Quantum Mechanics - Indirect Observation

[chrisca83]

"that means that you and I do not exsist. That atoms would have volumes

supporting themselves with large volumes that they have."

[jacksawild]

Just because you can't know where it is does not mean it is not there.

[elisraelita111]

quuantum mechanics,is evidence of G,s concience, or of His universal presence.

[caliaa]

@elisraelita111 "quuantum mechanics,is evidence of G,s concience, or of His universal presence" That's rubbish, everyone knows that quuantum mechanics,is evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's concience, or of His universal presence

[saff3356]

finally get it

[nobrake10001]

where is this clip from?

[roflroflomgomg]

all have massive useless discussions on youtube please.

[shantubesha]

michio kaku makes want to take physics

[tangnatalaga]

I like to think that I understand that a wave can be a particle at the same time, or do they meant they still don't know if its either or because of the uncertainty principle? Being both don't make sense to me. Or is it an example of how limited our understanding is? This is confusing, interesting, and utterly weird.

[boredman443]

They are particles behaving like waves. Shroedinger proposed an idea of fuzzy waves. The particles act like these fuzzy waves because we don't know where the fuck they are at any given moment so we have fuzzy fields of where they might be. The wave function is the movement towards and away from the nucleus in their own probability orbitals.

[pcpcpim]

we haven't changed the orbit of the earth yet, how could he know that nothing would happen after changing it..invalid example.

[LinkBlink]

I agree, just like waves in a drop of water the ripples cannot get any closer or farther to each other as they spread out from the center.

[wookieproductions]

where is this video from

[tarohoa]

lol i was being sarcastic, QM is awesome best thing i've done in my life

[racastilho]

I don't understand why the electrons should fall into the nucleous, since the planets don't fall into the sun. The only difference I see is the nature of the forces: eletromagnetic in the case of the atom, and gravity in the case of the planetary system. Can anyone shed some light?

Thanks,

Rodrigo

[pcbh84]

I think they were saying that the electron would fall into the nucleus according to the views of classical physics. To understand Rutherford's and Bohr's model would take a new way of thinking and a radical change to the teachings of classical physics

[racastilho]

But what would cause it to fall? As long as there´s no loss of energy, the electron would stay in its orbit indefinetly.

[pcbh84]

It would spiral into the nucleus as it lost energy through radiation. However, Bohr proposed that the angular momentum could only take on integer multiples of Plank's constant, and would not lose energy when it has one of these values of angular momentum. These orbitals are a mathematical function of the wave-like characteristics of the electron, and the probability that you could "find" one in its orbit. The analogy to the planetery system is a loose one, the electrons "orbit" is not fixed

[racastilho]

Thanks for your explanation. I didn't know that the electron emits radiation while it's "orbiting". But how does the fixed orbits fix the problem? The electrons still emit radiation and therefore lose some energy, not?

Thanks again for your patience ;)

[pcbh84]

Haha no problem. Bohr stated that the angular momentum could only take on integer multiples of Planks constant, and would not lose energy when it has one of these values of angular momentum. This means that the angular momentum could never possess energy in fraction form; it will always be a whole number.Since this is true it will never lose energy while orbiting the nucleus. Also the "orbits" are NOT fixed. The term orbit has been replaced with "orbitals", the probability of finding an electron

[fiesta181]

Ho but they do. Planet earth gets aprox. the size of one atom closer to the sun every new round (year). At this ratio in about 1000 000 000 years it will be swallowed by the sun. gravity does not give a chance. always takes its back

[natmanprime]

so we are 1 billion atoms distance away???????

i don't think so...

[fiesta181]

sure you don't... think...

1 atom is about 0.00000001cm large. If you multiply this number by 1 000 000 000 000 (your billion) you get ruffly 10 000 cm (100 meters);

The sun is only 93 000000000 MILES away from the Earth nowadays. But what out, tomorrow will be inevitably closer LOL

[natmanprime]

I was hoping you'd see what I implied...nevermind.

you seem to be confused.

let me break it down:

1. 1000 000 000 = one billion

2. 1000 000 000 000 = one thousand billion

3. regardless of which number is used, moving 100 metres closer to the sun does NOT mean we wil be swallowed by it.

At all.

[fiesta181]

no. In the Euopean scale, one billion has 12 zeros. You are using the American scale. Your billion is what we call one thousand millions. LOL

My point is that the Earth will fall to the sun anyway. What's that you don't understand?

[fiesta181]

Youre right. I made confusion. There is no known calculation for the time it will take until the earth touch the surface of the sun; and well be long gone by then anyway. Its just a theoretical assumption about the behavior of gravity. The suns gravity is more intense then ours. Its pulling us in the reason of the intensity of that difference of strength. We are in fact falling into the sun as water into a pipe; around and down a center of gravity.

[natmanprime]

i wish you'd realised that before writng all that non sense

wasting my time and irritating me

[fiesta181]

WellExcuuuuuuse meeee, mister

After 4 months, you come bug me over a couple of zeros and now you are all wrathful.

I meant what I said about the fall into the sun. The time to its occurrence is discussable, alright.

Did you get the match from billions to thousands of millions?

[natmanprime]

ok listen

we are not 100 metres away rom the sun!!!

a fact that you clearly implied by faulty reasoning.

I noticed this becaue of it's ridiculousness

i point this out POLITELY but what do you do?

do you look back at what you've done? NO

you subject me to 2 paragraphs of nonsense before you decide to reconsider

you didn't even understand what I said in the first place

that's very annoying and timewasting and energy wasting because i am having to respond NOW, typing this message!

[fiesta181]

we are not 100 metres away from the sun!!!

Ok. Now you are implying that I was defending that the sun is 100 meters from the Earth Chill out the pussy dude. Lets not get that confident.

Fact: I made a mistake and I pointed the mistake; you brought nothing new

Fact: the Earth is falling into the sun

Fact: There is a difference between the European scale and the American scale and definition for what a billion is.

Deny any of these and you just might make a point. Or not! You figure that out.

[fiesta181]

like i said, my point is that the Earth is falling into the Sun, at whatever rate.

[natmanprime]

what the hell are you jabbering on about now?

If you are going to insult me use english in sentences that make sense.

I've told you what annoys me .See my other comments.

I can be as confident as I like because what i said was true. I did not imply that shit because I said you reconsidered. YOU need to be less confident because you send stupid messages BEFORE you realise your mistake.

That was my point THEN.

Thats my point NOW.

Stop wasting my time.

[fiesta181]

quoting natmanprime: "you seem to be confused. let me break it down: 1. 1000 000 000 = one billion 2. 1000 000 000 000 = one thousand billion" -WRONG answer. regardless of which number is used, moving 100 metres closer to the sun does NOT mean we will be swallowed by it. At all. At all??! -well, WRONG answer again. And you got the nerve to come and correct me? What am I suppose to do with you? Do you want a prize or another roll of comments? cause I got time, u see...

[natmanprime]

i want a prize for dignifying your ravings with a response. I think i deserve it. so we will be SLIGHTLY swallowed by the sun? Is that what you're trying to say? You're not reading my comments are you? I repeat: I am well aware of the earth's movement towards the sun. Anyone following this conversation can see what I meant. As for the billion, I quote "If you multiply this number by 1 000 000 000 000 (your billion)" "my" billion is 1 000 000 000!!! Thats perfectly TRUE. MORON

[fiesta181]

Quoting again:

regardless of which number is used, moving 100 metres closer to the sun does NOT mean we will be swallowed by it.

At all. Natmanprime.

Ohhhhhhh Is this how you IMPLY that the Earth WILL ACTUALLY be swallowed by the Sun and that you share some of my ideas? (Ok, not all, but fair enough).

Fuck, you are complicated when you write your ideas. Talking about bad English

[fiesta181]

And trust me. I know it's annoying but I'm not even trying not to be: A billion has different interpretations, depending if you use the European or the American scale.

"Your" billion will keep leading you into mistake if you don't consider this.

[natmanprime]

I'm not surprised you find it complicated.

That's not how I imply it, I imply it by saying "I am well aware of the earth's movements..".

Which I did. In a previous comment. I repeat: anyone following the CONVERSATION will see this.

stop bothering me

[fiesta181]

Explain to me how is it that does NOT mean we will be swallowed by it () at all, can be translated into: I repeat: (?) I am well aware of the earth's movement towards the sun.

What implicit idea are we discussing here? If its implicit, it seems pretty damn contradictory to me.

[natmanprime]

omg

ok

no implicit idea

no translation necessary

i repeat: I SAID SO in a previous comment

look down the list of comments

look for "natmanprime (1 day ago)"

it says every thing

leave me alone you fool

[fiesta181]

exactly... you already don't know what the hell you are talking about and that's exactly my point. If you're not going to explain the contradiction, why don't you stop talking to me? you are just feeding a useless discussion...

[fiesta181]

i mean, if you are so desperate to finish this discussion, you have the same power that i have...

[natmanprime]

i've had enough of this.

i'll have to break this down to an unbelievable degree now...

if i say i'm well aware of the sun's movements

and then i say 100 metres closer to the sun does not mean we will be swallowed up by it at all

it means we will not be engulfed in flames when we are 100 m closer

NOW

I KNOW you could have taken this the other way , that I was saying "we won't EVER be swallowed by the sun"

BUT

The fact that I said I'm aware of the sun's movements should have prevented that

[fiesta181]

No need to. Just answer the question. Its so simple

Are we or are we not going to be swallowed by the sun?

Yes, it's a slow process; we will be SLIGHTLY swallowed by the sun. And youll notice it as the temperature rises

[natmanprime]

I've told you several times. What do you want from me?

do you need to know or are you telling me?

I thought I cleared up your misunderstanding.

And you can't be "slightly swallowed " by a giant flaming ball.

I said what I said in response to your faulty logic. I repeat I AM WELL AWARE OF THIS PLANETS MOVEMENT TOWARDS THE SUN! Of course it'll be swallowed up EVENTUALLY! I never said it wouldn't! I explained that above

Now leave me alone

[fiesta181]

Of course it'll be swallowed up EVENTUALLY!

I never said it wouldn't!

You implied very strongly and you know it! Finally you write down a straight answer. Was it that hard? ;)

[natmanprime]

no i didn't imply it. you know why? apart from everything else I've said? It's because it was in DIRECT RESPONSE to you saying that I WOULD get swallowed up WHEN we are 100 m closer!!

There's actually no excuse for your misunderstanding.

Anyway now you have understood it, you can get my next point. Point no.2 yes?

i quote myself EARLIER:"you decide to be arrogant and insult me FIRST before you realise this" (your miscalculation)

THIS is my main reason for bothering to communicate with you.

[fiesta181]

Yes you did; you implied that we wouldnt be swallowed by the sun, at all. When you say that you are well aware of the suns movement, I dont have to guess what theory you are talking about (there are strange theories, especially here on you tube). On the other hand, when you say that you are well aware of the earths movement TOWARDS the sun, you begin to make yourself clear; not until then, you dont.

[fiesta181]

Anyway, with the right calculations or not, we are getting swallowed. In only American scale 2 billion years (200 meters, according to my wrong calculations and I corrected my mistake), there will be no liquid water on our planet due the high temperatures and the process goes on until the atmosphere turns to flames and the planet falls down into its final destination. I made that clear since the beginning.

[fiesta181]

In the meanwhile, you got lost in translation with that nonsense of trying to explain to me what a thousand millions should be and I felt the necessity of warning you for that flaw. You never considerate that.

Its ok to be wrong, as long as you can deal with such mistake when someone points it to you. I never explained where I went wrong and since you brought nothing new, well, neither have you.

[fiesta181]

Gravity is pulling us but the sun is getting bigger and hotter as well. You got to consider both processes in calculation. Either way, no more than 5 billion years, we will be at the core of the sun. I thought that this conversation was over but be my guest; replay anytime.

[natmanprime]

Not UNTIL then???? But I said I was aware FIRST! Look when I said it. 5 days ago.

That means 5 days of enduring your BABBLE.

And you still don't acknowledge the fact that you acted like an arrogant TWAT in the first place!

And then you insult me further!

I'm not interested in your subsequent corrections because of this and because...

I Am Well Aware Of Them

I MAY have mentioned this before? Maybe???Perhaps???

[fiesta181]

Actually i said it 4 months ago....Ah Ah I said it FIRST! You said what 5 days ago?

I made confusions with the maths for the values that I had ( should I mention this again? My mistake) but you see, it´s all there anyway.

I can´t even remember the context for that comment and then you come from out of no where, criticizing me without even a valid argument, not knowing what i was talking about. ...Talking about arrogance.

[natmanprime]

This is NOT a contest for who said what first.

*sigh*I repeat for the 100th time...

I said I was aware of this planet's movement towards the sun.

6 days ago now.

Thus undermining all your stupid arguments about "implication" that you seem to think are SO IMPORTANT.

Now stop going ON and ON and ON about it. Or any of your stupid "calculations." I'm not interested.

And deal with the point I made 6 days ago and acknowledge your arrogance or leave me alone.

[fiesta181]

Yeah, right...

You were the one how turned this into a contest: "not only i said it 5 days ago when it was yesterday like i said it 6 days ago now that is today" - tchii I wonder what you'll say tomorrow.

You acknowledge this. When you came along to this fight you had nothing and what you got now it was provided by me. Want to be alone? Don´t come over begging for attention

[natmanprime]

I just said this is NOT a contest, so why do you want to argue over who turned it INTO a contest???

I know you cannot understand or speak english very well, but look at my previous message again carefully.

I'm not begging for attention. Everytime I end my message telling you to go away, you reply with 3 messages.

I want you to understand what I am saying, the point I've been making for the past 6 days, and to then piss off.

[fiesta181]

So, the next time you decide to post a response, do us both a favour and try to actually make a point, right to begin with. No implicit ideas. Implicit ideas ended up with you contradicting yourself. This is YouTube; whether you make a point or you are the one who's being annoying. And I can be very annoying too...

[natmanprime]

point 1- you are amazingly wrong to begin with

point 2 - you decide to be arrogant and insult me FIRST before you realise this

and..

point 3 - stop going on about your stupid billions!! It makes no difference one way or the other!! using "your" billions will "lead me into mistake" just the same! why must I consider this?? are you insane???

[natmanprime]

I am well aware of this planet's movement towards the sun.

you even try to patronize me and INSULT me first!!

and gibbering on about millions and billions as if it makes a difference!!

[satriani20gc]

Thanx for the video i like it very much... i'm trying to translate it to my native language, spanish, and i have a little problem... between 1:12 to 1:16 i can't understand quite well the final words of Malcolm Longair. Could you transcribe it please? :D

[MrCristea]

"atoms would have no way of supporting themselves with the large volume that they have" ... I THINK this is what he is saying...

[ssnatcherss]

even orbitals are not (completely) fixed.

[ssnatcherss]

to avoid sounding stupid, i mean fixed in shape depending on the influences from nearby atoms

[TheMathKing]

anybody know the name of the complete video series that this segment is contained in?

[dnp97001]

Listen, no one has to like QMs, but you should all recognize its usefulness: without QMs the modern digital age that we now enjoy (cell phones, i-pods, laptops, ect.) would be a fantasy.

[jomomo]

that was quite a fascinating video.

taught me quite alot.

[jas03000]

So observation changes it all. Kinda makes you

think that our very universe is the way it is

because of our observation of it. It natural state can never be know.

[jockie0706]

Just sit back, relax and listen, if you try to understand all its paradoxes, you enter a road from which is no mental healthy return.

[tarohoa]

yes so if you wanna stay sane stay away from QM, i've taken this step and now i can't get back

[jockie0706]

So did I

[hiddenmind]

My friend, QM does not make one insane. Forcing to understand something you can not may though.

Patient adaptation is key.

Also, do not label yourself like this. You are simply in a state of confusion.

[hiddenmind]

Sorry but in addition, taking breaks and watching certain things such as a flower in time lapse will greatly clam your senses until you are ready for intense thoughts.

Or, you can simply put it aside until you are ready to engage in this type of thinking. This goes beyond traditional science so do not feel negative about not understanding it right this moment.

[richie3622]

"You have to change it by - so to speak - *ALOT!!*"

haha, I dunno, that was kinda funny

[trooperman4]

yeah... :P

[dannykanoista]

Could someone please tell me what's the name of this documentary? Thank you

[vstankovski]

This seems all so "beautiful", but,.. it does not explain the double-slit experiment.

[MonsuerLePlague]

thats because the double slit experiment deals with wave functions. the uncertainty principle is just part of it.

[marlopainter]

It explains it beautifully! When we're not observing the 'particles', they are waves. They become particles under observation.

[circle559]

thank you kitspartan, you do have a point there. i shall rephrase my comments by commenting that only when every thing in the universe is seen as one, then can we wholestand the universe.

[circle559]

yes i like this video, the moralm of it is that only when two polarities are combined together then we can begin to understand or fully explain the universe. combine these.... good and evil, man and female, positive and negative, past and future, particle and waves... only then we will know the truth

[Kitspartan]

If we're talking opposites; a wave is not the opposite of a particle. I understand your meaning though, but if we took your words to be true we'd all end up like the scientists..lol:-) P.S. I'm a scientist and many things besides. To descirbe the universe verbally is infinitely harder than mathematically is it not? How many scientists have a Phd in Engish(or any other language)?

Aether or moralm, all adds to the confusion!

[wKoMoon]

light(photon) is partical and a wave at the same time, couldnt atoms also b?

[panterafan01]

yup, DeBroglie's wavelength equation - wavelength = h/p. also the doubles slit experiment with electrons suggests that electrons behave as waves and particles at the same time. its called wave/particle duality.

[Wraithgoddess]

maybe everything is directly related to dark energy. the glue or web which holds everything together. there is no mystery if that is the answer but we dont know?

we should know by now....

[wKoMoon]

dark energy is ''magic'' ''unreal''

just like religion, made to explain what we actualy cant

[powerfury]

I'd rather think of it as a modern Aether.

[dianacosta1000]

I think I finally understood Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I had read about it before but never quite got it. Really makes one think...

[GenesisSingularity]

Just because you can make precise predictions does not make an assumption true. Ptolomey made precise predictions of the planets and was absolutely wrong. Science and Religion make prediction of limited and chauvenistic information. They ignore common sense inorder to propagate thier assumptions. The hiesnburg principle and Quantum Theory is correct in many respects but limited. One wrong calculation or mistep in cognitive perception makes the principle only a theory.

[mezaros]

You idiot, Quantum mechanics is extremely accurate without it we would never have things like the transistor, youtube is full of so many people spewing bullshit who have never even gone to a real school , fucking morons.

[GenesisSingularity]

I think you are the idiot. You think Quantum mechanics is extremely accurate. It is in a lot of commercial areas, but in the farthest reaches of quantum physics- infinite probability, that is not the case. You only know the commercial part because someone told you. You believe on FAITH. You are no different from the ones you criticize. Have you ever done a Quantum trial. Have you ever even touched a particle accelerator. Of course you not. Stop watching the sci channel you fucking moron sheep.

[omegavalerius]

GenesisSingularity,

I suppose I can't really trust that there is global warming, that the universe is 13.7 billion yeas old, that evolution works or that E=mc^2. Luckily I did an experiment on gravity the other day when I dropped a pint of beer. Otherwise I might start floating of into outer space.

[GenesisSingularity]

omegavalerius,

You can trust whatever you want. But just understand that trust is a form of belief or faith. You have faith that what is being explained to you is true. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Many don't believe in global warming and no one knows the age of the universe. Even if that is a calculable measurement is open to conjecture. What you experience with your beer is a phenomenon the science doesn't understand that they label gravity...

[GenesisSingularity]

Science, like history and all things you are not immedeatly, tangibly involved in are faiths you make a choice in whether you believe them or not. It is not wrong that you have this faith, but it is just as important to recognize it is faith. Eventhough the uncertainty priciple works in marvelous ways, The larger part of the argument is based on faith. Eventhough it is a faith that many scientist agree on, doesn't mean you have to just because they say so - it is still a faith.

[readtherulesdamnit]

Simply stating something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. This a principle of the scientific method. One that you apparantly don't embrace, trying to convince everyone that science requires faith having no evidence to support this claim of yours. Furthermore, faith, by definition, demands ones to beliefs to be absolute. In science, nothing is ever considered absolute and nobody ever claims something is. Science is to infer from observation (no pun), never to speculate or choose what to believe.

[GenesisSingularity]

To explain the faith/trust based areas of quantum physics would take more than 500 characters. Faith according to webster is "a belief not based on proof". Science doesn't require faith, however, parts of it are faith based. I don't need evidence to support my postulation, in fact most scientist agree with me. There is no proof for the strings in string theory - it is a theory based on the trust of theorectical mathematics. Science is extremely provisional atheory today might be quackey tomorrow

[jimmyti9cer]

i can tell your a complete retard,seriously its obvious

[solmyr2]

guys .. if u dont believe or have faith in science just shutdown your fuckin mobilephones , close your damn computers and burn your cars and go take a walk in a park and cook your food on a campfire :D (hey and i dont say it would be a bad life ;)) but science gave us everything and will take everything from us in short time if we dont discover something really revolutionary .. becouse science is a double edged sword ;)

[mangazos]

does this solve the problem of whether the observer collapses the wave function? There has been a long debate about this, and the last guy made it look like it was solved many years ago!!!

[thefullmonte03]

Here is the way I regard that particular paradox. Consider a human observer, the observer is not equipped to observe particles directly. Therefor he/she must use electronic equipment to observe. Operating electronic equipment generates electromagnetic disturbances, and hence interferes with the behavior of particles. light, electrons, etc...

[tooleydeviljuice]

good point. on that note, however, imagine an observer could, in fact, directly observe particles. wouldn't the human generated fields also affect the particles, resulting in the same paradox?

[heloizyjhenifer]

This last guy's explanations and conclusions are just hype. The uncertainty goes beyond that of observer's influence on the observed. If particles are moving points then why we can show single particles going thru one of two slits *before* we make them go thru it with an observation (ye I know it's hard to state this clearly :).

Basically he's advocating a "hidden variables" classical interpretation of QM, which has been proven to be untrue, afaik.

[heloizyjhenifer]

(cont) At best he could say particles are 4D objects/points, and then, this is *not* a moving 3D object, which he seems to say it is.

[LatinoParaSiempre]

Good point!

[thegorilla69]

look at perception: mind over matter.

[brya34brya]

look directly at a light in the dark in the distance and it disapears look at it again at exept at a 45 digrea angle in otherwords just look to the left or the right of it and you will see it easier something like that i think lol

[mallamoozoo]

no thats just averted vision cos eyes are weak at seeing light directly on the retina at the main focal point - completely unrelated issue.

[NarutoFan54321Now]

hmmmmm can someone please explain to me what a direct and an indirect observation is please?

[MrCristea]

Direct Observation = something you can observe directly with any of your 5 senses.

Indirect Observation = using information that you cannot directly observe with any of your 5 senses. Instead, you can use information gathered from other means such as experimentation.

[NarutoFan54321Now]

Thank you!!

[Zevcollins]

Did anyone else when first watching this come up with any means by which you would be able to in-directly observe the behaviour of the electron?

The idea that sprang first to mind when watching this ran (in retrospect) on many parallels with the way a transformer functions (in the sense of flux being transferred in order to provoke a change in the other coil)

[Zevcollins]

By being able to gage the atomic lattice in a crystalline structure (or maybe in something that is absolutely set, say in fullerenes) naturally at near-absolute zero temperatures. Initially you'd try to calibrate the target section with different means of excitation so you can observe how the change in position determines your ability to judge it's momentum and vice-versa with a derived constant. Just throwing it out there! Heh.

[Zevcollins]

In a resonating/standing matter wave that encapsulates the nucleus the electron doesn't spiral downwards due to a continual loss of energy while the centripetal EM force pulls it in. The point is that electrons aren't point-like particles (in this model).

[Zevcollins]

When first encountering this problem my initial hypothesis was such that the 'orbitting' electron in stable orbit repels in on itself. I suppose you could imagine a chain of beads, connected by a thread running through each individual bead. The orbitals can be crudely represented by encircling rings with both trophs and crests with an opposite line running sort of anti-parallel to it.

[Zevcollins]

Because the chain of beads when contorted into that shape would be pressing ... Heh, in-against itself the electrons induce a sort of repelling force in on themselves similarily. Orbitals are of course specific to the core charge (nucleus) and only at certain energy levels are said to be able to establish these encapsulating matter waves (where it is 'everywhere at once').

[Zevcollins]

Only at these energy levels (wavelengths of the.. wave) can that sort of orbital form.

Sorry if I didn't articulate that as well as it could have been, I'm pretty horrible at presenting ideas. But yeah, that's all the above really is - a recollection of my initial impression. Feel as though I've left out the bulk of my idea with no means of explaining it though. Also note that this so far as I know is completely unsubstantiated by any evidence.

[Georgewarrior]

a question: what prevents the electron from crashing into the nucleus?the force of electromagnetism keeps it in its orbital, right? but what keeps it from getting stuck to the nucleus if EM causes it to be attracted to the nucleus?

[Gugolpl0x]

Great question. Hypothesis: the energy of the electrons repelling themselves may be enough to stop themselves from crashing into the nucleus.

[Georgewarrior]

Is this your hypothesis or is this question not known by the QM theorists either? There is still a positively charged nucleus that would draw all those electrons to itself.

[Gugolpl0x]

True, but all of those electrons moving toward the nucleus would inherently repel each other. Imagine a dot with a yellow aura around it. Now imagine ten of them trying to move in on one blue dot. The yellow auras can't overlap, because they aren't of opposite charge.

Just my own hypothesis.

[Georgewarrior]

Interesting, i can see how that would prevent the electrons from really crashing into or touching upon the nucleus but it seems too chaotic and unstable, the atom wouldnt have a specific and stable structure with all the electrons in their orderly orbitals, they would be just messily crowding the nucleus. I think we both need to look up what the official theory says before speculating on possibly already known things.

[Gugolpl0x]

No matter how fun it may be :P

[atxlax]

Umm??,... for the hydrogen atom with only one electron....-by your hypothesis, what's to repel the electron from crashing into the nucleus?

[Gugolpl0x]

That's why it's flawed. I thought of that as well.

[jmc8197]

It doesn't crash into the nucleus because it interferes with itself. Those interference patterns that are stable, are stable orbits for the electron.

[airpower123]

Quantum Mechanics wtf is that shit, the asian guys going on about some wave and some other shit all want is fast computer and i get his bullshit about Quantum Mechanics i dont want to understand what Quantum Mechanics is

[plutooniumboy]

your just an idiot nothing more,without quantum mechanics you wont be able to write comments here,without quantum mechanics there wont be our high technical stuff so shut up NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gugolpl0x]

Then why the hell did you look up Quantum Mechanics?

[airpower123]

because someone told me that quantum computers were fast. and my computer is laging on crysis i wanted a quantum computer

[Gugolpl0x]

So you're looking on YouTube as an information reference for computers? Try Wikipedia.

[airpower123]

wikipedia wtf? retart thats all like words and how they work. why the fuck would i want to know how they work i just want to buy so i wanted to see what they look like so i can pick one up if i see one in the computer shop. idiot!!!!!!!!!!

[Gugolpl0x]

*sigh*

*looks up quantum computers on Wikipedia*

I guess you're right. The expansive information about quantum computers requires information on quantum mechanics. You obviously don't care how good the computer is, or _what_ it is. Since you don't understand the benefits of research I ought to let you flail in a puddle of noob.

[numnums21]

i think you can get a quantum computer at Best Buy, $1,999.99. I think its a christmas sell thats goin on. HURRY!!

[fyrtoes]

All I gotta say is: This video helped me understand a little better what Quantum Mechanics is more so than my actual Intro to Quantum course

[SardonicusRexx]

So waves are discrete enery packets called quanta? Sounds like particles by any other name. A smeared out wave?  A wave of what? In what? WTF? Matter made up of wave? That's crazy. Waves of what?

[palathinkal]

It is crazy. I agree.

The wave is a wave of nothing. It is a deliberately vague mathematical abstraction. When mathematical gimmicks a.k.a Operations are performed on this "wave", it yields theoretical predictions about various properties of the thing under theoretical investigation.

[palathinkal]

What's more funny is that: These theoretical predictions agree with the experimental evidence with an amazing amount of precision. So we have companies like Intel base their entire income on these mathematical spells which work for no intuitive reason.

[crw2223]

Energy

[jbrownoz82]

Fact and Theory... Its quantum theory that allowed us to make mobile phones... do you believe in them? Quantum theory is the basis behind most modern electronic devices (anything with a silicon chip). I'm convinced that these devices are fact, then the theory must be pretty accurate if not also fact

[kakudmi]

Consider this:

Humans cannot live without a system of belief.

Everything you do, every second of your life, every activity you perform happens only because it is supported by one or more systems of belief.

For example; you open your eyes in the morning and you believe they don't deceive you, then you step on the floor believing it will hold you, you switch the light on trusting there won't be any explosions....

[kakudmi]

And since we cannot personally verify all this informations, we apply the system of belief to support our choices and decisions.

We verify only small amount of information such as looking both ways when we cross the street, or we will count the money or check the ingredients and so on. But anything else we do in our life is supported by one or more systems of belief.

[Alexopolux]

"where and when does fact end and theory begins?" Nice question. The observation of "facts" are theory-dependent. It means, you cannot observe "facts" unless you have some background knowlegde. With these theory-dependent "facts", you can then test a (nother) theory, so dass where "facts" end and theory beginn, depends on where you draw the line.

[niku3674]

It enhanced my concept about an atom.

excellent!!!!

[Chris15118]

"where and when does fact end and theory begins?"

Thats philosophy, especially since most rationalists don't believe in "facts" only ones perception of an external reality.

[trebledeth]

where and when does fact end and theory begins?

[vygandas1024]

I love Michio Kaku! He's a modern days' Einstein.

[demonseed5000]

if the electron can not move from its respective ring. how could it be created.

[deazwe]

The electrons around the neucleus can be removed from an atom by complete ionization.

[duraseya]

Great! Thanks for sharing this vid. What's the show called please?

[CamiloSanchez1979]

my theory is that we come from a primordial atom and everything else even the universe is a mirage, because everything is related to our conciousness therefore we will have to create an conciousness unrelated experiment to verify its reality but it is itself a paradox

[USisBEST]

ya but if you dont observe its actually is a wave.

[guitarownzj00]

that movie was made for poor pathetic souls who do not understand quantum mechanics. It tries pathetically to use quantum mechanics to explain psuedoscience and some man's random philosophy.

[Georgewarrior]

Im not so sure about that, you dont have to agree with everything that movie is saying but the facts of QM are there, and they show that the subject influences probabilities and the like, I could just as well say that the materialistic scientists are interpreting it in a materialistic way, who R they to say how to interpret things.

[myrcjunkyard]

so we should call it a waveicle?

[CamiloSanchez1979]

thats an awesome comment doggy

[rpaul5150]

wouldn't the position vs. momentum thing be analogous to relativity's simultaneity where time is distorted for the observer vs. the observed?

[raahr]

his poor fiancee.. is like where the fuck is the rest of the video??

[cretinalert]

Might have to flag this as inappropriate for people

less than 13.7 times smarter than Bush

[entangledworld]

It's a nice introduction into one of the most important concepts in quantum mechanics: particle-wave duality.

[SweetPeaBee]

ahh hmmm