor what interactive traits it has
@jclemons920 to see how they bounce off or interact in a billiard like fashion
using the term "observe" has kludged this subject up a great deal because most people associate that word with measurements made with the eye
if scientists detect an airplane flying at some height and vector using radar they should NOT say "we detected a plane using radar"... they should take the liberty to introduce a new phrase into the culture... they should say "we radared a plane"
@jclemons920 one of the problems with much of the literature on this subject is that the writers are not taking the liberty to coin new words to demonstrate to the readers the interactive nature of most measuring devices
it is very rare indeed to find a measuring device that is purely 100% passive... in fact I'm not sure I know of any
so when they use the term "observe the particle", what they often fail to convey is that in some cases this has meant firing other particles at the target site
I'm sure they've thought of that but I'm guessing that if both slits become detectors themselves it would be the same as the light he explains on the slits being detectors and the particles would just go through one slit and not both
The screen is also a type of observation but after the particle has gone through the slits it's when the particle hit the slits that if being observed somehow choose to change to a single slit
1) Why can the screen being hit have an oscillating pattern? People can observe and watch the screen. If a detector is placed before then, the pattern returnes to two lines. The screen itself is a large detector, so why is it different?
2) What if the double slit itself is used as a detector? For a photon to hit the center, it must bouce off one or "both" of the sides of the slits themselves. If the slit device becomes a detector, that could give an answer
@jjtyler21 It's a pity no one responded to your comment sooner.
1. Imagine a world where all possibilities are possible. As soon as we make the board a detector, it narrows down the possibilities to a wave-like interference, but still all possibilities with the board itself are still viable, thus they show multiple lines due to interference. Once a detector is used to narrow down the possibilities even more, it goes to two slits.
@jjtyler21 I know it seems weird, and I'm not even going to pretend I know anything about quantum mechanics, but it's not just pure magic. And from this theory, Schrodinger's emerged. We don't know what's in the box, but as soon as we see it, our perception forces a reality.
2. I would hypothesize that if there was a firing device that fired electrons the same way, direction, and speed every single time, and there was a board with two slits that could detect which slit the electron goes through, we would see only one line, or maybe even only one dot.
we try to look at the smallest particles that we can observe and try to make phycis out of them..it seems that in quantum level theres s whole different laws of gravity and mechanics of physics that breaks the modern understanding.. example a matter is ENERGY only in a condensed form. when we shoot that particle to highspeeds and to contain them in well-defined beams and separate it to different direction miles away AND WE MOVE 1 split of that particle little OFF the other follows too
i think i solved the equation that links the two relative equations according to einstine's theorem of relativity i am probably wrong but email me to see my proof. einstine: E=mc^2
this is false or less correct, true for 2 dimensions.maybe
2 variables = 2 variables x y = x y
y = energy = e
x= variable(relative)
einstine is missing a variable ? delta? ( three forces?? a matrix? lol jk)
delta energy(e) = mass by relative speed of observer?
@JeffersonDinedAlone lol it probably is :) I just am just a Mathematics student motivated to answer one of the most puzzling meta phyical questions out there. thank you for your honest opinion. But what about it is wrong? I want to get started on the real proof,(even though i know I won't ever get near it) . Your honest opinion is greatly appreciated
@mjennings1271 I appreciate the sincerity of your interest in this pursuit, however, I am not at liberty to reveal information within a copyrighted thesis prior to publication. The next consideration I'll have will be pursuing the solution to cold fusion. However, feel free to keep me informed as to your progession.
@hardcorehunter1 With presumption that baseless, and, consequently, that foolish, I find it rather difficult to believe that you are possessed of a mind capable of expanding, or advancing, anything. Proper hygiene, some measure of physical fitness, and at least a minimal attempt at coordinating one's attire is not only healthy, but also appropriate. No gym attendance for me, however. Gym attendance is fine, although I prefer other measures for exercise. One should never presume. Understand?
The observation collapsed the potential into a finite expression. The observer becomes a part of the equation, and accounts for the finite result. Possibly that when something from the quantum is observed by, what is essentially a massively complex touring-tested, supercomputer system comprised solely of googilions of quantum bits (our brain), it seems more likely that an unobserved potential is infinite, and infinite is equal to zero.us
Could quantum mechanics represent the passage or Arrow of Time?
This theory is based on just two postulates,
1.The first is that the quantum wave particle function explained by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time or Arrow of Time itself photon by photon, quanta by quanta or moment by moment.
2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event.
its not that they 'know', its that the act of observing means that something has to be changed. Otherwise people couldnt see what is going on. This observation makes things different. Something to look at is Wittgenstein's Cat which explains this...
@xknowledgeisfreex actually it could be either of their cat's, and in trying to observe whose cat it actually is, you will alter the findings of the observation...
I'm making short comedy skit videos and am partial towards physics and math humor. I'm going around to popular physics/math videos promoting to try to find a crowd that can understand the jokes. If you have some time please check out my channel and the video subatomic particle party. Thanks for your time.
s1 help me please ... why is it the marbles in the exprmnt. behave normally when not observed but the particles act weird. i read that all matter when not observed is supposed to behave weird. dont they go thru the same test ? . and in schrodingers cat expmnt., if we removed the chance part wouldnt we know the cat is dead with out observing it. the only reason its in 2 states is bcause we dont know? why do people claim everything behaves diff when not observed but the marbles clearly did not
@sariglenn two reasons. First reason is that with the cat and the marbles, they are big enough to be observed by anything, when you observe them, the wavefunction breaks down so if you remove chance, you remove unpredictability. You are able to do this with quantum particles as well. Second reason is that the bigger the particle, the smaller its wave pattern, is and so the marble slits would be nearly infinitely small. Thats what we have so far but you have highligted a key mystery of QM
@sariglenn lol I wish I could answer that question. Noone is really able to explain how particles "know" but basically they are obeying the laws of mathematics. We cannot know where a particle is and where it is going at the same time without distrupting the wave function. So when we observe a particle, mathematically its wave function breaks down. I think that its amazing. Think about it like this: mathematics are governing reality.
This explanation was proposed by ‘Neo Diffractionites’ (found in a Facebook Quantum Physics discussion)
If a laser is aimed close to, but not above, a knife edge, some photons will bend over the top of the knife edge due to diffraction (demonstrating that diffraction starts at the front edge)
Thus if the slits are close enough (near the ‘wavelength’ of the oscillating particle), there will be a zone where the front-edge diffraction effects overlap; this overlap causes the interference pattern
A new and very simple explanation of the double-slit experiment has been posted on the Facebook ‘Quantum Physics Discussions’ page (the title of the posting = ‘Idiots propose an alternative explanation of the double-slit experiment’).
Is there any merit in this theory or are these ‘Neo Diffractionites’ just troublemakers?
@hotterThanU101 Agreed, this shit is dead scary... Whether or not we observe something non-living can change its behaviour as if it's aware it's being observed...!? Yet... judging by what I've gotten of it so far it doesn't seem to disprove determinism...
Isn't the wave-like property only truly a reflection of the probabilities? The probabilities are waves, The particles are not. Reference: Newton's rings are the same as the results of the two slit experiment. Also reference Feynman's Vega lectures in which he gives a detailed explanation of how the probabilities of light going thru the slits is calculated using probability amplitudes.
Photons have one nature. I don't think it is as complicated as they are making it out. If a photon is a composite particle... say two Teenage Chicks connected to one Fonzie. If the two teenage chicks were attracted to fonzie but repulsed by each other, they would run around Fonzie in circles. If the Fonz were moving at a high enough rate, he would look like both a wave and a particle. His "Wavelength" would be the distance between the girls, but if he hit a wall... three splats just look like 1
@ParrhesiaJoe but we all know that the Fonz is too cool for that tohappen, so quantum tunneling would carry him through the wall and the teenage chicks, having been excited into a higher energy state, would converge on him from two angles (known as angle B and angle AAAAAAAAY).
So it's not really the observation/measurement of the electrons that collapses their wave function, it must be the unit that is being used to observe the electrons that is causing the change. Does anyone know what they use to observe an electron?
Free energy is finaly here!But the coverup is very strong,Get a motor that works with the power of magnets only at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be the revolution!
k, all they would have to do to prove weather it is the camera watching that changes the result, or the camera itself that changes the result is turn the camera on right beside the 2 slits like it does normally but this time have it watching sumthing else so it cant see the particles. (PERIOD)
ps. and i'm guessing who ever did this expirament would be smart enough to try that and rule it out, so really the debate going on in all these comments is fuckin retarted.
@fffaaabian camera what are you talking about? No one's talking about a camera they are talking about a device that was used to measure which slit the electron went through and the act of measuring or detecting it collapsed it's wave function. IDK what kind of camera you are talking about....maybe a Polaroid...I've heard that those are super good at seeing something smaller than an atom (not really)
Free energy technology exists!But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Big change is comming soon!
Oh... And what I said was the truth. He looked like a loser and a poser. He was purposefully trying to look cool with his inappropriate and stupid comment. He deserves to get trolled. To bad I am not a "troller" though... If you happen to know a troll you should point him or her into "theartistcalledWES"'s direction. Aww... But his account has been closed... He probably already got trolled a lot for his idiotic comments...
What if you put the light bulb on top of one of the holes but then covered it with something so you couldn't see it and allowed the wave pattern to build up, then moved the cover, would the wave pattern dissapear?
I only mention that I study psychology because it is infered(forgive any spelling mistakes as I am both drunk high and fucking tired) as it happens but who gives a fucking shit ?!
My point being that it is said that consciousness can effect bollocks like this.
If I were to ask a question(or two) it would be.....WHAT THE FUCK!!! HOW & WHY?(and I suppose ultimately when.)
I suspect that a fondness for narcotics(especially minor hallucinogens)maybe common amongst those whom have an interest in psychology,however having said this I am pretty sure that I was one of very few pot-heads in my Psychology class.
So ultimately I'm not too sure.
I am also not too sure about consciousness being a factor in what effects the double slit(snigger)experiment.(maybe it is merely the apparatus used which is effecting things at the quantum level & thus the result.)
What makes Dr. Quantum new age bs is the basis of our thoughts creating reality. The Copenhagen interpretation allows us to leave much speculation of consciousness effects on the quantum world to philosophy. I don't ASSUME that "they"? the creators of "what the __ do we know"? are giving all the facts about quantum mechanics, because they are drawing upon the unexplained to exaggerate the role of the observer. QM' is a theory that works pragmatically in practice, for science that's good enough.
This is a good lecture and I would love to view it in its entirety. However pertaining to the comment about Dr Quantum, this is pseudoscience. I suggest anyone who favors anything from the "what the bleep do we know" movie should find more unbiased sources rather than the new age spirituality guru meets science bs. More has to be implied by what it means to "observe" where Dr Quantum leaves this one open to misconceptions to support the overall objective of the movie to play on the naive.
@mrjgrayful and yet u assume its new age spiritiual guru crap...you are being naive and not accepting new information....u ASSUME that they are wrong and not point out the reason they are....sure DR quantum makes its all fun and special but its not new age crap....a lot of smart people believe it just because U dont doesnt mean its not correct....I hate when people just say its crap for no reason
There is a much easier explanation of the Double Slit Experiment on youtube. Search for "The Infamous Double Slit Experiment Amazing Physics". Believe me, this is not spam. If you don't fully understand it in this video, you'll get it from that one.
Although this video discusses electrons and slits, I present a more intuitive explanation of this phenomenon in my video, "DeMystifying the Schizophrenic Photon". watch?v=OdiDTaOi6rI
could be wrong but i think the result is different because the experement changes when you try to observe because it is using a light wave that counter acts the wave of the electron so it will not split and will act as a marble.
I wish I could look it now, but I have lent the book away: John Gribbin explains why these kinds of seemingly easy, classically mechanical explanation do not suffice to explain the observer effect. Part of it is because it ignores the uncertainty principle. I wish I could remember the whole argument ...
@Superphilipp its impossible to observe the electron without disturbing it. "Everyone has always known that doing any measurement on any system causes a disturbance in the system" thats the gist of the uncertainty principle. think about it. If you want to see something you bombard it with photons. there are other ways to detect the electron, however again it is impossible on such a small scale to do this without disturbing the system thus destroying the interference pattern. It makes sense.
@WesselB@WesselB@WesselB To observe which slit it goes through you MUST interact in some way with the electron. This interaction is bound to change the system in some way, this is the uncertainty principle. I never said how it changes it, only that it does. The fact that the interference pattern disappears is proof of interaction with the electron is it not? I took the definition out of a text dealing with quantum mechanics
@WesselB Sorry to cut in but with his cat, what it actually means is that it is meaningless to say whether it is dead or alive until you make the observation. Not that is it dead and alive at the same time. Only a slight difference but an important one.
@hughjoey As I said, I am almost certain that Gribbin claimed the uncertainty principle went beyond this kind of photon-nudging; meaning the actual position and momentum of a particle *are* imprecise, nut just our capacity to measure it. If it were only dependent on a specific way of measuring, how could it be exactly ħ/2?
The whole point I took away from most of what I read about quantum physics is that common-sense mechanical analogies fail to fully illustrate the nature of the very small.
@Superphilipp I believe your right, however I believe I am also correct. Consider the HOW of determining the electrons path. All im stating is that in order to do so you MUST interact with the electron. Unless you can give me an example of how you would go about this without interacting with the electron, my point is a valid one. In fact my point is a fundamental fact that can't be ignored. Please understand im stating that to observe you MUST interact with the particle in some fashion.
@hughjoey Im not sure that the disturbance explanation is exactly right. Its a fundamental fact that no system of particles has precisely defined momentum and position at one time. To say that an interaction will effect each of these seems a mute point. The way I see it is that particles are described by wavefuntions, and when these propogate through each other, there is a chance that the wavefunctions will collapse, giving the particle a more defined, but still not arbitrarily precise position
@lfo98 Im not trying to explain whats actually happening, thats kinda hard to do with out the mathematics. People for some reason think physics can be argued philisophically.... any way my point is for the people who are confused about the "observer effect".
@hughjoey The answer to "WHY did the pattern dissapear?" is that youve disturbed the system with your measuring device. You simply cant hope to observe this particular system without disturbing it. Its not a difficult concept. For those of you who don't believe me, please give me a method that you could measure the path without interacting with the electron : ) You'll find that you can't. Now the answer to HOW you've done this is waaay beyond a youtube comment discussion. Just saying.
@hughjoey if i understand you correctly basically your point is that it's still a matter of physics and not out side the box of logic just yet, right? maybe just hiding in the box? if a tree falls in the woods it still makes a sound, right? also i'm curious, the leading theories don't REALLY line up with stuff like "CMTU" and "the secret" and the "global consciousness experiment" do they? just thought i'd ask, you seem like the smartest guy on here.
definately not the smartest guy, but yes my point is that this is still a matter of physics and that there are definately better explanations. As for those other things; I think we are better off looking somewhere else for understanding and proof. I can understand how it might seem like proof it after watching this video, however its important to remember that this is a difficult subject and its unlikely you'll fully grasp a difficult physics topic from a 9 minute you tube video.
@Superphilipp Incidentally, John Gribbin is my half brothers God Father! Ive never actually met him but maybe I could get him to answer!? watch?v=TcmGYe39XG0&feature=&p=0F530F3BAF8C6FCC&index=0&playnext=1 is a very good lecture on the uncertainty principle
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What the hell is energy? "A photon is equal to energy..." What the hell is he talking about? And what is a wave? A wave of what? And when doe's the Aether Model comes into this story? This is why I never went to school. To become a mindless drone? No thanks!
Or, maybe you could have gone to school so that you would understand this and be quite mindful? Whether or not you want to behave as a drone is up to you, I suppose, but I suspect the more educated you are, the more likely you will be to recognize your own drone behavior. What you with what you perceive about yourself is up to you.
video of young's double slit,with a shallow slit,and another slit approx 35 times thicker (deeper),then the lens removed from laser and shone through the slit,
By not being able to observe the electrons it does not mean we do not have "proof" that electrons are waves it refers to the uncertainty principal of quantum mechanics which says we can never know an objects momentum and its position at the same time. So we cannot actually see which slit the individual electrons travel through but we CAN see where they end up when they stop moving (and lose all momentum)
I'm not sure I understand your question. Experiments aren't theories, they're what we use to prove the theory. This experiment, conducted by many people, many times, in many places proved the theory that electrons are waves. More recently they've been able to photograph them in their wave state. In the photos you might see 3or4 seperate bits of light, but they are all just 1 particle in different superpositions at the same time.
What I'm trying to find is proof. I found no real experiment that isn't theoretical, in the sense that the observer changes it or the sensor manipulating it in it's observations that is the cause. Does the wave only exist in an abstract sense, or does it actually follow a wave in real life until an observer sees it? All the experiments I've seen online is just in theory.
So what I want to know is why doesn't the sensor that observes the experiment be the cause of the change from particle to a wave and not just the act of observation? In order to detect it, our current means interferes in the way the electron flows. If we had means of detecting the movement through the slits without changing it in any way, not throwing other particles at it or putting it through something like a light bulb, wouldn't it always be a wave?
@darksheer80 exactly, thats my problem with it too. How can we, in our clumsy large scale world, detect such a sensitive quantum wave without causing it to change.
I think its almost as though our thermometor is so large and clumsy that when we try to measure the temperature the thermometor's introductino to the testing environment changes the outcome of the experiment. ie it heats the bathwater!
If the electron is some kind of wave, shouldn´t the odds for an electron to end up in a certain "band" be the same for ending up in any of the other bands?
I believe whitecourage should pull whatever plug he's got stuck in his ass because the concentrated gases are clearly obtruding with his lines of reasoning.
The guys @ fermilab & CERN think they hold the secrets. Truth is there are quite a few of us out here that know the math and have the abstract reasoning to not only grasp these things but new things aswell.
Perhaps I'm just dumb, but doesn't the animation starting at 3:11 present (due to ricocheting) a false interference pattern? By ricocheting off the inside walls of the slits (obviously larger than the particle/electron). WTF? I sometime wonder if these guys aren't chasing up the wrong tree.
That is great Nick. My method handles entanglement and gravity well but needs some work to make the two slit work. I hope you are not right about time symmetry that makes it harder :)
It may also be 100% correct to see the universe of concious. According to Numenta we are hierarchial temporal memory creatures. We evolved to match the hierachial nature of the universe. We are a recursive expansion of the smallest elements. So whatever we are is whatever it is.
What is toughis nobody knows. People have strong faith and demonize without any knowledge or backing and that doesn't help us know anything. Now our experiments are telling us something we do not understand.
Nobody did. Numenta uses real science and our neocortex to do deterministic things like your brain does. It is only pseudo science in your head because you do not understand it nor can relate it to the issues at hand. Your posts offer no course to solution. Mine method builds a smarter brain to give us the answers- and proves brains are deterministic. Your path is getting us where?
Our path is reaching the discovery of Higgs-Boson and a greater understanding of quantum theory. Yours is taking faux spirituality and pseudo science to create a theory with no empirically verifiable data or evidence
I think you need to get outside more, become a concretor, or a builders assistant, and not let the unknown overwhelm you and rule your life, working with standard brained men who talk shit is a good way too spend your day instead of worrying about this stuff. im a concretor now, I miss mathematics, but I dont miss the headaches of unknown futures, I enjoy being ignorant nowadays. Have a nice day bloke.
Observation appears to complete some sort of loop. If the universe is optimized around these loops perhaps it is optimized around consciousness.
We have zero evidence of any piece of our body or mind not behaving in a deterministic manner- we reach hard, real hard to project our view of the world into the worlds inner workings- it may be sad not to see past this bias.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Exactly
We have chosen for this experience, and next time you choose, to have chosen another experience.
Make sure you choose with the whole of your being, for the factors which infleunce you might be smaller than you think. Or larger. C'mon, with chaos theory around, the difference between big differences and small ones over a small enough scale and a bit of time is neglicible. Patterns re-emerge. All becomes one, and love becomes all.
I have a solid postulate that answers this experiment. Quantum Philosophy workshop, watch it here on youtube
williamahumphrey 4 days ago
Schrödinger had never a cat
esraretin 1 week ago
Awesome!
rmtglass1 1 week ago
Thanks great stuff!!
rmtglass1 1 week ago
you cannot explain this with science... you need to step out of the box and enter the realm of spirituality, energy is consciousness.... electrons are " conscious " I the particle.
::Peace & Love::
garyw1971 2 weeks ago
Nice video!
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
nickharvey7 1 month ago in playlist A Double Slit Experiment - The Strangeness Of Quantum Mechan
Death by Powerpoint...
HelmutVillam 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's simple guys. Electrons are actually conscious and like to fuck with us
prodigyJavy61904 3 months ago
This guy has no idea what he's talking about.
brandonpconley1 3 months ago
Wtf........ that is insane im at a loss of words
Jbinkley79 3 months ago
:18 did he say books of a black man?
sergballz 3 months ago
add on for young's double slit experiment like you've never seen before
watch?v=Z_6XqRHrp7U
kevinstuartfr0st 4 months ago
The act of measuring the electron collapses its wave and it behaves like a particle. Otherwise its a wave?
robcrussiii 4 months ago
@jclemons920 by making it sound like a 100% passive device that has no environmental consequences, the natural conclusion many arrive at is that the electron "knows" it is being observed
perhaps this is the case... I don't know that much about this subject... but I have strong doubts that the "electron measuring device" is quite as passive as he makes it sound... he should have named what it is
leet512 5 months ago 9
@leet512 a few things i've read suggest that even when the detectors are switched on, if they turn off the device which actually records the results (ie datalogger) the wave function doesn't collapse, i've also read the opposite from some other sources (though none of these sources of the opposite opinion were qualified physicists). This experiment is very confusing, I'm tempted to go do it myself and actually see what happens one day lol.
nickyaz111 3 months ago
@nickyaz111 hehe yes, it is very confusing! and I too would like to run my own version of it some day... what you just said about the datalogger sounds downright mystical... unless there is something physical about it perhaps... maybe the recording device is emitting some kind of EM field, and it has been placed too close to the detectors... or well who knows... best for me not to speculate without seeing what their setup is
leet512 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nickyaz111 hehe yes, it is very confusing! and I too would like to run my own version of it some day... what you just said about the datalogger sounds downright mystical... unless there is something physical about it perhaps... maybe the recording device is emitting some kind of EM field, and it has been placed too close to the detectors... or well who knows... best for me not to speculate without seeing what their setup is
leet512 3 months ago
@jclemons920 if they measure the temperature of some liquid they should say "we thermometered the helium and found it was at 73F"...
this will remind the readers of their literature that all these measuring devices that are used in the field come with their own limits, medium interactions, and peculiarities
while Dr. Plunkett did a great job explaining DeBroglie waves, at the end there he unfortunately did not name the device used to measure each slit, nor what interactive traits it has
leet512 5 months ago
@jclemons920 to see how they bounce off or interact in a billiard like fashion
using the term "observe" has kludged this subject up a great deal because most people associate that word with measurements made with the eye
if scientists detect an airplane flying at some height and vector using radar they should NOT say "we detected a plane using radar"... they should take the liberty to introduce a new phrase into the culture... they should say "we radared a plane"
leet512 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jclemons920 one of the problems with much of the literature on this subject is that the writers are not taking the liberty to coin new words to demonstrate to the readers the interactive nature of most measuring devices
it is very rare indeed to find a measuring device that is purely 100% passive... in fact I'm not sure I know of any
so when they use the term "observe the particle", what they often fail to convey is that in some cases this has meant firing other particles at the target site
leet512 5 months ago
young's double slit experiment like you've never seen before
watch?v=yNeHYhvQXic
kevinstuartfr0st 5 months ago
I'm sure they've thought of that but I'm guessing that if both slits become detectors themselves it would be the same as the light he explains on the slits being detectors and the particles would just go through one slit and not both
XDopy 6 months ago
The screen is also a type of observation but after the particle has gone through the slits it's when the particle hit the slits that if being observed somehow choose to change to a single slit
XDopy 6 months ago
Here are a few questions I have:
1) Why can the screen being hit have an oscillating pattern? People can observe and watch the screen. If a detector is placed before then, the pattern returnes to two lines. The screen itself is a large detector, so why is it different?
2) What if the double slit itself is used as a detector? For a photon to hit the center, it must bouce off one or "both" of the sides of the slits themselves. If the slit device becomes a detector, that could give an answer
jjtyler21 6 months ago
@jjtyler21 It's a pity no one responded to your comment sooner.
1. Imagine a world where all possibilities are possible. As soon as we make the board a detector, it narrows down the possibilities to a wave-like interference, but still all possibilities with the board itself are still viable, thus they show multiple lines due to interference. Once a detector is used to narrow down the possibilities even more, it goes to two slits.
Ishaaa95 3 days ago
@jjtyler21 I know it seems weird, and I'm not even going to pretend I know anything about quantum mechanics, but it's not just pure magic. And from this theory, Schrodinger's emerged. We don't know what's in the box, but as soon as we see it, our perception forces a reality.
Ishaaa95 3 days ago
@jjtyler21
2. I would hypothesize that if there was a firing device that fired electrons the same way, direction, and speed every single time, and there was a board with two slits that could detect which slit the electron goes through, we would see only one line, or maybe even only one dot.
Ishaaa95 3 days ago
we try to look at the smallest particles that we can observe and try to make phycis out of them..it seems that in quantum level theres s whole different laws of gravity and mechanics of physics that breaks the modern understanding.. example a matter is ENERGY only in a condensed form. when we shoot that particle to highspeeds and to contain them in well-defined beams and separate it to different direction miles away AND WE MOVE 1 split of that particle little OFF the other follows too
redbunnyz 6 months ago
double-slit experiment ,interference pattern OR coherence pattern
watch?v=WC6LkdBLG1k
well worth a look,it might get some people thinking :)
kevinstuartfr0st 6 months ago
i think i solved the equation that links the two relative equations according to einstine's theorem of relativity i am probably wrong but email me to see my proof. einstine: E=mc^2
this is false or less correct, true for 2 dimensions.maybe
2 variables = 2 variables x y = x y
y = energy = e
x= variable(relative)
einstine is missing a variable ? delta? ( three forces?? a matrix? lol jk)
delta energy(e) = mass by relative speed of observer?
observer 2 eyes?(see 3d tv technology)8083615
mjennings1271 7 months ago
@mjennings1271 It is silly nonsense, which is even worse than serious nonsense; you asked.
JeffersonDinedAlone 7 months ago
@JeffersonDinedAlone lol it probably is :) I just am just a Mathematics student motivated to answer one of the most puzzling meta phyical questions out there. thank you for your honest opinion. But what about it is wrong? I want to get started on the real proof,(even though i know I won't ever get near it) . Your honest opinion is greatly appreciated
mjennings1271 6 months ago
@mjennings1271 I appreciate the sincerity of your interest in this pursuit, however, I am not at liberty to reveal information within a copyrighted thesis prior to publication. The next consideration I'll have will be pursuing the solution to cold fusion. However, feel free to keep me informed as to your progession.
JeffersonDinedAlone 6 months ago
Why are these science guys always so unkempt and crumpled and out-of-shape and bedraggled? It's disgusting.
JeffersonDinedAlone 7 months ago
@JeffersonDinedAlone lol
CondemnedPatriot 7 months ago
@JeffersonDinedAlone Because we're expanding our minds and advancing the human race while you're at the gym doing absolutely nothing of real value?
hardcorehunter1 7 months ago
@hardcorehunter1 With presumption that baseless, and, consequently, that foolish, I find it rather difficult to believe that you are possessed of a mind capable of expanding, or advancing, anything. Proper hygiene, some measure of physical fitness, and at least a minimal attempt at coordinating one's attire is not only healthy, but also appropriate. No gym attendance for me, however. Gym attendance is fine, although I prefer other measures for exercise. One should never presume. Understand?
JeffersonDinedAlone 7 months ago
The observation collapsed the potential into a finite expression. The observer becomes a part of the equation, and accounts for the finite result. Possibly that when something from the quantum is observed by, what is essentially a massively complex touring-tested, supercomputer system comprised solely of googilions of quantum bits (our brain), it seems more likely that an unobserved potential is infinite, and infinite is equal to zero.us
yellowhue30 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Could quantum mechanics represent the passage or Arrow of Time?
This theory is based on just two postulates,
1.The first is that the quantum wave particle function explained by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time or Arrow of Time itself photon by photon, quanta by quanta or moment by moment.
2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event.
nickharvey7 8 months ago
Comment removed
xknowledgeisfreex 8 months ago
its not that they 'know', its that the act of observing means that something has to be changed. Otherwise people couldnt see what is going on. This observation makes things different. Something to look at is Wittgenstein's Cat which explains this...
MitYeliab 8 months ago
@MitYeliab
Wittgenstein's cat? I believe you mean Schrödinger's cat. :)
xknowledgeisfreex 8 months ago 4
@xknowledgeisfreex actually it could be either of their cat's, and in trying to observe whose cat it actually is, you will alter the findings of the observation...
ajatkinson2004 2 weeks ago
wow...
life is crazy.
and this guy seems smart.
akabigdaddy100 9 months ago
Do we know the light that observes the electrons isn't causing this to occur?
Nervousification 9 months ago
Dont light waves have momentum,presumably particles have momentum as well.
Would this effect the experiment.
Also does the slowing down of time as you reach near speed of light have any bearing on the observation of what is taking place.
Frank5133 10 months ago
great....i will attend an exam involving young's double slit experiment tomorrow...
hope this video will help
tajulafham94 10 months ago
I'm making short comedy skit videos and am partial towards physics and math humor. I'm going around to popular physics/math videos promoting to try to find a crowd that can understand the jokes. If you have some time please check out my channel and the video subatomic particle party. Thanks for your time.
BendableCard 10 months ago
god 1 - science 0
1EyeSack1 10 months ago
@1EyeSack1 If that makes you feel better.
music2012 10 months ago
s1 help me please ... why is it the marbles in the exprmnt. behave normally when not observed but the particles act weird. i read that all matter when not observed is supposed to behave weird. dont they go thru the same test ? . and in schrodingers cat expmnt., if we removed the chance part wouldnt we know the cat is dead with out observing it. the only reason its in 2 states is bcause we dont know? why do people claim everything behaves diff when not observed but the marbles clearly did not
sariglenn 11 months ago
@sariglenn two reasons. First reason is that with the cat and the marbles, they are big enough to be observed by anything, when you observe them, the wavefunction breaks down so if you remove chance, you remove unpredictability. You are able to do this with quantum particles as well. Second reason is that the bigger the particle, the smaller its wave pattern, is and so the marble slits would be nearly infinitely small. Thats what we have so far but you have highligted a key mystery of QM
Hobbzie22 9 months ago
@Hobbzie22 thanks that made a lot of sense. im still confused as to what all this means w/ particles being able to 'know'..
sariglenn 9 months ago
@sariglenn lol I wish I could answer that question. Noone is really able to explain how particles "know" but basically they are obeying the laws of mathematics. We cannot know where a particle is and where it is going at the same time without distrupting the wave function. So when we observe a particle, mathematically its wave function breaks down. I think that its amazing. Think about it like this: mathematics are governing reality.
Hobbzie22 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This explanation was proposed by ‘Neo Diffractionites’ (found in a Facebook Quantum Physics discussion)
If a laser is aimed close to, but not above, a knife edge, some photons will bend over the top of the knife edge due to diffraction (demonstrating that diffraction starts at the front edge)
Thus if the slits are close enough (near the ‘wavelength’ of the oscillating particle), there will be a zone where the front-edge diffraction effects overlap; this overlap causes the interference pattern
TheQuantumMaverick 11 months ago
Dammit! So nature acts differently than it normally would when being observed. Much like people.
bwigod4518 11 months ago
@bwigod4518 funny... but nature acts as always , remember that observing is interfering so we ruine the quantic behaviour.
lcabosa 9 months ago
A new and very simple explanation of the double-slit experiment has been posted on the Facebook ‘Quantum Physics Discussions’ page (the title of the posting = ‘Idiots propose an alternative explanation of the double-slit experiment’).
Is there any merit in this theory or are these ‘Neo Diffractionites’ just troublemakers?
TheQuantumMaverick 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheQuantumMaverick both provided you're not paying any attention to them.
hardcorehunter1 7 months ago
BooBs ( o )Y( o )
Hot420Boxed 11 months ago
im glad that im not smart; in this present day n age wat u gonna do with ur godly like understanding of the universe or our existence itself....
hotterThanU101 11 months ago
@hotterThanU101 Agreed, this shit is dead scary... Whether or not we observe something non-living can change its behaviour as if it's aware it's being observed...!? Yet... judging by what I've gotten of it so far it doesn't seem to disprove determinism...
ScienceFictionHairdo 11 months ago
that was a waste of time. just watch dr animation
eggman1600 1 year ago
because reality is actually being projected by your brain through your eyes.. not the other way around =)
eggman1600 1 year ago
Isn't the wave-like property only truly a reflection of the probabilities? The probabilities are waves, The particles are not. Reference: Newton's rings are the same as the results of the two slit experiment. Also reference Feynman's Vega lectures in which he gives a detailed explanation of how the probabilities of light going thru the slits is calculated using probability amplitudes.
FlashJack85 1 year ago
Isn't the wave-like property only truly a reflection of the probabilities? The probabilities are waves, The particles are not.
FlashJack85 1 year ago
Photons have one nature. I don't think it is as complicated as they are making it out. If a photon is a composite particle... say two Teenage Chicks connected to one Fonzie. If the two teenage chicks were attracted to fonzie but repulsed by each other, they would run around Fonzie in circles. If the Fonz were moving at a high enough rate, he would look like both a wave and a particle. His "Wavelength" would be the distance between the girls, but if he hit a wall... three splats just look like 1
ParrhesiaJoe 1 year ago
@ParrhesiaJoe but we all know that the Fonz is too cool for that tohappen, so quantum tunneling would carry him through the wall and the teenage chicks, having been excited into a higher energy state, would converge on him from two angles (known as angle B and angle AAAAAAAAY).
lesorciercalifornien 11 months ago
String theory can get rid of all the "problems" that this experiment creates.
EquinoxParadox91 1 year ago
I just had my brains mindfucked out.
UponInfinity 1 year ago
So it's not really the observation/measurement of the electrons that collapses their wave function, it must be the unit that is being used to observe the electrons that is causing the change. Does anyone know what they use to observe an electron?
connn2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy is finaly here!But the coverup is very strong,Get a motor that works with the power of magnets only at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be the revolution!
porscheghcje 1 year ago
It's a mind-boggling experiment but this professor makes it very boring to listen to.
Tymetwister 1 year ago
k, all they would have to do to prove weather it is the camera watching that changes the result, or the camera itself that changes the result is turn the camera on right beside the 2 slits like it does normally but this time have it watching sumthing else so it cant see the particles. (PERIOD)
ps. and i'm guessing who ever did this expirament would be smart enough to try that and rule it out, so really the debate going on in all these comments is fuckin retarted.
fffaaabian 1 year ago
@fffaaabian camera what are you talking about? No one's talking about a camera they are talking about a device that was used to measure which slit the electron went through and the act of measuring or detecting it collapsed it's wave function. IDK what kind of camera you are talking about....maybe a Polaroid...I've heard that those are super good at seeing something smaller than an atom (not really)
viper100200 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy technology exists!But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Big change is comming soon!
porscheghcje 1 year ago
This guy should have just shown them the Dr. Quantum- double slit experiment video.
neema2626 1 year ago 150
@neema2626
Yup I hope there aren't any more physics teachers like this dude.... the whole class was snoozing
111Renegade111 11 months ago
@neema2626 NO KIDDING!!!
TheFiberone 7 months ago
@khaustic..who gives a sh:t
hairyfatslobpig 1 year ago
@YOUSPAMTARD. No, rikashae is not a factor as they can put each electron through 1 at a time and still the same pattern
hairyfatslobpig 1 year ago
@hairyfatslobpig What the hell is rika... oh. Ricochet. It's spelled "ricochet."
khaustic 1 year ago
it seems nobody has mention the obvious variable of ricashae
YouSpamTard 1 year ago
@YouSpamTard ricochet*?
zeurk 1 year ago
I thought the double-slit experiment had something to do with Tiger Woods cheating on his wife.
yistackness 1 year ago 75
@yistackness ZING!! XD
FlameOfGodith 1 year ago
@yistackness
the minute i clicked on this i knew i'd see something like this
i knew it
i knew it
i knew it
i knew it
BlockisticStudios 1 year ago
@yistackness no, that's the double-clit experiment.
lesorciercalifornien 11 months ago
confusing explanation........but eventually gets to the point.
idylwyldidyl 1 year ago
Oh... And what I said was the truth. He looked like a loser and a poser. He was purposefully trying to look cool with his inappropriate and stupid comment. He deserves to get trolled. To bad I am not a "troller" though... If you happen to know a troll you should point him or her into "theartistcalledWES"'s direction. Aww... But his account has been closed... He probably already got trolled a lot for his idiotic comments...
edgeofsins 1 year ago
An electron cant be observed with our eyes. We can only observe photons. BAH! *sigh*
Gassebol 1 year ago
@Gassebol observe= being aware (in this case)
incompleteinsanity 1 year ago
We call that a 3 way when you have double slits in the same bed.
killersushi99 1 year ago
what if you stick your penis in one of the holes?
Paumonsu 1 year ago
What if you put the light bulb on top of one of the holes but then covered it with something so you couldn't see it and allowed the wave pattern to build up, then moved the cover, would the wave pattern dissapear?
fullfrontalfrank 1 year ago
@fullfrontalfrank Now that's a good question!!!!
According to theory it does, but the best way is to conduct the experiment.
werty8086 1 year ago
The general concept of this both fascinates and annoys me in equal measure!
I have studied psychology for years now and I do have more than a passing interest in physics but this just fucking perplexes me!
RandomVortex 1 year ago
I only mention that I study psychology because it is infered(forgive any spelling mistakes as I am both drunk high and fucking tired) as it happens but who gives a fucking shit ?!
My point being that it is said that consciousness can effect bollocks like this.
If I were to ask a question(or two) it would be.....WHAT THE FUCK!!! HOW & WHY?(and I suppose ultimately when.)
Still....nevermind..........
Other than that I'm not too bothered.
RandomVortex 1 year ago
@RandomVortex lol.. im high and drunk too and i study pschology as well... hahaha is this a common thing amongst psychology students you think?
wubs23 1 year ago
@wubs23
I suspect that a fondness for narcotics(especially minor hallucinogens)maybe common amongst those whom have an interest in psychology,however having said this I am pretty sure that I was one of very few pot-heads in my Psychology class.
So ultimately I'm not too sure.
I am also not too sure about consciousness being a factor in what effects the double slit(snigger)experiment.(maybe it is merely the apparatus used which is effecting things at the quantum level & thus the result.)
RandomVortex 1 year ago
this is fucking bullshit
Mu5clehead 1 year ago
What makes Dr. Quantum new age bs is the basis of our thoughts creating reality. The Copenhagen interpretation allows us to leave much speculation of consciousness effects on the quantum world to philosophy. I don't ASSUME that "they"? the creators of "what the __ do we know"? are giving all the facts about quantum mechanics, because they are drawing upon the unexplained to exaggerate the role of the observer. QM' is a theory that works pragmatically in practice, for science that's good enough.
mrjgrayful 1 year ago
Its so annoying when people talk during a lecture. Good stuff tho, and LOL at the dude diggin in his ear.
CinoStuff 1 year ago
This is a good lecture and I would love to view it in its entirety. However pertaining to the comment about Dr Quantum, this is pseudoscience. I suggest anyone who favors anything from the "what the bleep do we know" movie should find more unbiased sources rather than the new age spirituality guru meets science bs. More has to be implied by what it means to "observe" where Dr Quantum leaves this one open to misconceptions to support the overall objective of the movie to play on the naive.
mrjgrayful 1 year ago
@mrjgrayful and yet u assume its new age spiritiual guru crap...you are being naive and not accepting new information....u ASSUME that they are wrong and not point out the reason they are....sure DR quantum makes its all fun and special but its not new age crap....a lot of smart people believe it just because U dont doesnt mean its not correct....I hate when people just say its crap for no reason
mryevix 1 year ago
@mryevix but that new age stuff is crap lol, the conclusion they reach ignores basic fundamental concepts.
hughjoey 1 year ago
awesome!
patternmachine 1 year ago
There is a much easier explanation of the Double Slit Experiment on youtube. Search for "The Infamous Double Slit Experiment Amazing Physics". Believe me, this is not spam. If you don't fully understand it in this video, you'll get it from that one.
Grzesiekarator 1 year ago
a lecture on the double slit experiment. what is matter?
bartonburgess1 1 year ago
some things we just wont ever fully understand...
joe69rocket 1 year ago
DR QUANTUM TO THE RESCUE
mooshypeaches 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
nobody can explain it its a God thing
erichathy222 1 year ago
@erichathy222 if your not afraid of truth watch einstein's idiots#23 the slit experiment.
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast if your not afraid of the truth lets continue this
erichathy222 1 year ago
Although this video discusses electrons and slits, I present a more intuitive explanation of this phenomenon in my video, "DeMystifying the Schizophrenic Photon". watch?v=OdiDTaOi6rI
jeffkosmo 1 year ago
could be wrong but i think the result is different because the experement changes when you try to observe because it is using a light wave that counter acts the wave of the electron so it will not split and will act as a marble.
robthenorm 1 year ago
I wish I could look it now, but I have lent the book away: John Gribbin explains why these kinds of seemingly easy, classically mechanical explanation do not suffice to explain the observer effect. Part of it is because it ignores the uncertainty principle. I wish I could remember the whole argument ...
Any help, anybody?
Superphilipp 1 year ago
@Superphilipp its impossible to observe the electron without disturbing it. "Everyone has always known that doing any measurement on any system causes a disturbance in the system" thats the gist of the uncertainty principle. think about it. If you want to see something you bombard it with photons. there are other ways to detect the electron, however again it is impossible on such a small scale to do this without disturbing the system thus destroying the interference pattern. It makes sense.
hughjoey 1 year ago
@hughjoey hope that helps :)
hughjoey 1 year ago
@hughjoey Isn't it because you remove the superposition of the photon?
You can compare it with Schrodinger's cat. If you do not know if the cat lives or not, it can be said it's dead and alive at the same time.
If you don't observe the proton, it can be said it passes through both slits, and thus interferes with itself.
If you do observe through which slit it goes, you remove the superposition and there will be no interference.
I don't think it has to do with disturbances.
WesselB 1 year ago
Comment removed
hughjoey 1 year ago
@WesselB @WesselB @WesselB To observe which slit it goes through you MUST interact in some way with the electron. This interaction is bound to change the system in some way, this is the uncertainty principle. I never said how it changes it, only that it does. The fact that the interference pattern disappears is proof of interaction with the electron is it not? I took the definition out of a text dealing with quantum mechanics
hughjoey 1 year ago
@WesselB Sorry to cut in but with his cat, what it actually means is that it is meaningless to say whether it is dead or alive until you make the observation. Not that is it dead and alive at the same time. Only a slight difference but an important one.
onebenp 1 year ago
@onebenp what if its like this experiment? it LITERALLY is dead and alive at the same time untill its observed
cholokidz 1 year ago
@hughjoey As I said, I am almost certain that Gribbin claimed the uncertainty principle went beyond this kind of photon-nudging; meaning the actual position and momentum of a particle *are* imprecise, nut just our capacity to measure it. If it were only dependent on a specific way of measuring, how could it be exactly ħ/2?
The whole point I took away from most of what I read about quantum physics is that common-sense mechanical analogies fail to fully illustrate the nature of the very small.
Superphilipp 1 year ago
@Superphilipp I believe your right, however I believe I am also correct. Consider the HOW of determining the electrons path. All im stating is that in order to do so you MUST interact with the electron. Unless you can give me an example of how you would go about this without interacting with the electron, my point is a valid one. In fact my point is a fundamental fact that can't be ignored. Please understand im stating that to observe you MUST interact with the particle in some fashion.
hughjoey 1 year ago
@hughjoey Im not sure that the disturbance explanation is exactly right. Its a fundamental fact that no system of particles has precisely defined momentum and position at one time. To say that an interaction will effect each of these seems a mute point. The way I see it is that particles are described by wavefuntions, and when these propogate through each other, there is a chance that the wavefunctions will collapse, giving the particle a more defined, but still not arbitrarily precise position
lfo98 1 year ago
@hughjoey Wow just realised I must look like Im stalking you...need to stop watching physics stuff on youtube!
lfo98 1 year ago
@lfo98 Im not trying to explain whats actually happening, thats kinda hard to do with out the mathematics. People for some reason think physics can be argued philisophically.... any way my point is for the people who are confused about the "observer effect".
hughjoey 1 year ago
@hughjoey The answer to "WHY did the pattern dissapear?" is that youve disturbed the system with your measuring device. You simply cant hope to observe this particular system without disturbing it. Its not a difficult concept. For those of you who don't believe me, please give me a method that you could measure the path without interacting with the electron : ) You'll find that you can't. Now the answer to HOW you've done this is waaay beyond a youtube comment discussion. Just saying.
hughjoey 1 year ago
@hughjoey if i understand you correctly basically your point is that it's still a matter of physics and not out side the box of logic just yet, right? maybe just hiding in the box? if a tree falls in the woods it still makes a sound, right? also i'm curious, the leading theories don't REALLY line up with stuff like "CMTU" and "the secret" and the "global consciousness experiment" do they? just thought i'd ask, you seem like the smartest guy on here.
michaelofGB45 1 year ago
definately not the smartest guy, but yes my point is that this is still a matter of physics and that there are definately better explanations. As for those other things; I think we are better off looking somewhere else for understanding and proof. I can understand how it might seem like proof it after watching this video, however its important to remember that this is a difficult subject and its unlikely you'll fully grasp a difficult physics topic from a 9 minute you tube video.
hughjoey 1 year ago
@Superphilipp Incidentally, John Gribbin is my half brothers God Father! Ive never actually met him but maybe I could get him to answer!? watch?v=TcmGYe39XG0&feature=&p=0F530F3BAF8C6FCC&index=0&playnext=1 is a very good lecture on the uncertainty principle
lfo98 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What the hell is energy? "A photon is equal to energy..." What the hell is he talking about? And what is a wave? A wave of what? And when doe's the Aether Model comes into this story? This is why I never went to school. To become a mindless drone? No thanks!
jatigre1 1 year ago
@jatigre1 there is a video to your left that shows you what he means. Do you need a more detailed one then that.
workinrampage 1 year ago
Is that a question?
jatigre1 1 year ago
@jatigre1 The second part was yes.
workinrampage 1 year ago
Or, maybe you could have gone to school so that you would understand this and be quite mindful? Whether or not you want to behave as a drone is up to you, I suppose, but I suspect the more educated you are, the more likely you will be to recognize your own drone behavior. What you with what you perceive about yourself is up to you.
Authilus 1 year ago
@Authilus Retarded fuck
JOHNNYWADTON 1 year ago
Oh, what a devastatingly witty remark!
Authilus 1 year ago
@Authilus
Thanks! =D
Sometimes I am inspired...
JOHNNYWADTON 1 year ago
@jatigre1
Please expose to us your enlightened views of the universe if you can explain the double slit experiment. thanks
Annoyed120 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
single slit rotating and 2 single slits merging
watch?v=vwlp9nwMueM
kevinstuartfr0st 1 year ago
What is it about the human eye that causes photons to act differently? Could the same be said for a camera?
blouptqy 2 years ago
@blouptqy
The moment you look at a video tape, the same effect as looking at it with your eyes will occur, retroactively.
vOddy75 2 years ago
video of young's double slit,with a shallow slit,and another slit approx 35 times thicker (deeper),then the lens removed from laser and shone through the slit,
watch?v=Zns659ClKtY
kevinstuartfr0st 2 years ago
freqency with a v? lol
Jjjjjjcool 2 years ago
darksheer80
By not being able to observe the electrons it does not mean we do not have "proof" that electrons are waves it refers to the uncertainty principal of quantum mechanics which says we can never know an objects momentum and its position at the same time. So we cannot actually see which slit the individual electrons travel through but we CAN see where they end up when they stop moving (and lose all momentum)
hope that helps your question
MrRhinotime 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand your question. Experiments aren't theories, they're what we use to prove the theory. This experiment, conducted by many people, many times, in many places proved the theory that electrons are waves. More recently they've been able to photograph them in their wave state. In the photos you might see 3or4 seperate bits of light, but they are all just 1 particle in different superpositions at the same time.
trillian59 2 years ago
What I'm trying to find is proof. I found no real experiment that isn't theoretical, in the sense that the observer changes it or the sensor manipulating it in it's observations that is the cause. Does the wave only exist in an abstract sense, or does it actually follow a wave in real life until an observer sees it? All the experiments I've seen online is just in theory.
darksheer80 2 years ago
So what I want to know is why doesn't the sensor that observes the experiment be the cause of the change from particle to a wave and not just the act of observation? In order to detect it, our current means interferes in the way the electron flows. If we had means of detecting the movement through the slits without changing it in any way, not throwing other particles at it or putting it through something like a light bulb, wouldn't it always be a wave?
darksheer80 2 years ago
@darksheer80 exactly, thats my problem with it too. How can we, in our clumsy large scale world, detect such a sensitive quantum wave without causing it to change.
I think its almost as though our thermometor is so large and clumsy that when we try to measure the temperature the thermometor's introductino to the testing environment changes the outcome of the experiment. ie it heats the bathwater!
mikewalker2233 1 year ago
If the electron is some kind of wave, shouldn´t the odds for an electron to end up in a certain "band" be the same for ending up in any of the other bands?
ElPolloGullefjun 2 years ago
You physicist are funny.
MOOKYJONES 2 years ago
I believe whitecourage should pull whatever plug he's got stuck in his ass because the concentrated gases are clearly obtruding with his lines of reasoning.
FractalBolt 2 years ago
The guys @ fermilab & CERN think they hold the secrets. Truth is there are quite a few of us out here that know the math and have the abstract reasoning to not only grasp these things but new things aswell.
whitecourage 2 years ago
I have a theory that I've been working on that seems to imply that it is the higgs boson AND entropy working together in decoherance.
whitecourage 2 years ago
@whitecourage - Well then by all means publish your theory and collect your Nobel Prize. Oh! That's right TEH EVIL SCIENTISTS CENSOR ME!!!
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
1noen1 2 years ago
I read your other comments you've left on other videos from your profile - please try and be more positive! Negativity doesn't help anyone.
drboose 2 years ago
There are actually 7 wavelengths across the circle.
Also, I think that in school, no one cares to explain the most fundamental concepts so that everyone understands them
If everyone understood these concepts, and the meaning of every letter we use in formulas, I think everybody would have an interest in physics.
And surely nobody would dare hate the subject, because they would realize that actually they're hating their very nature.
OkNowImWatching 2 years ago
Very true.
TheR33l 2 years ago
Perhaps I'm just dumb, but doesn't the animation starting at 3:11 present (due to ricocheting) a false interference pattern? By ricocheting off the inside walls of the slits (obviously larger than the particle/electron). WTF? I sometime wonder if these guys aren't chasing up the wrong tree.
thebp9999 2 years 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
That is great Nick. My method handles entanglement and gravity well but needs some work to make the two slit work. I hope you are not right about time symmetry that makes it harder :)
Digikong 2 years ago
it just doesn't make any sence
Zee96969696 2 years ago
It may also be 100% correct to see the universe of concious. According to Numenta we are hierarchial temporal memory creatures. We evolved to match the hierachial nature of the universe. We are a recursive expansion of the smallest elements. So whatever we are is whatever it is.
What is toughis nobody knows. People have strong faith and demonize without any knowledge or backing and that doesn't help us know anything. Now our experiments are telling us something we do not understand.
Digikong 2 years ago
please don't bring this ridiculous pseudo science in to a discussion of real science
ikillhippies 2 years ago
Nobody did. Numenta uses real science and our neocortex to do deterministic things like your brain does. It is only pseudo science in your head because you do not understand it nor can relate it to the issues at hand. Your posts offer no course to solution. Mine method builds a smarter brain to give us the answers- and proves brains are deterministic. Your path is getting us where?
Digikong 2 years ago
Our path is reaching the discovery of Higgs-Boson and a greater understanding of quantum theory. Yours is taking faux spirituality and pseudo science to create a theory with no empirically verifiable data or evidence
ikillhippies 2 years ago
I think you need to get outside more, become a concretor, or a builders assistant, and not let the unknown overwhelm you and rule your life, working with standard brained men who talk shit is a good way too spend your day instead of worrying about this stuff. im a concretor now, I miss mathematics, but I dont miss the headaches of unknown futures, I enjoy being ignorant nowadays. Have a nice day bloke.
jewlzben 2 years ago
Comment removed
SloperSteve 2 years ago
Observation appears to complete some sort of loop. If the universe is optimized around these loops perhaps it is optimized around consciousness.
We have zero evidence of any piece of our body or mind not behaving in a deterministic manner- we reach hard, real hard to project our view of the world into the worlds inner workings- it may be sad not to see past this bias.
Digikong 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Exactly
We have chosen for this experience, and next time you choose, to have chosen another experience.
Make sure you choose with the whole of your being, for the factors which infleunce you might be smaller than you think. Or larger. C'mon, with chaos theory around, the difference between big differences and small ones over a small enough scale and a bit of time is neglicible. Patterns re-emerge. All becomes one, and love becomes all.
Peace.
Tincuradan 2 years ago