The wave particle paradox (9/10)

[GambitFox79]

Thank you for uploading this, and thank you to the man who took his time to do this.

I was having a hard time understanding Bohr's and Einstein's position in my readings, but this was a perfect supplement to my book's material.

[youcrackers2]

love the ending s lol

[projectivemotion]

I like this guy.

[Zee96969696]

but we are observing wave particle duality, problem unsolved

[jhamien920]

Awesome. I learned new things.

[taostoner1]

"Tonight I aught to stay awake and observe myself" hahah

[taostoner1]

This guy is freakin awesome!

[VarykGerai]

particles comming in waves?

[brindow1]

He stirred his coffee with a birow and then put the the birow in his mouth to taste the coffee..disgusting ! How could he do that ?

[cirocar]

Why didn't he mention David Bohm?

[seadoosportster]

Very good and well explained concepts... I enjoyed every minutes of it! Keep on teaching!

[xSilverPhinxx]

I guess the tree does not make a sound...

[feliztex]

Could it be that both waves and particles what they do is projecting an image of the two slits in the screen, a diffraction image, so it is simply a property of the slits and not a property of what is used to project that image on the screen? Will the image projected of the same two slits be also the same no matter if produced by light, electrons or alpha particles? I don't know the answer. Any help? Thanks.

[cirocar]

@feliztex How can it be a property of the two slits? They're just two slits and that's it. They are just obstacles.

[kvanmete7675]

omg he has chia tea I just forgot everything that was mentioned in the video now...

[Moonsabie]

is this why you can see waves in tempter differences say your door open while it is cold outside while hot inside you can see waves as well as if light is being cast on the floor when it is cold outside and warm inside you can see Shadow or gradated light in waves. or moving bodies. same idea more simple observation?

[starcities12]

what a sweet little man!!

[angelwings1086]

Perhaps I'm stubborn, or just not so much into philosophy but it seems like a silly notion to me. It's the same old "If-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest­" thing and I think it's ridiculous to think that something is meaningless or ceases to exist simply because it isn't observed. If leave a pot of water on to boil in the kitchen... I can safely assume that it will boil whether I'm attending it or not.

[deathing]

@angelwings1086 The important issue isn't if it makes a sound its whether it fell at all. Electrons don't stop existing when you don't observe, they just behave differently.

Boiling is a thermodynamic process and only emerges due to entropy, it problem but not guaranteed.

You can't dismiss things because they feel silly, that's moronic

[angelwings1086]

@deathing I think you misunderstood my meaning... I know the issue is whether or not it fell, that was the point.

Although the tree wasn't observed falling, we can deduce through previous knowledge we've obtained about trees and gravity, that it most likely fell as opposed to grew completely sideways on the ground or decided to lay down and go to sleep.

No, electrons don't stop existing, but I don't believe they will behave differently when unobserved either. Under the same circumstances an...

[angelwings1086]

electron will behave the way it had previously, whether we see it happen or not. I think Einstein is right in that science is used to describe the world as it is as opposed to simply how we observe it. Granted, observation is necessary to glean information, but it's safe to assume that all things will behave as they have previously (excluding variables of course). I still think it's silly to believe otherwise.

As for the boiling water, it was a simplistic example, god forbid it not be perfect.

[MrBonnanbuidhe]

Just to clarify a point. Stannard asks whether he is meaningless if he is not being observed. This a a non-sequitur of what has gone before. It was stated that QUESTIONS relating to objectivity are meaningless, not reality itself. Stannard is a subject/object. not a question therefor he is not meaningless

[MrBonnanbuidhe]

Why cannot we think of electrons behaving in different ways depending on the conditions they find themselves in ?We can think of water as a fluid, a solid or a vapour; H2O behaving in different ways, so why not electrons.

Few philosophers would deny the existence of an objective reality corresponding to our perceptions. We cannot know this reality because we rely on input from our senses which is interpreted by the brain.Is Stannard unobserved is not meaningless because he is not a question.

[fonteijnb]

what if the wave/particle paradox can be solved by questioning what is a particle?

the demonstration of a particle also showed a trough, although that could be attributed to the movement of the can, it would be interesting to try that in orbit (without air interference) and see how using larger distances would affect a spray.

[artberry]

Surely it also has to do with the speed of light. if the peaks or troughs of the wave length exceed the distance the light can travel over a given distance in a certain time and the slits are placed within that distance there is bound to be an interference pattern because the slits act as a defocused lens and create a pattern of resonance. OTOH if the slits were place at a distance commensurate with the wave length surely they should be in focus. A partial is therefore a function of space time.

[shawndonald78]

whaooo

[dolzaolcom]

I've always thought if a solution to Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox was found it could be applied to the Wave Particle Paradox.

[DarkKnightBob1o1]

if you're talking about the tortoise and the hare. This was solved by calculus.

[Films4You]

You behav one way on YouTube and another at home... Depending on whom observes, how they observe and at what 'time' they observe. Maybe:)