Dr. Quantum Teaches Basis for Law of Attraction

[48acar19]

This is awesome. I learned it many decades ago, but this is the funniest way to explain it. Kids would love physics!

[steverock85]

Is there anyone here who can answer my question?? I want to establish what part the observer has in this.

Was this experiment made by observing without documenting in any way so a human observer could observe? (Using electronic microscope without documenting the data)

Was it the effect of using the microscope or human observation?

[digitised]

@steverock85 The observer acts as an interaction in the relative (large scale) universe, at the quantum level the particles behave in a way which does not conform to relative continuity (i.e. passing through 2 slits at the same time and none at all).

If any particle is observed from our continuous experience then all potentials are removed to conform to the laws of relativity and only 1 slit can be passed through.

This doesn't have to be human it just has to exist on a non subatomic level.

[digitised]

@digitised Quantum computers use transistors which can be on, off and on/off.

This is of course impossible with real switches but the real challenge is producing quantum computers which don't fail due the the problem of the quantum states interacting with the relative laws of our universe and collapsing, which would kill a process immediately.

[digitised]

@digitised Useful searches would be

Quantum superposition and quantum decoherence.

(and ignore the idiots channel who posted this video to back up their new age beliefs.)

[CupCakeArmy1]

@digitised Q-Computers run of q-bits(typically photons), and not transistors. They also operate entirely within the realm of our universe and normal physics. The biggest problem with q-computers is how to keep them in an entangled state while still being able to measure the q-bits. (Remember, entanglement is post detection superposition, however measurements can still very easily collapse the wave function.)

[steverock85]

@digitised

I am well aware of this observer conclusion I was only trying to establish if a human observer is needed.

Observer is someone who processes the data and I don't think using microscope is act of observing if the data is not recorded in any way so a true observer might see.

This video portraits an eye as the observer. This makes me give the observer the property of human.

[CupCakeArmy1]

@steverock85

Human observers are not required. Infact, no observers are required at all. The only thing it takes is an interaction. (Observation is a form of an interaction, for light exists in many different places at once, so we can collapse the wave function by looking where light SHOULD be) You must also remember that we can only "see" light after it has bounced off an object causing an interaction. An obs device here collapses the wave function because we are looking at each photon singly

[CupCakeArmy1]

@steverock85

I think another important part of this experiment that many may not realize, is that when the photon hits the detector in the back, it only hits it in one spot and the wave function collapses there instead of at the slits. In order for this experiments to work, light must be able to travel from source to detector without another interaction in between. In this case, the photons that hit the sides of the d-slit and do not go through collapse the wave function right there.

[steverock85]

@digitised

If a human is not needed and the data is not stored in any way for future references, then it is not about observer. It is likely something else which we have still not figured out.

[steverock85]

@digitised

But I have not yet establish if they tested it. I still don't know if they observed with out recording the data and keep the ambiguity to the real observer.

[CupCakeArmy1]

@digitised

I think its best to think of wave/particle duality as the PROBABILITY of where the particle is at, at any given moment. Particles usually have a higher probability of being in one place, than the other. However, an interaction with matter at any point where the probability of it existing there is not zero, will result in a percentage chance of it ACTUALLY being there when when some force causes an interaction to the particle and collapses the wave function at that point.

[CupCakeArmy1]

@steverock85

I highly recommend viewing the following video on QED. The observer plays NO part in this save for causing an interaction in a location where the particle could exist. When were bring all this up to the macro level, we tend to see only the sum of the whole, and not the individual parts. Thus we only see matter were it has the HIGHEST probability chance of existing in any particular point in space.

QED: youtubeDOTcom/watch?v=v1GdgD77­AQ4

[goldenageism]

no way, there must be an explanation for this and ill find it

[ltzul2vi7l]

@goldenageism plz i wanna know too :D

[casperorchids]

@goldenageism We can all stare at the same star at the same time (like Betelgeuse, Google) and as we are observing (stars are parts of a giant experiment) well, you have an idea what might happen. Thing is it may have already happened as the light from any explosion would take a few hundred years to show up here. Thing is, the more we study, the stranger the results become.

[Theroadsarehazy]

Observance is necessary for matter to be experienced as matter and not a wave… however if we are not observing something… is it still there? If so, how? Is God the ultimate necessary observer? Is God the conscious entity that sustains all matter that we observe, do not observe, and have never observed (eg. a distant earth like planet)? I would say yes.

[CupCakeArmy1]

@Theroadsarehazy

No.

No observation is necessary, just an interaction between two things. God may provide you with (false) answers and conclusions, but unless you can describe HOW (he) does such a thing the answer is useless and thus ultimately irrelevant.

[Graham6762]

This is such a mind fuck. The quantum entanglement is even stranger.

[souro19]

BHAGVATA GITA THE GRAND DADDY OF QUANTUM PHYSICS,

WHICH IS DESCRIBE QUANTUM PHYSICS 3000 YEARS AGO !

[Tehfatzor]

Please, for the love of god, change the title of this. I can see how you get the law of attraction out of this, but that's really not what this is mainly about. He doesn't even mention the law of attraction at all.

[72dew]

i know this is going to attract lots of creationist (as the first observer to be god), but how and why does this phenomenon actually happen? and how and why does an observer affect the outcome. was there an observer before our universe?

[The0ManJam]

I love watching and listening to Fred Alan Wolf. I'm very rusty on my math equations these days; but you don't have to read the 'music score' to hear the symphony.

Eamonn

The O Man Jam

[9906197439]

The uploader is physics retarded.

[Green01123Gold]

are way of thinking is that matter is definite, when it is actually all energy, uncertainty. It being watched in reality forces something definite

[super0spore0fan]

i already knew that electrons can act like particles and waves, but it's no cool to watch this video!

[yourspiritualfriend]

it means that matter (marble/electron) is actually not solid, it just appears that way to us (the observer) matter is actually energy (waves) but the act of observing it (humans looking at the world & life through our eyes) makes it behave as a solid. So dont believe everything you see! ;)

[Mick0722MX]

@yourspiritualfriend That's incorrect. Matter (the particle) is solid and shows characteristics of a wave because of superposition. Observers have no impact on the behavior of these particles. The only people who make your claim are the new age douche bags who want you to believe what they preach.

[windwalker000]

@Mick0722MX I thought observers don't have to be conscious beings, and even if they are, it would merely be a physical property, which doesn't necessarily imply control.

[Mick0722MX]

@windwalker000 If one is not conscious, how can it possibly observe? If it can observe, what is the basis of that notion? Since when is the act of observing a "physical property"?

[Unholyspaghetti]

@Mick0722MX and how would you know the observer has no impact... when the observer is not observing, the world around changes, particle can be in many different position, but when he starts observing, they all collapse into ONE position, therefore, the observer does change matter around him.

[Mick0722MX]

@Unholyspaghetti Don't you realize that when experiments are done, they are performed many times in many variations, then falsified? Scientists hadn't come to these conclusions lightly. You will not find one experiment in Quantum Mechanics that even remotely suggests that an observer has influence. This notion that a particle exists in more than one place simultaneously is flat out wrong.

[windwalker000]

@Mick0722MX A device can do that. Do you know that superposition and wave function function collapse depend on an observer?

[Mick0722MX]

@windwalker000 Superposition and wave function have nothing to do with an observer. Look it up and you will quickly learn that people who make videos like these are crackpots.

[windwalker000]

@Mick0722MX Every source tells me that an observer is the premise of wave function collapse. Why don't you give me one source that says otherwise?

[Mick0722MX]

@windwalker000 What do you mean every source tells you that? The most any credible source will tell you is that there's been a debate on whether wave function collapse is a fundamental physical phenomenon or a process of quantum decoherence. It's a reduction of several different possibilities (eigenstates) into a single possibility as seen by an observer. It's understood as a model of probability. This does not in any way claim that an observer is influencing the result.

[windwalker000]

@Mick0722MX So you're saying the observer merely discovers the already determined, yet unknown, possibility?

[windwalker000]

@Mick0722MX *wave function collapse.

Add: I'm curious what makes you think the observer has no effect, b/c it is the premise of quantum mechanics, by definition. I'm sure you know what quantum measurement is.

[Mick0722MX]

@windwalker000 All you need to do is open up any Physics text book that teaches Quantum Mechanics and you will clearly see that there is not one experiment that remotely suggests an observer having any effect.

[BloatedSensations]

@Mick0722MX "The only people who make your claim are the new age douche bags who want you to believe what they preach." - New age douche bags like Dr. John von Neumann?

[Mick0722MX]

@BloatedSensations What do you know about von Neumann?

[InsideOUT37]

The role of the observer is the one constant in all of these experiments BUT are not all tests " observed " and if so, what role if any, would that play in the out come of the experiment? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it...does that mean it still fell or should we assume it fell? What came first...the chicken or the Egg...and who was " observing " any of this?..we know it happened but Who and Why and where and when and How...0_o

[nickharvey7]

Neat vid!

I am an artist trying to promote my theory on the dynamics of light and time.

This theory is based on two postulates

1. Is that the quantum wave particle function represents the forward passage of time itself

2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event.

This process of continuous change we see and feel as the flow of time itself and can interact with turning the possible into the actual!

[celestian1111]

I love Dr Q. Makes it fun to watch. Best explanation I've ever matched actually.

[LoneWolf138]

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change!

[Evan2718281828]

Shitty documentary, good clip, shitty title.

I hope I've cleared everything up.

[Unholyspaghetti]

@Evan2718281828 what the bleep do we know is a great documentary.

[Evan2718281828]

@Unholyspaghetti hahaha good one

That video was fillesd with shit and even spliced up a guy's interview to make him sound like he was agreeing with their video.

[Unholyspaghetti]

@Evan2718281828 ... what are you talking about. Agreeing with what video? Are we talking about the same documentary here? There was nothing to really agree with, it's a documentary about physics and it's effects... nothing to agree or disagree with. People state what they know, they explain what different concepts are and how they act. What the fuck are you talking about?

[Mick0722MX]

@Unholyspaghetti It's a great documentary if you're interested in bullshit pseudoscience.

[Unholyspaghetti]

@Mick0722MX i'm just curious, what credibility do you have in the matter of physics, because these are the opinions and explanations of world renown physicists

[Mick0722MX]

@Unholyspaghetti Actually, they're not. People often get confused when Physicists talk about such subjects simply because the average person don't really understand the differences among hypotheses, theories, and possibilities.

[Unholyspaghetti]

@Mick0722MX Please just tell me what credibility you have. i wont listen unless i know you know what you're talking about. I'm not going to get involved because I have not started physics yet although i know the difference between theories, hypotheses and possibilities. Also I doubt they falsify the results. I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt but my skepticism will remain the same. Again, i won't argue since I have but a small amount of knowledge about quantum physics.

[Mick0722MX]

@Unholyspaghetti It doesn't matter what my credentials are. If you have the ability to sit and watch videos on YouTube, then you are quite capable of looking up credible sources of information.

I agree...Don't listen to me. Challenge what I'm telling you and learn it for yourself. Your coming to a video channel that supposedly discusses some of the most abstract concepts known to man tells me that you have a good number of brain cells in your head. Use them.

[CynicalCell]

That was indeed a very good explanation of the actual scientific experiment that can be duplicated. That is real science. What it ultimately means is open to debate, but the science is good. I would just ask though how it's possible to refer to a solitary object as a wave. what exactly is a wave anyway but unison among quantity . Oh well , I enjoyed the video though.

[spoorsmeister]

Yeah change the title! But why do we have to have people complaining so much. No peole are not morons just because they do not understand things in math as much as others. The important thing is that people are interested and read about this stuff. Dont be so pretentious!

[hellomate639]

SERIOUSLY? A fucking cartoon guy who looks educated because you can't produce a REAL person who even LOOKS educated, much less IS actually educated.

FUCK you New Agers.

[FoetusInYourNoodles]

@hellomate639 "Fuck you 'New Agers'"? This isn't a movement.. This is science. These are real experiments explained through a cartoon because yes, most people are morons.

[hellomate639]

@FoetusInYourNoodles

This is not fucking science. Get your facts right. These people are telling you that they're teaching science and they're full of shit, which makes real scientists look bad. Which is why I'm so angry at the fact that it exists. These people are full of it...

[bazle64]

Law of attraction? This video is explaining wave/particle uncertainty principle of matter. Change the title

[Mitarohmar]

@bazle64 It's explaining the double slit experiment.

[owenrhysmagic]

@bazle64 Yeah your right this is the double slit experiment!

[therogue44]

@bazle64 Yes but if we can change the behaviour of these particals just by observing them thats mean that the laws of attraction is true.

[MolecularMoonlight]

@bazle64 This is what the Law of Attraction is based on: the power of the Observer to influence physical reality. This is the proof of our ability. :0)

[8888EazyE]

These people do not understand the concepts they are trying to teach. They insert their bullshit scientology as sneaky as possible and throw in some other well known knowledge to impress weak minds. SCIENTOLOGY IS DISGUSTING, DISTURBING, AND A DISGRACE. HANG THESE SCUM BAGS.

[Iuz0r]

Quantum physics really seems like a scientific explanation for theists who say that God grants their prayers or something. Just the simple act of observing or asking manipulates matter at a 4th dimensional level to suit your wants...

Sounds a lot like that.

[jigawats]

@Iuz0r I suggest you go get 3 PhD's, create an experiment, and disprove what decades of scientists have proved. Whether you like it or not, there's only two possibilities: either electron's are intelligent and get self-conscious when we look at them-- or our observation has an effect on, and essentially gives us control of the world around us. It does sound a lot like having your prayers answered. Too bad we can't control it, right? Hey, maybe God can.

[spacehelmetforacow]

@Iuz0r I think you don't quite get the 'observation' bit. It's not observation as we normally know it (like looking at something), it's any interaction with a particle that allows us to get information about it (like sending it through a speed measuring machine, or a sensor that detects which slit an electron's going through).

Basically, quantum physics says that nothing has an absolute position until acted upon by something else in such a way that it has to.

[spacehelmetforacow]

@spacehelmetforacow We don't this kind of odd quantum effect on large scales because large-scale obejcts are *always* interacting with something else (even alone in a room, every move you make changes air currents, you're pushed against the floor by gravity, and you're constantly radiating heat into the air and anything you're touching), but at least theoretically, you could do it with a large object.

However, doing the double-slit experiment with, say, cats, as some problems of scale involved

[spacehelmetforacow]

@spacehelmetforacow For a cat double-slit experiment, you'd need 10^36 (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,00­0,000,000,000,000,000) identical-to-the-atom cats fired out of a cat laser through a volume of perfectly empty space bigger then the observable universe.

[iAmPwny]

its called wave particle duality not law of attraction stupid

[TheZurgalicious]

This makes me happy...

[youraslave]

I am begining to wonder if some kind of tec was used like in the film clock stopers but could not be used wile being watched,its how authority works, they put viruses into heads to stop our brains from working properly (mind control) just like the computer stops working when infected with a virus !

[SaM52461]

the law of attraction??? Delete this video or change the title, what nonsense. Stop taking quantum mechanics and perverting it to fit into you self-help garbage

[bobsaget199]

@SaM52461 lol i think what this person means to say is that our mere act of observation creates another factor that affects probability, or whatever--you get what i mean? so, i guess we can affect "causality" and shizzle (aka idk) by wanting, and wishing, doing, thinking positively, etc. idk if this is true or not, but it could be....btw my name is sam too! and those numbers....wowy. it cant be said that thinking positively doesnt keep someone healthy and happy, if not their circumstances so

[SaM52461]

@bobsaget199

Being healthy and happy doesn't mean deluding yourself from reality though. I'm happy and I don't believe any of this nonsense. I also think it's important to make the distinction between being positive and persistent.

[PM011]

@SaM52461 Yeah, this is new age bullshit, taking things out of context as usual. Just because there are many things unknown about quantum mechanics does not mean you can justify whatever superstition you want with it.

[BlockisticStudios]

@PM011

*brofist of science*