man, this video bugs me because you can interpret it any way you like. Did you know the guy this cartoon is based on does his lectures with religious connotations. He carries a cross around with him in the background but speaks of science. You make the connection, and dont forget to donate to the church
they say the same thing happens with bucky ball atoms (the largest atom known) so how about molecules. How about clump of molecules. At some point the clump of particles no longer acts as a wave, maybe at the point we can see it, because I know if you shoot two marbles through it will surely form two lines. Bottom line is, if we cant see it who cares what they do. They could circle the planet, but reform in my field of view when I expect to see it there, so I can predict my environment.
Great video. Clear, illustrative, entertaining. What a lot of work it must have been. Thank you! Comments here: some excellent, some dumb (take a course in physics instead of just trying to guess). The spelling in the credits was, with out doubt, horrible. Realy.
Electrons like Photons only seem to exist as a wave until they come in contact with an object. Then the wave function collapses forming a quantized form of energy. If this is a universal and continuous process could it be forming the passage of time? Because each new Electron or Photon will have a unique position in space and time that the wave function never had before the collapse. Could Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle be the same uncertainty that the observer will have with any future event?
this video is excellent. it explains the experiment and the basic understandings of QM amazingly well. Although.... the credits at the end made me rage. What the fuck is bitchwax, and why can't who typed up those credits spell?
I've heard of this exp. before but never the "conciousness" aspect. It seems highly unlikely that a electrode is part of a fabric of conciousness that knows when it's being watched and behaves differently. What tool was used to observe? could it have interfered itself on a physical level? A lot of individuals are using this as evidence of some form of god, anyone know a good source for this experiment?
If we take one flashlight, then take another flashlight and beam through the beam of the first flashlight, why don't the beams interact or disturb each other? Chances are some photons should collide, do they just pass through each other? Or does the wave theory come into play here? But if we "measure" first, and then do this, they should be forced into particles... right? Then they should be able to collide...
I would like to stick up for science and defend it against the line "no longer theory but now fact" in the description of this video.
SCIENCE NEVER CLAIMS ANYTHING AS FACT. We leave that up to religious types. Science only has the most likely theory to support a bunch of observable phenomena.
I'm not even going to begin to discuss what is wrong with this Dr. Quantum crap, but please keep in mind that it is from "What The Bleep?", which has nothing to do with science.
...actually now that I've read the comments, I see most people don't seem to take it too seriously, but I do worry about films like this that don't really understand what is going on being so hugely successful.
In response to the previous comment, we don't really know whether "human observation" has anything to do with it or not. In fact there have been studies done that imply consciousness is not a factor. The whole idea begs the question of how conscious do you have to be? Can a dog or ape make an "observation"? what about a mildly retarded person? The implications are too extraordinary.
In the actual experiments they did record the data and then delete it afterwards to check it was not the recording that was affecting the particles. The findings were that the outcome was affected by actual human observation of the results. they even tried waiting a few days and then deleting or viewing the data and found that depending on whether or not they viewed it would change the results from 2 days earlier. It has been tested many many times now and is scientific fact not theory
this happens cause our brain gets trick when observing the simple nature of an experiment like this one we need to step out side the box and expect the unexpected even though our brain is telling us the opposite then again all this could be a huge illusion that collaborates with our brain I'll stop there I'm already getting confused
Well, mysticism is not the same as fantasy - it can be used to describe 'the dance of all particles'.
What Bohr does - making the researcher an integral part of the experiment, just like the particles itself - goes even a bit further than acknowledging that something appears to be happening at the 'meta-level' of things; even Einstein didn't necessarily agree with that approach.
I have a university degree (geography, some physics). I cannot get my head around this, I have been honestly trying for about 9 months. As much as this vid takes it down to a laymans level, can anyone offer up something that might trigger some insight? Please.
DaDazey, thanks for trying to help. I'm really starting to wonder about the consciousness aspect, I'm currently reading the Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. The collapse of the wave function has to be the most frustrating and simultaneously fascinating thing I've ever encountered in any field.
The presence - or absence - of the ability to observe seems to be the determining factor for the existence - or collapse - of the wavefunction. Then the question remains: can there be any type of mechanism or process at that level that starts to play a role? If
so, what mechanism or process (and in what shape)? A very interesting question, for which many theses can be developed.
Toronto Canada. The Greenland thing was a joke amongst my friends because I've always wanted to travel there. Second degree in glacialogy dude who also likes Durutti Column, check them out. Same era as Tuxedo Moon, grab a disc as youtube wont do it justice. Peace on.
Well, it doesn't really matter if the observer is man or machine. Though it might always remain fascinating to study a machine's mind.
No seriously - it does seem as if something at the meta-level of things determines if particles are being observed. Which is truly odd. Might there be any form of consciousness at that level? Or a different type of mechanism that doesn't require consciousness at all.
Niels Bohr had a different perspective - that the experimenter is unseparable from the experiment, and becomes a part of it. That explains the influence.
But many view that opinion as 'unscientific'; it goes against the notion of an objective reality.
Wish I could formulate a truly intelligent response. I'm reading The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. An exploration of the parallels between modern physics and eastern mysticism. True objectivity doesn't exist in my view, however I reiterate that other sciences and philosophy may be required to find the unified theory. I laughed (in a good way) when I read 'objective reality'. Is that ironic juxtaposition, or isn't it?
Yeah, a lot of people are drawn towards mysticism and spirituality when they get their teeth into this, for quite obvious reasons. Pherhaps they have more in common than we like to admit.
The 'objective reality' phrase might seem out of place in a discussion like this, but the point is that you can't regard the researcher as an integral part of the experiment with any experiment you do. It undermines the whole basis of experimentation, and with that science... As does mysticism.
That last paragraph contradicts what you've said previously regarding 'The presence - or absence...' and Bohr. Or doesn't it?
Also the phrase 'eastern mysticism' is a misleading, it implies fantasy. Can't understand why it was used in reference to the study of consciousness. Fantasy doesn't interest me.
These are things that are happening in any ole room, with a screen, one or two slits, and something that emits particles.
But an experiment like this really is at the very edge of science, and it'll be hard to see if we are ever going to formulate a satisfactory explanation.
You people are kinda blind. do you really beleive this? well i don't! it's just a psychological game. Something is awry, the two water waves approach the wall (with one cancelling the other in "center" of wall), yet their claim shows intensity in center-- contradiction!
The video does NOT show what he is explaining... incorrect second premise.
if you're going to talk Quantum Physics at us, at least do it coherently. It takes away the thrust of what you're trying to say if you can't spell for shite...
Hmmm..sounds cool..but theory is a container for "facts" and provides explanation for the facts..A common misunderstanding...In science, theory is the highest possible level.
1. formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
Measure device is a "beam" of light with wavelength small enough to find electron particle/record location, when beam locates particle it interferes with electrons speed and course. It is currently impossible to measure a particle's speed/course without changing it... quantum physics rely on probabilities.
I can't see your point. I'm not talking about electrons and measuring devices. What I'm saying is that a theory is a little bir more than "just a theory".
"[..]or theory without sufficient evidence for proof." This is not the characteristics of a theory.
I believe that is fundementally wrong! A theory is an explanation for facts that we observe. I'm talking about the scientific meaning. Wiki has a really good explanation of precisly this.
Is wiki an approved reliable source (ie, to quote in term paper)? I understand wiki is created by the community and there has been controversy with wiki.
A really, really good explaination can be found at:
m-w dot com/dictionary/theory
And, the main point is QM is based on probability (theory) and not fact.
Weel obviously something is wrong with your dictionary, cause that defintion is only describes the "popular usage" of it. I'm talking about the meaning accepted by the scientific community.
I've taken courses in QM and QField Theory. This is one of the clearest explainations I've seen. It's all correct. The only thing you may quibble, and I usually do when I hear it, is that 'observation' does not have to be a concious observer -any physical 'disturbance' or 'interaction' will collapse the wave to a point interaction - and this is always going on in the universe.
@stevebenbob We never discussed or even defined "conscious observer" in our QM or Quantum Field theory classes. When fields interact, they do so at a point in space-time, and this collapses the wave function. The Universe actualizes itself in this sense, whether any 'consciousness' has evolved in it or not.
Could you tell me where the need for consciousness is discussed in a physics text? I know it is a common theme in non-rigorous discussions, but I don't see why..
How can anyone that posted in this thread prove to me, or anyone else, that the data portrayed in the video was falsified in any way. I'll admit I'm not completely sold on What The Bleep because I have not done enough of my own research on the subject yet, but these people do happen to be educated...
I agree. What is their motive, falsifying the results that way? Its scary that so many people believe in the science, but so much of it is this crazy crap...
Knowing people who are educated on subject matter, I assure you that this is a very old experiment, and the results have been demonstrated repeatedly, time and time again. The cartoon is just telling you about something that's been known for quite a while.
Things do not start out as theories only later to become facts There is the theory of gravity, which will always be a theory and the fact of gravity, which will always be a simple fact that has been known forever. The comment about quantum physics as "no longer theory but now fact" is complete ignorance on the same level of those who say evolution is just a theory Theories represent a much deeper truth than facts, facts come first, then theories
This video is a pretty good explanation of the double-slit experiment, but the part about observing which slit the electron passes through is misleading. What the bleep do we know is a stupid movie.
i really like whatthebleep, how is the observer part misleading. is it that it should be said more like, the outcomes change depending on what the experiment was desinged to look for. ?
thats what i thought as well, but could they be conveying it acurately. that The results could be predicted reliably in this either(2 band)/or(Int. Pattern) way dependant upon their the experiment's method of observation.
Would that mean the same thing but not sound so outreageous?
the best video of physics i have ever seen
i want this in all other chapters too..
please give the link to other topics also?
cyberyod 1 month ago
Comment removed
cyberyod 1 month ago
Comment removed
DarkStar1O9 1 month ago
wow
chadhall83 10 months ago
man, this video bugs me because you can interpret it any way you like. Did you know the guy this cartoon is based on does his lectures with religious connotations. He carries a cross around with him in the background but speaks of science. You make the connection, and dont forget to donate to the church
ricktbdgc 1 year ago
they say the same thing happens with bucky ball atoms (the largest atom known) so how about molecules. How about clump of molecules. At some point the clump of particles no longer acts as a wave, maybe at the point we can see it, because I know if you shoot two marbles through it will surely form two lines. Bottom line is, if we cant see it who cares what they do. They could circle the planet, but reform in my field of view when I expect to see it there, so I can predict my environment.
ricktbdgc 1 year ago
Great video. Clear, illustrative, entertaining. What a lot of work it must have been. Thank you! Comments here: some excellent, some dumb (take a course in physics instead of just trying to guess). The spelling in the credits was, with out doubt, horrible. Realy.
purplepeoplepurple 1 year ago
Electrons like Photons only seem to exist as a wave until they come in contact with an object. Then the wave function collapses forming a quantized form of energy. If this is a universal and continuous process could it be forming the passage of time? Because each new Electron or Photon will have a unique position in space and time that the wave function never had before the collapse. Could Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle be the same uncertainty that the observer will have with any future event?
nickharvey7 1 year ago
this video is excellent. it explains the experiment and the basic understandings of QM amazingly well. Although.... the credits at the end made me rage. What the fuck is bitchwax, and why can't who typed up those credits spell?
robcull999 1 year ago
I'm lost.
I've heard of this exp. before but never the "conciousness" aspect. It seems highly unlikely that a electrode is part of a fabric of conciousness that knows when it's being watched and behaves differently. What tool was used to observe? could it have interfered itself on a physical level? A lot of individuals are using this as evidence of some form of god, anyone know a good source for this experiment?
wojovox 2 years ago
If we take one flashlight, then take another flashlight and beam through the beam of the first flashlight, why don't the beams interact or disturb each other? Chances are some photons should collide, do they just pass through each other? Or does the wave theory come into play here? But if we "measure" first, and then do this, they should be forced into particles... right? Then they should be able to collide...
j0han1 2 years ago
This is God's way of saying, "Haha!"
fett8802 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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
I would like to stick up for science and defend it against the line "no longer theory but now fact" in the description of this video.
SCIENCE NEVER CLAIMS ANYTHING AS FACT. We leave that up to religious types. Science only has the most likely theory to support a bunch of observable phenomena.
I'm not even going to begin to discuss what is wrong with this Dr. Quantum crap, but please keep in mind that it is from "What The Bleep?", which has nothing to do with science.
Perrickan 3 years ago
...actually now that I've read the comments, I see most people don't seem to take it too seriously, but I do worry about films like this that don't really understand what is going on being so hugely successful.
Perrickan 3 years ago
So electrons interfere with themselves? Dirty little bastards.
ezyroller 3 years ago 7
In response to the previous comment, we don't really know whether "human observation" has anything to do with it or not. In fact there have been studies done that imply consciousness is not a factor. The whole idea begs the question of how conscious do you have to be? Can a dog or ape make an "observation"? what about a mildly retarded person? The implications are too extraordinary.
heyporkupine 3 years ago
In the actual experiments they did record the data and then delete it afterwards to check it was not the recording that was affecting the particles. The findings were that the outcome was affected by actual human observation of the results. they even tried waiting a few days and then deleting or viewing the data and found that depending on whether or not they viewed it would change the results from 2 days earlier. It has been tested many many times now and is scientific fact not theory
crunksounds 3 years ago
this happens cause our brain gets trick when observing the simple nature of an experiment like this one we need to step out side the box and expect the unexpected even though our brain is telling us the opposite then again all this could be a huge illusion that collaborates with our brain I'll stop there I'm already getting confused
chiwin13 3 years ago
Well, mysticism is not the same as fantasy - it can be used to describe 'the dance of all particles'.
What Bohr does - making the researcher an integral part of the experiment, just like the particles itself - goes even a bit further than acknowledging that something appears to be happening at the 'meta-level' of things; even Einstein didn't necessarily agree with that approach.
DaDazey 4 years ago
I have a university degree (geography, some physics). I cannot get my head around this, I have been honestly trying for about 9 months. As much as this vid takes it down to a laymans level, can anyone offer up something that might trigger some insight? Please.
neorunt 4 years ago
This is called a bull S. They can't explain it so they add some mystery to it. Simply put it isn't fully understood.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
More than anything else, it appears to be the principle ability to observe - by man or machine - that causes the collapse of the
wavefunction. Regardless of the degree of consciousness within this observer (in itself an interesting discussion too).
So, this principle ability causes a clearly detectable quantumfysical change.
Something seems to happen not on micro, macro, but at the meta-level of the experiment. The level that says something about the experiment itself.
DaDazey 4 years ago
DaDazey, thanks for trying to help. I'm really starting to wonder about the consciousness aspect, I'm currently reading the Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. The collapse of the wave function has to be the most frustrating and simultaneously fascinating thing I've ever encountered in any field.
neorunt 4 years ago
The presence - or absence - of the ability to observe seems to be the determining factor for the existence - or collapse - of the wavefunction. Then the question remains: can there be any type of mechanism or process at that level that starts to play a role? If
so, what mechanism or process (and in what shape)? A very interesting question, for which many theses can be developed.
DaDazey 4 years ago
P.S. Da Dazey. Tuxedo Moon? And quantum physics??? You must be an incredibly interesting person. One of my all time favourite bands!
neorunt 4 years ago
Y'thank you sir. Can't be more interesting than you - you like all of the above - and are from Greenland too.
DaDazey 4 years ago
Toronto Canada. The Greenland thing was a joke amongst my friends because I've always wanted to travel there. Second degree in glacialogy dude who also likes Durutti Column, check them out. Same era as Tuxedo Moon, grab a disc as youtube wont do it justice. Peace on.
neorunt 4 years ago
'what mechanism or process'? Once we know this we'll have opened the back of the watch.
The answer may come from closer study of the mind itself.
neorunt 4 years ago
Well, it doesn't really matter if the observer is man or machine. Though it might always remain fascinating to study a machine's mind.
No seriously - it does seem as if something at the meta-level of things determines if particles are being observed. Which is truly odd. Might there be any form of consciousness at that level? Or a different type of mechanism that doesn't require consciousness at all.
DaDazey 4 years ago
Niels Bohr had a different perspective - that the experimenter is unseparable from the experiment, and becomes a part of it. That explains the influence.
But many view that opinion as 'unscientific'; it goes against the notion of an objective reality.
DaDazey 4 years ago
Wish I could formulate a truly intelligent response. I'm reading The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. An exploration of the parallels between modern physics and eastern mysticism. True objectivity doesn't exist in my view, however I reiterate that other sciences and philosophy may be required to find the unified theory. I laughed (in a good way) when I read 'objective reality'. Is that ironic juxtaposition, or isn't it?
Pass the scotch.
neorunt 4 years ago
Yeah, a lot of people are drawn towards mysticism and spirituality when they get their teeth into this, for quite obvious reasons. Pherhaps they have more in common than we like to admit.
The 'objective reality' phrase might seem out of place in a discussion like this, but the point is that you can't regard the researcher as an integral part of the experiment with any experiment you do. It undermines the whole basis of experimentation, and with that science... As does mysticism.
DaDazey 4 years ago
That last paragraph contradicts what you've said previously regarding 'The presence - or absence...' and Bohr. Or doesn't it?
Also the phrase 'eastern mysticism' is a misleading, it implies fantasy. Can't understand why it was used in reference to the study of consciousness. Fantasy doesn't interest me.
neorunt 4 years ago
These are things that are happening in any ole room, with a screen, one or two slits, and something that emits particles.
But an experiment like this really is at the very edge of science, and it'll be hard to see if we are ever going to formulate a satisfactory explanation.
DaDazey 4 years ago
Originally I stated, "THEORY = CONJECTURE"
to "barisozdil" statement of "...but theory is a container for facts and provides explanation for the facts."
You are saying facts are a subset of theory (period). I can't see you point.
vi67 4 years ago
This blurring of "meaning" regarding theory as fact is misleading.
ALL "facts" are a subset and would be in the "theory container".
Also, ALL "conjectures" are a subset and would be in the "theory container".
Concluding, theory(s) are either fact (laws) or conjecture (hypothesis).
This theory, in the case of double-slit experiment, is a conjecture.
vi67 4 years ago
To observe electrons would interfere we have no instrumentation to do the detecting that would not interfere.
vi67 4 years ago
You people are kinda blind. do you really beleive this? well i don't! it's just a psychological game. Something is awry, the two water waves approach the wall (with one cancelling the other in "center" of wall), yet their claim shows intensity in center-- contradiction!
The video does NOT show what he is explaining... incorrect second premise.
vi67 4 years ago
people have too much time on their hands
GenevaHUG 4 years ago
seriously dude, learn to fucking spell.
if you're going to talk Quantum Physics at us, at least do it coherently. It takes away the thrust of what you're trying to say if you can't spell for shite...
Mexicanseafooduk 4 years ago
"No longer theory, but fact"
Hmmm..sounds cool..but theory is a container for "facts" and provides explanation for the facts..A common misunderstanding...In science, theory is the highest possible level.
barisozdil 4 years ago
theory = conjecture
vi67 4 years ago
I dont think so.. a conjecture is more like a hypothesis, which a theory contains a bunch of...A theory is more "well established".
barisozdil 4 years ago
conjecture [dictionary(.)com]
1. formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
Measure device is a "beam" of light with wavelength small enough to find electron particle/record location, when beam locates particle it interferes with electrons speed and course. It is currently impossible to measure a particle's speed/course without changing it... quantum physics rely on probabilities.
vi67 4 years ago
I can't see your point. I'm not talking about electrons and measuring devices. What I'm saying is that a theory is a little bir more than "just a theory".
"[..]or theory without sufficient evidence for proof." This is not the characteristics of a theory.
barisozdil 4 years ago
Sorry to confuse you with the added info.
With all respect and to clarify your misunderstanding, please lookup unknown terms in dictionary(.)com or use an alternate site.
Theory is defined by: guess, conjecture.
Theory is the guess, once proven... it is fact.
A theory must be right in every case to become fact; hence, it just take one (1) contradiction to disprove a theory.
EOT
vi67 4 years ago
I believe that is fundementally wrong! A theory is an explanation for facts that we observe. I'm talking about the scientific meaning. Wiki has a really good explanation of precisly this.
en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Theory
barisozdil 4 years ago
Is wiki an approved reliable source (ie, to quote in term paper)? I understand wiki is created by the community and there has been controversy with wiki.
A really, really good explaination can be found at:
m-w dot com/dictionary/theory
And, the main point is QM is based on probability (theory) and not fact.
Playing ping-pong is fun!
vi67 4 years ago
Weel obviously something is wrong with your dictionary, cause that defintion is only describes the "popular usage" of it. I'm talking about the meaning accepted by the scientific community.
wordnet dot princeton dot edu/perl/webwn?s=theory
try google "define:theory"
barisozdil 4 years ago
very good and interesting
pratulpruthi 4 years ago
y do u watch this...
Korvyn33 4 years ago
its good but confusing you would need to know about the subject more to actually understand this for what it means
spandex141 4 years ago
I've taken courses in QM and QField Theory. This is one of the clearest explainations I've seen. It's all correct. The only thing you may quibble, and I usually do when I hear it, is that 'observation' does not have to be a concious observer -any physical 'disturbance' or 'interaction' will collapse the wave to a point interaction - and this is always going on in the universe.
bluehornet95 4 years ago 6
bingo.
philza16 4 years ago
Comment removed
stevebenbob 4 months ago in playlist stevebenbob's favorites
@stevebenbob We never discussed or even defined "conscious observer" in our QM or Quantum Field theory classes. When fields interact, they do so at a point in space-time, and this collapses the wave function. The Universe actualizes itself in this sense, whether any 'consciousness' has evolved in it or not.
Could you tell me where the need for consciousness is discussed in a physics text? I know it is a common theme in non-rigorous discussions, but I don't see why..
bluehornet95 4 months ago
How can anyone that posted in this thread prove to me, or anyone else, that the data portrayed in the video was falsified in any way. I'll admit I'm not completely sold on What The Bleep because I have not done enough of my own research on the subject yet, but these people do happen to be educated...
Santi311 4 years ago
its just whatthebleep for the most part. nothing different in this video.
ohcrapusuck 4 years ago
this is bs, its ok for the first bit but when it gets to the double slit its crap. what the bleep is terrible
blakenator123 5 years ago
I agree. What is their motive, falsifying the results that way? Its scary that so many people believe in the science, but so much of it is this crazy crap...
cropperb 5 years ago
Uh...
Do a search in Wiki for 'double-slit experiment.'
Knowing people who are educated on subject matter, I assure you that this is a very old experiment, and the results have been demonstrated repeatedly, time and time again. The cartoon is just telling you about something that's been known for quite a while.
HarleArmistice 4 years ago
You just fear what you dont understand
ZShadow 4 years ago
The best I've seen in a long time!!!
More!
More!
More!
dreadpac 5 years ago
Things do not start out as theories only later to become facts There is the theory of gravity, which will always be a theory and the fact of gravity, which will always be a simple fact that has been known forever. The comment about quantum physics as "no longer theory but now fact" is complete ignorance on the same level of those who say evolution is just a theory Theories represent a much deeper truth than facts, facts come first, then theories
jwenning1 5 years ago
Yes, its a good video until about the last 20 seconds with the observer portion.
And yes, the film "What the bleep do we know" is horrible.
mrazrad 5 years ago
This video is a pretty good explanation of the double-slit experiment, but the part about observing which slit the electron passes through is misleading. What the bleep do we know is a stupid movie.
fuzlwuzl 5 years ago
i really like whatthebleep, how is the observer part misleading. is it that it should be said more like, the outcomes change depending on what the experiment was desinged to look for. ?
thats what i thought as well, but could they be conveying it acurately. that The results could be predicted reliably in this either(2 band)/or(Int. Pattern) way dependant upon their the experiment's method of observation.
Would that mean the same thing but not sound so outreageous?
PosterKnutbag 5 years ago