hello to everyone, i'm very interested in Quantum Physics and despite the fact that i've been reading lots of things and watching lots of videos, it seems extremely difficult to find the places where this theory is 'proved'...can anyone help me? what i'm looking for ideally would be an article in some publication for average educated people with non-science background--it strikes me such a thing MUST exist, or maybe the whole thing is a trick being played on us? please send me any related info
@twointhebush2000 What I mean by what's going on is, what goes on beyond the atom and quark. Not sure i quite understand what you mean by defining a world view
@jimmyboyG485 ... Ohhhh, incorrect response. what is your favorite color, then i shall talk to you. just be nice . . . please. smart? kind and compassion, yes. hello, this search as just begun. it has just started. . . . yeah us. . . . . ? it is not too late?
QM disproves the existence of an intelligent designer for an intelligent designer follows a set of logic in a sequential order! And QM behaves differently than a logical set of properties occurring in a sequential order! Science pwns religion! End of Story!
@FallofDarkness55 I personally am an atheist but QM doesn't prove or disprove that a sky daddy exists. Just because our understanding of QM is limited does not mean it is in any way random in how it behaves (all be it thats how it appears). but even if it was random, still doesnt.....you get the idea.
@roadkill1001 I'm not just any guy spewing up crap about quantum mechanics. I took physics 3 last semester with the rigorous math of Schroedinger's wave function. The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle sounds random to me. It's an intrinsic property of subatomic particles. It is not a behavior of particles based on human observation. This principle exists all the time whether if some particle physicist were to explore the particle or not. Also, Quantum Mechanics + Big Bang = parallel universes!
@FallofDarkness55 Didn't say you was, but regardless of all you have said QM =/= god does/does not exist. And yes, the principle is uncertain because it comes down to the point where we cannot observe it I know and understand that. But what I am saying is although we have to come to terms with the fact that there may possibly never be a scenario where we can truly know what is going on, does not mean there isnt a process that it follows that could be non-random if we could only see it in detail.
@007bond66 Lol nope. what, with quantum mechanics and M-theory...Gotta say, it makes me love physics. This video is horrible by the way, and the music reminds me slightly of the billiards mini-game from super monkey ball. Why I know that is beyond the point.
It isn't stationary. It (or it's wave function) orbits the nucleus in a probility cloud. The cloud shape varies as the energy of the electron changes, or is crowded out by other electrons. The orbit is so fast, that ordinary obects appear solid, like a fan whose blades are going so fast, that no matter how fast you tried to put you finger through them, it would always bounce back at you. Thats why you don't adhere to every surface that you touch.
If the cloud around the nucleus of the atom is the electron, then... isn't the electron stationary? Then it's not in orbit around the atom in any way, in fact, it's just stationary "around it" right?
Damn, I've been taught some weird stuff in school.
@cassiopeiaproject in the sense that it should be stationary, and you know by logic that it should, but it moves, when you look at it so in our perspective it moves all the time, it doesnt respect momentum or speed. it seems to me quantum physics is pretty much everything happening at the same time, black and white, right and left, dead and alive are all the same, our senses are a trick, they dont define reality, but whats reality?, nothing matters, this conversation is useless, or isnt.
@magichristo No definitely not; the electron travels at speeds basically equiv to the speed of light. Actually, it's fundamentally impossible to know both a particular electron's speed and location at any given (Hisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). The concept of an electron cloud basically is like ok there are this many electron's, and this is the probability cloud for PREDICTING where they were most likely to be. If you're interested in this, I suggest a chemistry course. Fuck physics :P
@fatlard1337 Thanks, m8. A lot. Could you explain some things to me if that's OK? 1.- Why would electrons "fall" into the nucleus if they were orbiting it, and why don't planets do the same?
2.- What keeps an electron near the nucleus if there's nothing between them?
@magichristo Electrons are negatively charged so they are attracted to the positively charged protons in the nucleus, but the negatively charged electrons repel the other negatively charged electrons. Electrons want to touch the protons, but the negative charge of the other electrons doesn't let them. The farther away from the nucleus an electron is, the less the pull the protons have on that electron, and the more repulsion the electrons have on that electron. That's why in chemistry
the valence electrons are what's important (harder to take away electrons closer to the nucleus). I'm pretty sure electrons only "fall" into the nucleus in nuclear reactions, and I'm way too young and stupid to be able to explain that. Yes, electrons are particles just as much as they are waves - though the same could be said about all matter. I feel it easier to imagine electrons as particles, but that's only half of the picture.
@magichristo no it everywhere and no where.....basically its a series of harmonic possibilities(waves of possibility) until interacted with or observed, which is really the same thing, its only everywhere when matter is not matter but possible conception
@magichristo The real head wrecker is that electrons aren't stationary, however the theory is that it is impossible to know where one is and where it's going. You can either know one or the other but not both, as you learn one with more precision you must lose precision with your measurement of the other at that same instant hence the 'cloud'.
@magichristo the electron could is not really a cloud .. the term arises to comply the need to an answer that a dot will represent a place where the electron most likely to be located .. in an electron cloud . dots represent a location in which an electron might be located and the denser the dots get .. the more likely the electron is there at any given time
@magichristo Actualy we dont know where the electron is, we just now the probability of finding it ina certain part of the space, the cloud is a probability cloud according to the square of the wave function predicted by Max Born.. Weird is in it? But remember, someone that thinks he understands quantum mechanics, it Doesnt
@magichristo In order to determine "stationary" one would need to say it is without relative motion. Relative motion is a measure of distinct positions with time. Because of inherent indeterminancy, you could not measure two successive distinct positions at the minimum of two distinct times. It's not stationary so much as the measure of it's motion has an indeterminancy approaching infinite. But Van der Waals force demonstrates that it isn't uniformly distributed. So no.
@WouldbeSage As mentioned in the QM credits movie, It is called "The Most Beautiful Periodic Table Poster in the World" and it is available at theodoregrey-dot-com-slash-periodictable
@cassiopeiaproject Hey at the beginning of the universe they said anti particle just vanished,but why? If it vanished at the beginning,why did they reappear? It seems like they are trying to say somehow anti particles didn't existed until many of the known particles were created in the short few mini seconds of creation. They didn't even explain why the anti particles disappeared. This is the video: /watch?v=us6BZ1Dp2_8&feature=related . hope you can explain a little.
The intro just about lost me.....I didnt know what to expect...was this going to be a real video, or just some weird crap someone thought would be funny (ie 90% of the videos on YouTube)....but once it got to the history lesson about spectography I started to have renewed hope! LOL! Anyway...on to the next Chapter....hopefully it will continue on the same path this ones ends at!
Somehow, I feel that one would benefit from at least 'some' prior introduction to some background physics... but not very much would be needed. This presentation is beautifully crafted.
This is a great set of Videos! But to understand this we are going to need an open mind could it not be that Time has symmetry and geometry? Newton believed Time was a thing in itself and connected to motion and Einstein believed there was something missing from quantum mechanics. In my video The Paradox of Schrodingers Cat an artist view it is Time that is the Hidden Variable.
Univarman...it doesn't slow down for the object, as they object's "noticer" slows down as much as the things it is "noticing". The delay in perception between one state and another is in the eyes of something NOT in the gravitational field.
im trying not to refute you, but asking for the explanation in light of these things:
space/time dont exist -> SPACETIME does
dark matter/energy: invented by physicists to explain the lack of observation evidence of current theory. never been observed
matter doesnt have to have a size, electrons have mass and they are indeed particles and waves. just like certain molecules. whats more matter is energy, and is convertible in either direction
ok were on the same page then. by the dark matter/energy not being observed, i meant that these are big names with hefty implications, being that they are ¨invisible, unobservable bodies or energies with a gravitational pull that accounts for 70% of the mass in the universe¨ (something like that). all this based on cosmology of course
and no, i would say space and time cant be observed, which was einstein and others´ refutes to newtons claims that they can.
@ibajem Can you observe matter directly? what is matter? you can observe it's properties and effects on your perspective. Same goes for energy, up, down etc.. If you start with nothing, the only thing that comes from nothing is random. That can essentially provide an injection into the axiom of choice from nothing.
"electrons have mass and they are indeed particles and waves." It depends, a electron wave is a mix of an electron and space. QM being the interface [meta or transfer physics] being the interface between say matter-energy and space-time, having some properties of both. Crudely[for want of better words]matter is 'discrete' so oppositionally space would be somewhat amorphous. That would make wave function collapse and entanglement that seem to happen over space in an instant easy as 123.
charac count cut me off: what we observe as spacetime is ¨matter at moment A and the difference between that and matter at moment B.¨ two unobservables in the form of one observable, i read it like that in some books im no expert
and about the interface, sounds interesting. i can barely wrap my head around the fact that a wave function in theory is infinite, albeit ever less-electronically dense the further out
but ¨being confused about QM means youre on the right track¨(Bohr)
@ibajem Thank,s I think I've just nailed inertia. I'll have to check my notes to see if I'd got that one before. acceleration is in m/s/s proportional to energy/mass relative to the observer.
@ibajem matter does not have 'size', but that would make it a singularity. so matter must also have energy to give it size. the words matter and energy are ambiguous and quite general. But I'm using them more as energy decreases latent momentum though time, and causes 'momentum' [size] through space and such. it is a system in flux, and quite homogeneous / relativistic in more ways than one [for want of a better words]
ah, excellent reply. i have no knowledge of these specific terms and concepts, i just have my feet wet with the e=mc^2 implications. this means i cant get through an equation-dominated textbook, but i can fathom some of the theory in briefer and more generlized texts, feynman type-interpretations are my favorite because only after flipping through these can i appreciate comments like yours and research more on my own account. thanks!
@ibajem final comment, is I have a more fuller and complete version starting with nothing, using logical thought experiments. for instance for something to exist it must be comparable to something else. (this is [thing] none analogue), creates a a ab b logic. a thing, it's opposite and the interface/comparability. that logic is indeed a thing, it's 'opposite' would be an asymmetrical logic for instance. an example of an asymmetrical logic [crudely] would be a ab b and not a or b. e.g. 3d + 1d
i agree with your interface logic. i am a bit surprised tho, with your confidence hehe. im guessing youve looked up similarities between your more specific conclusions and independent research? if not, great effort either way and you are the kind of person paving the way for any kind of progress out there
@ibajem ok, in very brief go nothing. Random [discrete so a ab b], opposite deterministic, interface both [say entanglement as an example]. Deterministic requires determinant measure, creates something analogue, which is opposed to discrete, logic a ab c neither. get space time. closure of symmetry requires [opposites] energy matter and interface, QM a little more [e.g. opposite of space would attract, then a=a logic, creates relativity] and 123 E=MC^2. opposite of attract dark energy [space++]
@ibajem Then things like forces are analogue [to a degree] e.g. partial differential equations etc.. 3 energy/time forces, 1 space/matter force. 3 space/matter dimensions 1 energy/time dimension. so that's a obeying that a ab b neither and the a ab b rules. then just keep going.
@ibajem I'm sure everyone had the glass is not empty it's full of air thing at school. Oddly people still say space is empty, and yet it's full of space.
Interesting intro. The explainative part was a bit short at the end, But I'd assume there's more vids posted to continue this...hell, I've seen them, so I don't know why everybody's complaining on here?? Maybe they just can't read or look slightly to the right. Lol. Thanks for these vids.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Didn't explain anything about quantum mechanics...videos are too short. 3 minutes? Put more videos together with longer lengths instead of 20 different short videos...
too bad the information provided is totally warped by the incoherent visual and sound design. Even teletubbies make more sense.
Please remake the video in a more.... logical way. /spock
frag971 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hello to everyone, i'm very interested in Quantum Physics and despite the fact that i've been reading lots of things and watching lots of videos, it seems extremely difficult to find the places where this theory is 'proved'...can anyone help me? what i'm looking for ideally would be an article in some publication for average educated people with non-science background--it strikes me such a thing MUST exist, or maybe the whole thing is a trick being played on us? please send me any related info
LucyHarcarty 1 month ago
Damn, couldn't watch... the (bad) animation was distracting me too much.
MrMaxBoivin 1 month ago in playlist Quantum Mechanics
This has been flagged as spam show
An Electron cloud is a region where the electron may be found or the probability region of the electron.
Holographicillusion 4 months ago
you made science so simple and amazing.
mamltr 5 months ago
@twointhebush2000 What I mean by what's going on is, what goes on beyond the atom and quark. Not sure i quite understand what you mean by defining a world view
roadkill1001 7 months ago
it is helpful for +1 students
MsAmritsandhu 8 months ago
i learn so much from these, whats the intro song?
rasibz 8 months ago
@jimmyboyG485 ... Ohhhh, incorrect response. what is your favorite color, then i shall talk to you. just be nice . . . please. smart? kind and compassion, yes. hello, this search as just begun. it has just started. . . . yeah us. . . . . ? it is not too late?
toymay24 8 months ago
QM disproves the existence of an intelligent designer for an intelligent designer follows a set of logic in a sequential order! And QM behaves differently than a logical set of properties occurring in a sequential order! Science pwns religion! End of Story!
FallofDarkness55 10 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 I personally am an atheist but QM doesn't prove or disprove that a sky daddy exists. Just because our understanding of QM is limited does not mean it is in any way random in how it behaves (all be it thats how it appears). but even if it was random, still doesnt.....you get the idea.
I will however agree that science pwns!
roadkill1001 10 months ago
@roadkill1001 I'm not just any guy spewing up crap about quantum mechanics. I took physics 3 last semester with the rigorous math of Schroedinger's wave function. The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle sounds random to me. It's an intrinsic property of subatomic particles. It is not a behavior of particles based on human observation. This principle exists all the time whether if some particle physicist were to explore the particle or not. Also, Quantum Mechanics + Big Bang = parallel universes!
FallofDarkness55 10 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 Didn't say you was, but regardless of all you have said QM =/= god does/does not exist. And yes, the principle is uncertain because it comes down to the point where we cannot observe it I know and understand that. But what I am saying is although we have to come to terms with the fact that there may possibly never be a scenario where we can truly know what is going on, does not mean there isnt a process that it follows that could be non-random if we could only see it in detail.
roadkill1001 10 months ago
:)
lovosazul 10 months ago
Are the characters here have seizures?
samal4 11 months ago
whats this shit??
jakiesnakie1 11 months ago
We are all being lied to by our future selves in the11th dimension. and Barak Obama an Alien who controls all. He is God!
JollyWog14 11 months ago
@JollyWog14 LOL.
prothico 11 months ago
haha this is dope. if this was project i hope you got an A +
zues007 11 months ago
@007bond66 Lol nope. what, with quantum mechanics and M-theory...Gotta say, it makes me love physics. This video is horrible by the way, and the music reminds me slightly of the billiards mini-game from super monkey ball. Why I know that is beyond the point.
pxylenen 1 year ago
I'd plow Diana.
pajamas333 1 year ago 23
@pajamas333
That's what I love about YouTube. The oh-so-intelligent comments section :D
jimmyboyG485 8 months ago 2
@jimmyboyG485 we're probably the smartest people on YouTube and even we can't resist putting something like that as the top comment
MrGuitarZeppelin 8 months ago
Damn that P body.
Minatominase 1 year ago
whats the song in the intro,its so darn stylish and smooth
smutery 1 year ago
This is HITMAN getting old
dewalwalers 1 year ago
It isn't stationary. It (or it's wave function) orbits the nucleus in a probility cloud. The cloud shape varies as the energy of the electron changes, or is crowded out by other electrons. The orbit is so fast, that ordinary obects appear solid, like a fan whose blades are going so fast, that no matter how fast you tried to put you finger through them, it would always bounce back at you. Thats why you don't adhere to every surface that you touch.
plopfz 1 year ago
how does Time and Gravity play within the Electron?
Rico8458 1 year ago
I just posted a vid on string theory for idiots.
MicahBuzan 1 year ago
@MicahBuzan Welcome to your world.
Minatominase 1 year ago
diane has some nice tits
landesal 1 year ago
the guy has boobs....
rayvert64 1 year ago
broke arm
poropopijnita 1 year ago
thx
lowrider692 1 year ago
shit would be so much more interesting without the shitty animation and horrible polygons.
Darkaero199 1 year ago
If the cloud around the nucleus of the atom is the electron, then... isn't the electron stationary? Then it's not in orbit around the atom in any way, in fact, it's just stationary "around it" right?
Damn, I've been taught some weird stuff in school.
magichristo 1 year ago
@magichristo In a sense it is stationary as you describe.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago 6
@cassiopeiaproject Damn! I've been taught that electrons were orbiting around the nucleus. Gotta love quantum mechanics :)
magichristo 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject in the sense that it should be stationary, and you know by logic that it should, but it moves, when you look at it so in our perspective it moves all the time, it doesnt respect momentum or speed. it seems to me quantum physics is pretty much everything happening at the same time, black and white, right and left, dead and alive are all the same, our senses are a trick, they dont define reality, but whats reality?, nothing matters, this conversation is useless, or isnt.
rwasta7007 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject It is actually a cloud of possibility. The electron can be anywhere but there is a 99% chance that it is somewhere in this cloud
qswaefrdthzg 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject isn't it stationary and non stationary :?
Shockszzbyyous 5 months ago in playlist Quantum Mechanics
@magichristo No definitely not; the electron travels at speeds basically equiv to the speed of light. Actually, it's fundamentally impossible to know both a particular electron's speed and location at any given (Hisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). The concept of an electron cloud basically is like ok there are this many electron's, and this is the probability cloud for PREDICTING where they were most likely to be. If you're interested in this, I suggest a chemistry course. Fuck physics :P
fatlard1337 1 year ago
@fatlard1337 Thanks, m8. A lot. Could you explain some things to me if that's OK? 1.- Why would electrons "fall" into the nucleus if they were orbiting it, and why don't planets do the same?
2.- What keeps an electron near the nucleus if there's nothing between them?
3.- An electron IS a virtual particle, right?
magichristo 1 year ago
@magichristo Electrons are negatively charged so they are attracted to the positively charged protons in the nucleus, but the negatively charged electrons repel the other negatively charged electrons. Electrons want to touch the protons, but the negative charge of the other electrons doesn't let them. The farther away from the nucleus an electron is, the less the pull the protons have on that electron, and the more repulsion the electrons have on that electron. That's why in chemistry
fatlard1337 1 year ago
the valence electrons are what's important (harder to take away electrons closer to the nucleus). I'm pretty sure electrons only "fall" into the nucleus in nuclear reactions, and I'm way too young and stupid to be able to explain that. Yes, electrons are particles just as much as they are waves - though the same could be said about all matter. I feel it easier to imagine electrons as particles, but that's only half of the picture.
fatlard1337 1 year ago
@magichristo there is no electron cloud, its just a visual representation of where the electron probably is..
nivraarvin1 1 year ago
@magichristo no it everywhere and no where.....basically its a series of harmonic possibilities(waves of possibility) until interacted with or observed, which is really the same thing, its only everywhere when matter is not matter but possible conception
Prettynessy69 9 months ago
@magichristo The real head wrecker is that electrons aren't stationary, however the theory is that it is impossible to know where one is and where it's going. You can either know one or the other but not both, as you learn one with more precision you must lose precision with your measurement of the other at that same instant hence the 'cloud'.
Check out Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. :)
Ignitionnet 8 months ago
@magichristo the electron could is not really a cloud .. the term arises to comply the need to an answer that a dot will represent a place where the electron most likely to be located .. in an electron cloud . dots represent a location in which an electron might be located and the denser the dots get .. the more likely the electron is there at any given time
IvanderHaisley 5 months ago
@magichristo Actualy we dont know where the electron is, we just now the probability of finding it ina certain part of the space, the cloud is a probability cloud according to the square of the wave function predicted by Max Born.. Weird is in it? But remember, someone that thinks he understands quantum mechanics, it Doesnt
MrPaco137 1 month ago
@magichristo In order to determine "stationary" one would need to say it is without relative motion. Relative motion is a measure of distinct positions with time. Because of inherent indeterminancy, you could not measure two successive distinct positions at the minimum of two distinct times. It's not stationary so much as the measure of it's motion has an indeterminancy approaching infinite. But Van der Waals force demonstrates that it isn't uniformly distributed. So no.
Snakepliskinist 1 week ago
highly boring :(
earthangelrojanie 1 year ago
very nice i like this and all the vedios of quantum mechanical project
saurahraj123 1 year ago
sweet=d
saurahraj123 1 year ago
What's the name of that periodic table at 3:04?
WouldbeSage 1 year ago
@WouldbeSage As mentioned in the QM credits movie, It is called "The Most Beautiful Periodic Table Poster in the World" and it is available at theodoregrey-dot-com-slash-periodictable
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago 5
@cassiopeiaproject Not good: it needs to be updated because there is no reference to unobtanium and I am mad! LOL
RayTech70 7 months ago
@cassiopeiaproject Hey at the beginning of the universe they said anti particle just vanished,but why? If it vanished at the beginning,why did they reappear? It seems like they are trying to say somehow anti particles didn't existed until many of the known particles were created in the short few mini seconds of creation. They didn't even explain why the anti particles disappeared. This is the video: /watch?v=us6BZ1Dp2_8&feature=related . hope you can explain a little.
sesshoumaru3st 6 months ago
@WouldbeSage lol, its Mendelejev's periodic table
klapiki 1 year ago
Professor peebodies ? WHUT , it's like a child programm that explains how to calculate , but yeah, ..
ZoeMushroom 1 year ago
I love the cassiopeiaproject but this goofy back story is entirely unneeded.
NapalmNewt 1 year ago
The gaps in the spectrum were there because these fools never defragged their C:
wojtek0000 1 year ago
what the fuck
Annomometz 1 year ago
why does chaucer have boobs ?
derickhaywood 1 year ago
Yeah he does have some tits lol exactly what i was thinkin
Ender0410 1 year ago
This was used in my astronomy class, or rather, bits and pieces of these videos
DerPoltergeist13 1 year ago
somehow i understand more of this then of german :O
uut0 1 year ago
The bald guy in the white shirt has a pair of tits.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7
LOL XD XD XD
felixchylde 1 year ago
was thinking, to know the precise location of an electron it's like knowing where earth would be, but with time lag of a very huge difference.
qiankundanuoyi1 1 year ago
pfffft.. quantum mechanics. A bunch of speculative, random guesses using probability.
Bizija123 1 year ago
@Bizija123 but it works!
matatan69 1 year ago
nice chill out music..
thegriggspaul 1 year ago
The intro just about lost me.....I didnt know what to expect...was this going to be a real video, or just some weird crap someone thought would be funny (ie 90% of the videos on YouTube)....but once it got to the history lesson about spectography I started to have renewed hope! LOL! Anyway...on to the next Chapter....hopefully it will continue on the same path this ones ends at!
frankensteinmoneymac 1 year ago
He's got better tits than she does
KingZebulon1 1 year ago
Somehow, I feel that one would benefit from at least 'some' prior introduction to some background physics... but not very much would be needed. This presentation is beautifully crafted.
marcehole 1 year ago
Fuck that blondie is so hot, i wonder if she is based on a real person,
1: because i dont know any girls that hot that give a shit about quantum mechanics
2: Beacuse any girls that do give a shit about quantum mechanics are usually ugly and nerdy as fuck!!!
SHOW THE REAL GIRL!! I WANNA WANK!
Deephousedan 1 year ago
oh yeah, I learned quantum mechanics from a dummy with a broken arm. fail.
toddmorrow1 1 year ago
no way a blonde could know that.
mikevern69 1 year ago
@mikevern69 That's a bit unfair. I'm a blonde.
Ks177245 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ks177245 and did you know it....?
mikevern69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikevern69 Hey. That's unfair. I'm a blonde. :/
Ks177245 1 year ago
gay do betta
broadcastmyass4u 1 year ago
Don't give up till you've seen past the 1.5 minute mark. This gets good. It's for anyone, too. I like.
alyosha24601 1 year ago
Hahahaha I love how the 3D models move like the puppets in team america!
bmehilos 1 year ago
very good, i watched all 7 parts !!
im really fascinated
sveffer 1 year ago
shit intro, takes too long.
falakisarm 1 year ago
This is an insult to quantum mechanics and the authors need to be dragged out into a field, shot, and left for dead. :)
steveo782812 1 year ago
dianaès back must be really sore cuz shes carrying some big fucking torpedos on her chest.
TheCaptainLulz 1 year ago 2
I'm distracted by the fake tan on a fake person
alexlikesgamemusic 1 year ago 2
if i wanted to read this shit i'd pick up a book. damn quantuam my penis shaft.
youngfred116 1 year ago
@youngfred116
"i'd pick up a book."
Something tells me you probably haven't read a book in years.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer no one likes this crappy shit but you freak
youngfred116 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@youngfred116
"no one likes this crappy shit but you "
That explains the total lack of people who study this stuff at university, or who obtain a Ph.D. in it. Oh, wait.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
wtf?
tepanec 2 years ago
Good work !
ZORGtheALIEN 2 years ago
the voice over sucks balls, a video needs to be attractive to all aspects if you expect someone to take in the information and retain it.
vortishizzle 2 years ago
well if it isn't captain principle and his 'rules for the best possible possibility' lecture
dhakhair 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
screw this hill billy shite, sorry, but it sucks
sexycutiespanishboy 2 years ago
too complicated for you homo?
lloplop 2 years ago
@lloplop lol xD
OdoubleTO 2 years ago
@lloplop
homo homo sapien that is hahahahahaha. If you mean somebody that is gay then they would be a homo homo homo sapien right?
umrahsahab 1 year ago
cheesy, and a little creepy.
troyburger 2 years ago 35
@troyburger
yeah.... lol agree
343TheSentient 1 year ago
@troyburger and terribly voice-acted.
gregorthebigmac 11 months ago
@troyburger and while the narration is done well, the voice-acting for the characters is atrocious.
gregorthebigmac 11 months ago
sana makapunta sa macao sana lang
para masaya ako hhehee
asero2ragos13 2 years ago
sana makapunta ako sa moon
asero2ragos13 2 years ago
creepy
Sforschondetta 2 years ago
history lesson about science is always very good, i wish all documentaries would tell the history about how todays theorys evolved
Zee96969696 2 years ago
search for the documentaries of Jim Al-Khalili . he explains Quantum mechanic theories in BBC documentaries..
matatan69 2 years ago
thanks
Zee96969696 2 years ago
a bit uptight
NeoOneOrg 2 years ago
This is a great set of Videos! But to understand this we are going to need an open mind could it not be that Time has symmetry and geometry? Newton believed Time was a thing in itself and connected to motion and Einstein believed there was something missing from quantum mechanics. In my video The Paradox of Schrodingers Cat an artist view it is Time that is the Hidden Variable.
Nick
nickharvey7 2 years ago
Time is the measure in perception between two points of objective or objectivity otherwise there is no such thing as time...
NeoOneOrg 2 years ago
then why does time slow down when an object is influenced by a extremely large gravitational force (i.e. black hole)?
Univarman 2 years ago
every 'object's' own time is constantly changing vis-a-vis other 'observers'...not for the object.
dhakhair 2 years ago
Univarman...it doesn't slow down for the object, as they object's "noticer" slows down as much as the things it is "noticing". The delay in perception between one state and another is in the eyes of something NOT in the gravitational field.
dhakhair 2 years ago
@nickharvey7 Time is 1 dimensional and has latent momentum. Energy can be seen as the opposite of that momentum.
Space has 3 dimensions and latent momentum (dark energy). Matter can be seen as the opposite of space (and has the opposite of dark energy, gravity).
Energy has the fasted possible momentum through space, matter through time.
If matter had no 'size' then it would be singular in space, so it must have size.
[no chars left!] that requires energy, matter would then be like a torus
oliverthered 1 year ago
@oliverthered
im trying not to refute you, but asking for the explanation in light of these things:
space/time dont exist -> SPACETIME does
dark matter/energy: invented by physicists to explain the lack of observation evidence of current theory. never been observed
matter doesnt have to have a size, electrons have mass and they are indeed particles and waves. just like certain molecules. whats more matter is energy, and is convertible in either direction
ibajem 1 year ago
@ibajem
Yes, exactly.
SPACETIME / MATTER.ENERGY
E=M*C^2
That's a 1 to 3 dimensional relationship between energy and matter.
C is the speed of light. so that in linear Space / Time
So ^2 turns that into 3 dimensional space / Time.
dark matter/energy: invented by physicists to explain the lack of observation evidence of current theory. never been observed
Well, you could say it's been observed indirectly. Has Space or time ever been observed, except indirectly.
oliverthered 1 year ago
@oliverthered
ok were on the same page then. by the dark matter/energy not being observed, i meant that these are big names with hefty implications, being that they are ¨invisible, unobservable bodies or energies with a gravitational pull that accounts for 70% of the mass in the universe¨ (something like that). all this based on cosmology of course
and no, i would say space and time cant be observed, which was einstein and others´ refutes to newtons claims that they can.
ibajem 1 year ago
@ibajem Can you observe matter directly? what is matter? you can observe it's properties and effects on your perspective. Same goes for energy, up, down etc.. If you start with nothing, the only thing that comes from nothing is random. That can essentially provide an injection into the axiom of choice from nothing.
oliverthered 1 year ago
@ibajem
"electrons have mass and they are indeed particles and waves." It depends, a electron wave is a mix of an electron and space. QM being the interface [meta or transfer physics] being the interface between say matter-energy and space-time, having some properties of both. Crudely[for want of better words]matter is 'discrete' so oppositionally space would be somewhat amorphous. That would make wave function collapse and entanglement that seem to happen over space in an instant easy as 123.
oliverthered 1 year ago
@oliverthered
charac count cut me off: what we observe as spacetime is ¨matter at moment A and the difference between that and matter at moment B.¨ two unobservables in the form of one observable, i read it like that in some books im no expert
and about the interface, sounds interesting. i can barely wrap my head around the fact that a wave function in theory is infinite, albeit ever less-electronically dense the further out
but ¨being confused about QM means youre on the right track¨(Bohr)
ibajem 1 year ago
@ibajem having thought a little, you could also say that energy is space and matter is time.
oliverthered 1 year ago
@ibajem Thank,s I think I've just nailed inertia. I'll have to check my notes to see if I'd got that one before. acceleration is in m/s/s proportional to energy/mass relative to the observer.
oliverthered 1 year ago
@ibajem matter does not have 'size', but that would make it a singularity. so matter must also have energy to give it size. the words matter and energy are ambiguous and quite general. But I'm using them more as energy decreases latent momentum though time, and causes 'momentum' [size] through space and such. it is a system in flux, and quite homogeneous / relativistic in more ways than one [for want of a better words]
oliverthered 1 year ago
@oliverthered
ah, excellent reply. i have no knowledge of these specific terms and concepts, i just have my feet wet with the e=mc^2 implications. this means i cant get through an equation-dominated textbook, but i can fathom some of the theory in briefer and more generlized texts, feynman type-interpretations are my favorite because only after flipping through these can i appreciate comments like yours and research more on my own account. thanks!
ibajem 1 year ago
@ibajem final comment, is I have a more fuller and complete version starting with nothing, using logical thought experiments. for instance for something to exist it must be comparable to something else. (this is [thing] none analogue), creates a a ab b logic. a thing, it's opposite and the interface/comparability. that logic is indeed a thing, it's 'opposite' would be an asymmetrical logic for instance. an example of an asymmetrical logic [crudely] would be a ab b and not a or b. e.g. 3d + 1d
oliverthered 1 year ago
@oliverthered
i agree with your interface logic. i am a bit surprised tho, with your confidence hehe. im guessing youve looked up similarities between your more specific conclusions and independent research? if not, great effort either way and you are the kind of person paving the way for any kind of progress out there
ibajem 1 year ago
@ibajem ok, in very brief go nothing. Random [discrete so a ab b], opposite deterministic, interface both [say entanglement as an example]. Deterministic requires determinant measure, creates something analogue, which is opposed to discrete, logic a ab c neither. get space time. closure of symmetry requires [opposites] energy matter and interface, QM a little more [e.g. opposite of space would attract, then a=a logic, creates relativity] and 123 E=MC^2. opposite of attract dark energy [space++]
oliverthered 1 year ago
@ibajem Then things like forces are analogue [to a degree] e.g. partial differential equations etc.. 3 energy/time forces, 1 space/matter force. 3 space/matter dimensions 1 energy/time dimension. so that's a obeying that a ab b neither and the a ab b rules. then just keep going.
oliverthered 1 year ago
@ibajem I'm sure everyone had the glass is not empty it's full of air thing at school. Oddly people still say space is empty, and yet it's full of space.
oliverthered 1 year ago
Kickass video! Thank you for making this!!!
b1gr1g 2 years ago
what the fuck is this?
Cr4zzzzy 2 years ago
my god they move weird
racsonam 2 years ago 8
computer graphics animation is very difficult. that's what happens.
nvsvictor 2 years ago
yeah probably. i Have made drawn animation and thats hard.
racsonam 2 years ago
wtf lol
masterorb 2 years ago
I like your voice.. calming
Vesania83 2 years ago
Diana is hot!
oaney 2 years ago
It's one of captain scarlet's mates :-)
MrSiddeney 2 years ago
Awesome vid,. lol at how they look and move like figurines
METALHANGOVER 2 years ago
my mind explodes every time I study Quantum Mechanics, and I love it... every time. {^_^}
TonyBtheEG 2 years ago 2
Same here, man. No matter how familiar with the subject I think I am, there's always a shitload more to learn.
Also the avatars crack me up. *flails limply*
freestyleshaman 2 years ago 5
Thankyou Jeeves
HuggyBeatz 2 years ago
thanks!this helped me to understand better the elements colors thing
SoraTakenouchi16 2 years ago
do you get your music from elevators
dimitriuss 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i cant beleive i watch this shit...
shannigammi 2 years ago
The music was... not what I expected. lol
OblivionMon 2 years ago
Interesting intro. The explainative part was a bit short at the end, But I'd assume there's more vids posted to continue this...hell, I've seen them, so I don't know why everybody's complaining on here?? Maybe they just can't read or look slightly to the right. Lol. Thanks for these vids.
AndrewDeLong 2 years ago 6
this is a hoot, maximum sarcastic quantum beams, or reality shifting torpedoes.... you decide number one... no really you decide....
psdfjsbpisdbf 3 years ago
Congratulations! Your Quantum Physics videos are fantastic. In a more
perfect, intelligent, world you would be getting millions of hits. As a quantum physicist I must take my hat off to you.
Stuart Sims aka Master Quark
for Louise and Stuart's Amazing India Travels
portaltoindia 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
RETARDED
9Charnel 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
get rid of the annoying ass virtual monologue
666GOREGRINDER666 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Didn't explain anything about quantum mechanics...videos are too short. 3 minutes? Put more videos together with longer lengths instead of 20 different short videos...
undergroundassault 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I would have to agree with you. Quantum physics/mechs explained in 3 mins is counter productive.
Zee internets like morei images and vidoes to explaination to the masses /tear
NIK4EVA 3 years ago
3rd. de da de
BlackWolf11 3 years ago
2nd
Ozman2010 3 years ago
lol i got lost in the first minute
AdultmentSystem 3 years ago