What a great movie you have made! I have studied this stuff for many years and I just wanted to explain it to others but I wasn't able to do that in an easy way! I congratulate you for this success!
You are not suppose to know the truth. I posted last month the answer to this video and answered most of your questions on this matter. The moderator removed my post. The truth is out there and you are to be kept stupid and fighting with each other. One video and many interference pattern comments. "Get the message?"
Rubbish! Many physicists criticize religion but have the audacity to promote these ridiculous propositions (It goes through only one slit but it goes through both. Its two things at once.). And what does this presentation have to do with explaining Attraction?
Quantum is a mistake -- light is three dimensional. The dark area in the interference pattern is not "nothing" because the screen does not "block" the light but rather changes its intensity.
Rubbish! Many physicists criticize religion but have the audacity to promot these ridiculous propositions (It goes through only one slit but it goes through both. Its two things at once.). And what does this presentation have to do with explaining Attraction?
Quantum is a mistake -- light is three dimensional. The dark area in the interference pattern is not "nothing" because the screen does not "block" the light but rather changes its intensity.
God is subjective issue with that being so there is no god of all reality; but there is one god of your reality; you just like I am the god of my reality. You have you own personalized reality just like I have my own. The two interact though the use of energy. E = MC^2 It’s all energy.
Ohh seriously, "the electron decided to act differently" did they observe how materials of the measurement device affect the marble? I would just go for the likely at first and then slowly draw out conclusions instead of confusing everyone.
Thank You, YARTES2K8! Unfortunately, The Scientific Method is based on dualistic rules, relative mathematics and EGO consciousness. Without a "unified" consciousness there will be NO unified field theory; only greater reductionalism (String Theory and then what?) Every thing can be divided, however there is a point at which "division" has NO meaning! At a certain level Newtonian mathematics is insufficient to describe phenomena that "transcend" our 3 dimensions of time, space and motion. Cheers!
Actually, everyone IS correct. Since all states ALLREADY exist, (time is an illusion based on fragmented consciousness) Your REALITIVE presumption is always true. I am sorry, but Newtonian mathematics do NOT apply! This is why everyone's semantics conflict! However, One cannot determine reality ALONE. (because at a certain level everything is unified) However, the fundamental EGO perceives it's own choice based on the level of consciousness of the individual. I would say more but I'm out of spac
@Timetraveler84 VERY GOOD. I agree with you. Space and Time are just illusions and a projection of our unconscious mind, it's just a trick from our sense of separation called Ego. Einstein was right when he claimed that. Good to hear from someone with an open mind, willing to get up from this illusion. At the end, Science and Spirituality collide together since both look for the real truth. We are One.
its as real as thomas young is (1800´s), newton tried it as well, and einstein helped us understand it with his light-can-also-be-a-particle approach to the Photoelectric effect. google!
You're title is very deceptive. I know it's tempting to use whatever has the word "quantum" in it to justify your spiritual beliefs, but that's not right and kind of dishonest.
video of young's double slit,with a shallow slit,and another slit approx 35 times thicker (deeper),then the lens removed from laser and shone through the slit,
@LightTruthLove hey its cool, healthy debate is a good way to find, a deeper truth, regardless how of how are ego may react .The truth should always paramount . Peace.
this clip says that wen something is observed it turns into a particle,otherwise it exists as a wave.everything u want already exist as a wave;as a possibility,as you observe/think about what you desire or want to attract, u are making a possibility into an actuality.
please dont be so quick to show off ignorance,.there may be someone else here who could benefit from this. wonder y u feel the need to speak when u dont get the quantum world?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
what you just explained to me is NOT the law of attraction. waves of possibility changing into reality is not the law of attraction. you fucking idiot. maybe you should spend some time learning to spell things right before you type, or make sure you actually understand what you're responding to. you worthless prick
What on earth are you talking about, you betray an extraordinary ignorance of the science behind this.
"everything you want already exist as a wave". No. Not at all. Everything you could want already exists macroscopically, OR the processes that are going to go into making it already exist in the macroscropic world, beyond the reach of the wave function that this video talks of. One day there may be scientific evidence for the law of attraction but this is not it.
What does this have to do with the law of attraction? Is the logic: there are strange things in the universe, therefore whatever bullshit I spout has the potential to be true?
Actually science and math themselves ain't about proof totally. What's more important that the solutions are the 'problems' that we come across. Sometimes there just isn't any solution for the moment. And typical of science, the moment you think you have a solution, more questions and problems pop up.
everyone please check out nikola teslas wireless energy system. it was made 100 yrs ago and tesla proved quantum tunneling, he experimentally showed that energy could be teleported instantly to another reciever and so energy and data streams could instantly be teleported to another destination. tesla also had a electrostatic device so sensitive to energy that it would instantly respond to energy pulses, proving instant quantum tunneling 100 yrs ago! i put up alot of info on my YT site!
A mechanical device "observing" is a fancy way of saying a mechanical device "recording" information..despite the fact that quantum physics is interesting/strange, &only very partly understood as of beg. of the 21st century &despite the temptations of the human psyche to wish for Special Powers: the mechanical device recording..& strange physics,does not equal, &is a huge huge leap to, "a homo sapiens can use their mind to,like,control the world, man" but ppl believe what pleases themt2believe
the experiment was done a lot of times with differnt observing tools, some that didnt record anything but were simply present. The double slit experiment has nothing to do with the law of attraction.
doesnt the fact that observation appeared to change the behaviour of particles tie it in nicely to the law of attraction generaly? You the observer can, and do change the nature of the universe, without even neccesairily being aware of it?
The observor only has to be a proton for the "Observer affect" to happen. The observor does not need to be a concious one. That tells me that i have as much affect on particles then anything eles does.
Thanks for answering me. I like that! Forgive me, but would it be to far a stretch to question the definition of conciousness? I mean if an electron can behave differently when observed by whatever, doesn't that make it "aware" even if only as a reflex action? and if the electron is aware, then why not protons too?
Your getting off topic a bit here, but another example is: If heat (fire) is applied to water, some water will evaporate. Hence a change in form and behaviour. yet neither has a consciousness. My point before was that the double slit experiment has nothing to do with "the law of attraction".
I agree, i am a bit off topic and at best the attempt to link the double slit experiment to law of attraction is weak. I think what they are trying to imply is that if a proton effects the outcome of an experiment just by being there, then what effect might you, on your level of conciousness be able to achieve. Whats the phrase, a watched pot never boils? Like you've said however there isn't really a direct link no. Its more about applying a bit of philosophy to physics results, i guess.
No, our observation does not change the nature of the universe. Our observations can how ever affect the perticular experiment we are doing and there for change the results.
Slick video. The first few minutes are great. But then the leap from the double slit experiment to "the law of attraction" is a heap of speculation.
Quantum theory is a prescription for working out probabilities. It is not believed to be a complete theory. If you want to learn quantum theory do a physics degree. It is mysterious and not well understood, but then the lesson should be - don't jump to conclusions about what a good theory is. That includes people selling "what the bleep..".
no it is true. If i want to get a pile of gold in front of me it can be done. that would take a lot of effort though and my will may not be strong enough and it will take a long time.
real scientists thought time was absolute for several hundred years, i just don't except dr quantum's explanation, it's just wrong. I find i hard to think the average person would be this gullible to think this explanation is reasonable, I'm an average person and I think it misses the mark by far.
Sorry, Dr Quantum "video". I'm having a difficult time thinking that Mach is flawed. If Planks constant where zero uncertainty would play no role in the micro world then empirical knowledge could be given logical justification. Not to say this is how the world works, but, who's to say Planks constant is a constant. I'm not a scientist and sometimes I do not use logic to solve a problem and, perhaps I use artsy words, but my gut feeling is that Dr Quantum interpretation of electrons is incorrect.
That said, I would think science and philosophy go hand in hand, one without the other would lead one aimless. I'm not so thick as to think one need's to hold an electron in one's hand in order to know it, but, using no empirical knowledge at all, to me, is incomplete. This, I think, is where Ayre's argument is weak.
How did Dr Quantum produce electrons? Do they "fly" through air? Air is filled with electrons, do they interact? Not a single person alive can prove that an electron "fly's"
from a source through single or double slit and projects on a wall. No one has ever seen one, it's not like a bullet that fly's out of a rifle down range and hits a target. I can not except the modern interpretation of electron/ particle behavior, I don't believe in conscience particles, or my observation has an effect on the experiment, to me this kind of thinking is stupid, not scientific at all. It's too non-logic for me. There is no beauty in it.
Electrons have wave-particle duality. This experiment may not seem scientific because "dr quantum" is explaining it in a vary vague way to which the average person can understand whats basically going on. This is a real experiment, which involved a lot of math, preformed by real scientists.
The effects caused by the electron traveling is measured. They are traveling through vacuum in the experiment. They have no conscience.
The error is to think of a particle as an object that must be at one point at one time. It's about probabilities. You can think of it as the particle being all places, taking both paths, at the same time. That's an interpretation, not a fact.
And yes, philosophy is very important in both math and physics.
This video is very simplified, but it's not wrong.
It amazes me that no one has ever seen an electron, no one has ever touched one, heard one, smelled one, etc....but scientist talk about them as if they were a mouse or a tree. How can anybody conclude (logically?) that they must be in two places at one time? Fools they are those scientists. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says you'll never know where they are if you know their momentum, you'll never know it's momentum if you know where it is, you can not think of them as ordinary objects.
Electricity is a phenomenon of electrons, electrons are not a phenomenon of electricity. An electron as an entity is not necessarily electricity. Think about this video before you accept their conclusions.
Then I don't understand the point you were making. You accept the existance of electrons but deny scientists the right to talk about them like any other entity, is that it? I assume you're aware that a 'mouse or a tree' is subject to the uncertainty principle just as much as an electron.
Well, I guess I'm old school. I think Mach had it right when he speaks of scientific laws have more to do with describing sensations than with reality as it exists beyond sensations. Has anyone seen an electron as they have seen a mouse?... or held one in his or her hand? Thus to draw conclusions as this video has done, to me, is just wrong. And that's my point, I think they are wrong.
A J Ayer demolished Mach's argument in his book "Language Truth and Logic" - I recomend it.
There are a few minor errors in the video:
1) It implies electron are "aware" or "conscious" that's nonsense.
2) It doesn't make it clear that with a single slit (or the non-interfering case) electrons don't give a sharp edged pattern - you get diffraction. Just as with light where you don't get sharp shadows.
Thanks, I've read Ayer's book. It seems to me that Ayer's modified Mach by emphasizing experiment over experience that verifies a particular phenomenon. This, modification to Mach's arguments placed science on the path it is today, the video climaxes the fallacies within their arguments because it relies on experiment alone rejecting experience. So we somewhat agree that the video is a bit misleading and not science.
So you understand why Mach's philosphy is flawed? Ayre proved: claims to empirical knowledge could not be given a logical justification, only a pragmatic one - so electrons are no more fictious than chairs. Ayre 'placed philosophy on the path...', (not science). The 'problem of induction', was shown to be a fictious problem. I do not understand your phrase, "the video [...] experience". Climaxes? whose arguments? what fallacies? what do you mean by experiment? and 'rejecting experience'?
Science and Math are proofs, philosophy is a belief system not proofs. Ayre's thought process is based on uncertainty, basically Planck's constant, This constant is not proven to be constant, therefore Ayre's argument is not a proof. Classical science would triumph if it was not for this constant having value, Mach would be vindicated as well. I will not ever read any philosophy as proofs, same with any religion. To me, Mach is better suited for physics reality,
I think, Ayre's makes an induction in a world that he claims you can not, he simply dismisses classical physics induction and replaces it with his own, based solely on things are unknowable in a sense of absolute sensation. This argument has been in process since the dawn of humankind. I can not accept his style of thinking, in his world reality has little or no meaning. I would say I'm rather hard headed and Ayre did not break the cement surrounding my head......
Classical physics is wrong. It does not describe the way physics works any more than Plato's theory of the 5 elements describes chemistry. None of Ayers books makes any reference to Planck's constant - so I don't understand what you're trying to say. If Planck's constant was zero electrons would radiate causing them to spiral into the nucleus in a fraction of a second. This is was one of the unsolvable problems in classical physics which led to quantum theory.
The same as every layman's explanation of the double slit experiment I've heard to date, but as a layman, it still doesn't make sense to me. How does one "observe" the paths of the individually fired electrons without interacting with them? And having interacted with them, hasn't one introduced an uncontrolled variable to the experiment, invalidating its results?
If someone educated in what's actually going on with this experiment could explain that to me, it would be much appreciated.
The language of physics is mathematics. Particles are described by a complex valued wave function whose modulus is the probability density given by the Schrödinger equation. These functions form a Hilbert space, Hermitian operators correspond to observables. Conjugate variables such as (p and x) are represented by wave functions which are Fourier transforms of each other, hence Heisenberg uncertainty. From there just follow the maths and its obvious. Hope that helps.
This video really misrepresents the concept of electrons, and, in fact, all subatomic particles. Electrons, like photons, are not only particles but also waves. They have the same properties as photons in this respect. As such their behaviour is not that of switching between two states, it is that they are in both at once. The reason the pattern changes when the electrons are actually observed, is because in the act of observing you interfere with the electron and thus change the outcome.
But the result of interfering is not that you see a diffraction pattern, but instead that the electron will act as a particle instead of a wave. By attempting to observe this process you, in fact, change the nature in which the particle acts, at least in a limited sense. All I can really say after this is that my understanding of quantum physics is in a limited sense and while I do have some experience what you are beginning to look at are mysteries we don't fully understand.
You do not need to observe the electron directly to get the effect. Check out the Delayed Quantum Eraser Experiment (with photons). The photon is split into two entangled photons right after it goes through the slit. One goes directly to the screen while the other is observed AFTER the first one hits the screen and it still WORKS!
And therein lies the paradox. It's unsolved and whatever the answer is, it's currently beyond human comprehension. The video explained the situation, so it's not a false label. What do you want?
I'm pretty sure that the wave function collapses because light is being shined on it not because it is being consciously observed. It is the fact that conscious observation requires light.
Of course they forgot to explain exactly how this "observer" worked. You can't just magically spot partials, you need to hit them with something first which messes up the whole thing. After all, we see things because light bounces off of them. But if we bounce light off a little partial the partial is effected as much as the light. Now if they cleverly found a way to detect the partial without throwing something at it and watching it bounce off, I would like to hear it.
No, the experiment preformed is exactly that. They hit the electrons with high-frequency photons. The effect is that they gave the electrons more energy interfering with the pattern and causing the particle effect.
just cause we arent observing it doesnt mean light isnt bouncing off it
the room around is is fill with light (electromagnetic waves) as well as non- light (radio waves, ir waves, ultraviolet waves) in a humongous network of activity. the small amount of this that interferes with this 8 millimeter hole we view the world through is all we see, but its there
@ibajem I am not sure if it actually counts if it's not actually used for any meaningful measurement, but regardless, my point is that they are intentionally skipping over an important part of the story and implying observation it's self changes things, where it's really more like changing things causes observation. The point is, human consciousness has nothing to do with it. Observation has a particular meaning here they are ignoring to make their point.
no. if the detectors (¨observers¨) are on but the detection screen is off, it doesn´t affect the results. the conscious part of osbervation (knowledge of slit choice) that modifies the chosen path(s) doesn´t seem to be a characteristic of the actual experimental apparatus. this can be better understood in the ¨delayed choice¨variation, in which no detection is made at all until after the slits are passed, at the actual screen. you modify their previous trajectories, basically
@ibajem I mean that random partials that are not part of the experiment do not effect the experiment because they can't be used to determine anything related to the experiment. If two particles of a unknown quantum state interact the result is still unknown.
More formally, as far as my understanding goes, quantum partials, as the ¨delayed choice¨ variation shows, sort of go down every possible path they can at once, and only when they need to be "observed" do they decide which they followed.
the findings imply that photons/electrons/atoms/etc ¨go both paths¨ (exist in overlapping quantum states) as a wave function until the act of observing them collapses this wave function into one quantum state. there are other experiments that suggest the same thing (quantum tunneling; not Psi-Fi tho it may sound like it).
@vladislav0202 Alas, one can not take quantum physics in to account and then deny the existence of a God. It is a near impossibility. I am not saying we should shut our eyes and believe that only God is doing this, but for now, with no ability to even come close to comprehending this phenomena, we must at least entertain a possibility of a higher force, which controls all of this.
@JakeEricson So because YOU don't understand it, it must be GOD'S doing? That's pretty damn egocentric of you. That's probably what people said about fire too back when they "invented it". And astronomy. And when they saw a cell for the first time. And any other silly situation or cartoon where someone incredibly retarded like a caveman saw an electric razor for the first time.
@vladislav0202 way to appear superior Gandhi. All you're doing is giving your own valid theory among other valid theory's and implying you're as correct as everyone else. You're no different.
@vladislav0202 God is subjective issue with that being so there is no god of all reality; but there is one god of your reality; you just like I am the god of my reality. You have you own personalized reality just like I have my own. The two interact though the use of energy.
atoms are 99% nothing but not the subatomic particles are solid forms of energy what you are thinking of is the empty space between the nuclues and the electron cloud big difference
This doesn't have anything to do with the Law of Attraction. Quantum mechanics does not support the law of attraction. This is just an attempt at trying to add credibility to "the secret"(if you haven't heard about the movie, look it up) hype bullshit. People the person who posted this video are trying to exploit people, that is all.
it has absolutely everything to do with the Law of attraction! or did it just go over your head? the idea of this video is that thoughts create different outcomes, our thoughts create change. In this video, the said material being ejected, acted differently, when it was being monitored, than when it wasn't being monitored, which also shows that there is far a lot of mysteries out there still, so don't you say it's bullshit, I personally remain open minded, because I'm not ignorant
The video didn't say "thoughts create change". It said "observation changes results". Don't just rely on a youtube video for your facts(not that it wasn't made utterly obvious here).
If you're going to attribute everything that you can't explain to god, then you are the arrogant one. You claim to have an answer to the problem in a field where there are people who research this for decades and find nothing. Tell me, who's the arrogant one?
do we see consciousness without minds? if you can provide an example of such a case in the real world, i'll be glad to acknowledge that as a possibility.
like i said, consciousness is just the idea that we are self aware, it isn't an entity(something that exists)
I don't know anything with 100% certainty, but unless you give me reason to believe the contrary, then i would say it's a legitimate assertion.
I wouldn't say it's an entity myself, I just think we are very ignorant to assume we know for sure where it's located, we don't understand really why were even alive, or the meaning of life, so how can we assume we understand something like that..
What reason do you have to believe it's locatable(as in an object/ an entity)? Why do we have to assume anything other than it being a byproduct of the mind?
"we don't understand the meaning life"
That is a question posed by man. It's a question that doesn't necessarily have an answer. I don't know why you're restricting yourself. There is no necessity to answer that question.
You're strict, left-brained understanding is the same reason most scientists can't understand quantum mechanics. The fact is, consciousness is now proven, not necessarily 'accepted', to be the foundation of the universe.
It is not the observation that changes the behavior, in the sense that someone needs to see it; merely the presence of light or some other disturbances ruin the wave effect.
By all means remain open minded, but read some textbooks.
lol either way there's light reflecting on the particles, only difference with an observer is that after the light reflects it reaches the observer, so I don't get how what light does after reflecting off a particle can still changes it's actions. Obviously there's some other reason then that observing causes this.
yea but i'm talking about why would the particles get affected by what the light does AFTER it bounces off the particles and is no longer in contact with it. Leads me to believe it's probably something else causing it, or some crazy physics explanation as to why what light does after hitting the particles can still have an affect on it.
I bow to you oh lord metainfinity, thy keeper of said universal secrets, tell me my fair lord, what is the meaning of life? what happens after you die? why do planes go missing in the Bermuda triangle? who provided the plans for the Great Pyramids? Why does the brain work harder when you are asleep, than when you are awake? why do we all have unique fingerprints? Why do the rocks at Death Valley move all by themselves?
I thank God, u have been blessed with the gift of universal knowledge!
Why do people believe that a crazy quantum effect involving electrons has any effect on their financial standing? "O look at that crazy hard to understand particle physics. That must mean that wealthy, happy people wished themselves that way, and if I wish really hard, I can be wealthy and happy too." That experiment has been ran since the beginning of civilization people and it has been demonstrated as a false hypothesis. Prayer fails. Wishing fails. Hard work, knowledge and luck succeed.
electrons have a negative pulse "whatever" who says that the type of metal that they used in this experiment "holes" did not interfear which way they were going.?
Well, technically, yes and no. There is a field between particles within an atom and particles themselves can be subject to entanglement. In fact, the entire universe is entangled at some level, so while normally, yes, a free electron can't bond by itself, if it's counterpart is affected by an outside force the free electron will have energy that can cause it to create a bond which in turn will affect it's counterpart.
Also, at the smallest level, all particles are made of vibrational strings.
No it isn't. People who know nothing of quantum physics have for far too long been leaping on words like "vibration" and "evergy" as though they understand it and it somehow adds some degree of credibility to to their nonsensical beliefs in Homeopathy, Psychics, The law of attraction and other claptrap fantasies.
Just stop it. You don't understand quantum physics. If you did you'd realise that these things are nonsense.
Not the video. Aside from some slightly simplistic descriptions, the video is quite accurate. What is rubbish is the conclusion that this lends *any* scientific credence to the law of attraction.
Don't try to co-opt science to describe nonsense because you don't understand it. Learn the real implications of wave/particle duality and superposition before trying to draw conclusions from it.
"The energy waves from his consiousness reached out into the universe and were relayed to Mucksavages.Mucksavage was compelled to respond,thus proving the methods of the secret."
Duhtruthbaby ,you are talking pure and utter garbage.You see,the soil is brown,so is my skin,so if i plant a seed in a crease in my ballbag a hashplant will grow,then you can use my dick as a bong and suck all the positive energy resen outta my nuts
This has nothing to do with the "law" of attraction.Grow up you hippy morons.How dumb do you have to be to believe that the bullshit "law" of attraction has anything to do with science
LOL. Seriously, though chemistry is about molecules and atoms being attracted to one another and the actions and reactions they have to one another and little reactions lead to bigger ones. C'mon, what's that chip on your shoulder? This is silly fun, and does remind me of Gulliver and the energy from sunlight in cucumbers, and he thought that was batty but now we know it's possible, that is essentially what chlorophyll does. :)
it does deal with the Attraction Theory because of the fact when MATTER is being observed, it is being pulled by a magnetic force, in which we all create! without that measurment of force it'll re-act like that of waves of water, well something of that matter! as far as the SECRET or the LAWS of ATTRACTION, and defining what NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE ENERGY DOES, this is a prime example of that, because it's up to MATTER to define what negative and positive energy is, in whci it reacted
'...because of the fact when MATTER is being observed, it is being pulled by a magnetic force, in which we all create!"
No - depending on how we observe an electron, it will go through one slit or another, AS IF it was aware, or being forced. This is because of how we 'see' an electron, which isn't detected by our eyes (and photons) but by some sort of electron detector.
Um this has NOTHING to do with attraction theory. This has to do with Quantum level science. If you want to see why it cannot be applied to the non-subatomic world look at schrodinger's cat. According to subatomic theory the cat will exist as two wave forms both dead and alive at the same time. Completely tosh! Which is why it is only used for quantum level events.
very interesting thanks
xtremetom180 1 week ago
What a great movie you have made! I have studied this stuff for many years and I just wanted to explain it to others but I wasn't able to do that in an easy way! I congratulate you for this success!
sarmaroof 3 months ago
No God! It does weat with this slit and double slit! Haha!
Edmondo123456789 4 months ago
this just blew, shattered, and exploded my mind.
chachi9198 6 months ago
Hijacking quantum physics you don't understand to confirm pseudoscience on the macroscopic scale isn't cool.
andid 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interesting video! I am an artist on YouTube trying to promote my theory on the dynamics of light and time
This theory is based on just two simple postulates
1. The first is that the quantum wave particle function explained by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time itself
2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event
nickharvey7 7 months ago
that nigga is crazy...
Frankelfinkel 8 months ago
too bad "observing" (as in consciousness) has nothing to do with the double slit experiment.
Wittgensteinism 9 months ago
You are not suppose to know the truth. I posted last month the answer to this video and answered most of your questions on this matter. The moderator removed my post. The truth is out there and you are to be kept stupid and fighting with each other. One video and many interference pattern comments. "Get the message?"
robcum911 10 months ago
Rubbish! Many physicists criticize religion but have the audacity to promote these ridiculous propositions (It goes through only one slit but it goes through both. Its two things at once.). And what does this presentation have to do with explaining Attraction?
Quantum is a mistake -- light is three dimensional. The dark area in the interference pattern is not "nothing" because the screen does not "block" the light but rather changes its intensity.
jmoore125 10 months ago
@jmoore125 YOUR RUBBISH. Keep believing your foolish understanding of the world, your explanation lacks sense.
WSElectronic 2 months ago
@WSElectronic In what way does it lack sense?
jmoore125 2 months ago
Rubbish! Many physicists criticize religion but have the audacity to promot these ridiculous propositions (It goes through only one slit but it goes through both. Its two things at once.). And what does this presentation have to do with explaining Attraction?
Quantum is a mistake -- light is three dimensional. The dark area in the interference pattern is not "nothing" because the screen does not "block" the light but rather changes its intensity.
jmoore125 10 months ago
@jmoore125 your going keep posting your view until people believe it?
WSElectronic 2 months ago
@WSElectronic I believe this is my first post.
jmoore125 2 months ago
Uncertainty principle has nothing to do with new age BS "laws of attraction".
MrAstrobrain 11 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
God is subjective issue with that being so there is no god of all reality; but there is one god of your reality; you just like I am the god of my reality. You have you own personalized reality just like I have my own. The two interact though the use of energy. E = MC^2 It’s all energy.
ttopperr 11 months ago
Comment removed
hughjoey 1 year ago
Comment removed
hughjoey 1 year ago
Comment removed
hughjoey 1 year ago
Ohh seriously, "the electron decided to act differently" did they observe how materials of the measurement device affect the marble? I would just go for the likely at first and then slowly draw out conclusions instead of confusing everyone.
CHRISTMASBASTARD 1 year ago
Thank You, YARTES2K8! Unfortunately, The Scientific Method is based on dualistic rules, relative mathematics and EGO consciousness. Without a "unified" consciousness there will be NO unified field theory; only greater reductionalism (String Theory and then what?) Every thing can be divided, however there is a point at which "division" has NO meaning! At a certain level Newtonian mathematics is insufficient to describe phenomena that "transcend" our 3 dimensions of time, space and motion. Cheers!
Timetraveler84 1 year ago
Actually, everyone IS correct. Since all states ALLREADY exist, (time is an illusion based on fragmented consciousness) Your REALITIVE presumption is always true. I am sorry, but Newtonian mathematics do NOT apply! This is why everyone's semantics conflict! However, One cannot determine reality ALONE. (because at a certain level everything is unified) However, the fundamental EGO perceives it's own choice based on the level of consciousness of the individual. I would say more but I'm out of spac
Timetraveler84 1 year ago
@Timetraveler84 VERY GOOD. I agree with you. Space and Time are just illusions and a projection of our unconscious mind, it's just a trick from our sense of separation called Ego. Einstein was right when he claimed that. Good to hear from someone with an open mind, willing to get up from this illusion. At the end, Science and Spirituality collide together since both look for the real truth. We are One.
YARTES2K8 1 year ago
Comment removed
ibajem 1 year ago
Is there any proof of this? This all sounds like bullshit to me. I'd like evidence, instead of an annoying cartoon telling me it.
leopower7 1 year ago
@leopower7
the proof is the 20th century physics
its as real as thomas young is (1800´s), newton tried it as well, and einstein helped us understand it with his light-can-also-be-a-particle approach to the Photoelectric effect. google!
ibajem 1 year ago
@ibajem yeh its 2011 yall
WSElectronic 2 months ago
the observing part isn't correct. You can't observe without changing the path of the particle. It's the uncertainty principle.
longshotnl 1 year ago
You're title is very deceptive. I know it's tempting to use whatever has the word "quantum" in it to justify your spiritual beliefs, but that's not right and kind of dishonest.
arsenelupin123 1 year ago
video of young's double slit,with a shallow slit,and another slit approx 35 times thicker (deeper),then the lens removed from laser and shone through the slit,
watch?v=Zns659ClKtY
kevinstuartfr0st 2 years ago
Quantum Mechanics applies to the MICRO - things that happen as claimed by the "law of attraction" occur in the MACRO..
Simply put there is no connection between what you wish for and Quantum Mechanics.
deconverts 2 years ago
consciousness can manipulate reality , simple.
philosoweed 2 years ago
Of course it can. We can manipulate reality by making chairs out of trees and buildings out of steel.
We can also manipulate the way we experience reality with the consumption of drugs...
Vitringur 2 years ago
How is that simple!!
Why would consciousness choose the suffering of millions in Africa?
LightTruthLove 2 years ago
consciousness chooses suffering, because does not know it has a choice .
philosoweed 2 years ago
bullshit.
EVERYONE is their own self, even if it is in a collective higher consciousness.
Why would their self choose to suffer?
LightTruthLove 2 years ago
Well you seem to know everything, Why don't you tell us what is " matter" then?
philosoweed 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who mentioned matter?
I was confused when I wrote that last comment of mine lol, i apologize.
consciousness can manipulate reality, I agree with you. thoughts and vibrations and energy.
LightTruthLove 2 years ago
@LightTruthLove hey its cool, healthy debate is a good way to find, a deeper truth, regardless how of how are ego may react .The truth should always paramount . Peace.
philosoweed 2 years ago
this has absolutely nothing to do with the law of attraction, fred alan wolf doesn't even recognize it exists. stop it.
bejay20x 2 years ago
@bejay20x
congrats on sharing that ur a fuking moron.
this clip says that wen something is observed it turns into a particle,otherwise it exists as a wave.everything u want already exist as a wave;as a possibility,as you observe/think about what you desire or want to attract, u are making a possibility into an actuality.
please dont be so quick to show off ignorance,.there may be someone else here who could benefit from this. wonder y u feel the need to speak when u dont get the quantum world?
ecko3003 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what you just explained to me is NOT the law of attraction. waves of possibility changing into reality is not the law of attraction. you fucking idiot. maybe you should spend some time learning to spell things right before you type, or make sure you actually understand what you're responding to. you worthless prick
bejay20x 2 years ago
had to cut it down because of character length; it is the law of attraction; these videos got me using it, and im lovin my income. enjoy youtube :)
ecko3003 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow youre a retard. the creater of dr quantum doesn't even agree with it. this video doesn't justify it either
bejay20x 2 years ago
i repeat; im lovin my income, enjoy youtube :)
its like the mormons, yeah their religion is made up and a piece of shit.... but so what? their nicer people than any catholic/jew/muslim
ecko3003 2 years ago
@ecko3003
What on earth are you talking about, you betray an extraordinary ignorance of the science behind this.
"everything you want already exist as a wave". No. Not at all. Everything you could want already exists macroscopically, OR the processes that are going to go into making it already exist in the macroscropic world, beyond the reach of the wave function that this video talks of. One day there may be scientific evidence for the law of attraction but this is not it.
Evalesco1 1 year ago
uhh... so this is what gordon freeman would be doing in the future? i mean....
galsses, beard, hazard suit! physics degree, explaining the human atraction?
geez, he is DOCTOR FREEMAN!
SvartWolf 2 years ago 7
its all about proto consciosness......AMAZING
TheJohnskinner 2 years ago
What does this have to do with the law of attraction? Is the logic: there are strange things in the universe, therefore whatever bullshit I spout has the potential to be true?
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Comment removed
es3000 2 years ago
Actually science and math themselves ain't about proof totally. What's more important that the solutions are the 'problems' that we come across. Sometimes there just isn't any solution for the moment. And typical of science, the moment you think you have a solution, more questions and problems pop up.
kayal45 2 years ago
i'm gonna have to watch this a few times to get it it think. I hope...
girlphriend 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
everyone please check out nikola teslas wireless energy system. it was made 100 yrs ago and tesla proved quantum tunneling, he experimentally showed that energy could be teleported instantly to another reciever and so energy and data streams could instantly be teleported to another destination. tesla also had a electrostatic device so sensitive to energy that it would instantly respond to energy pulses, proving instant quantum tunneling 100 yrs ago! i put up alot of info on my YT site!
boxa888 2 years ago
A mechanical device "observing" is a fancy way of saying a mechanical device "recording" information..despite the fact that quantum physics is interesting/strange, &only very partly understood as of beg. of the 21st century &despite the temptations of the human psyche to wish for Special Powers: the mechanical device recording..& strange physics,does not equal, &is a huge huge leap to, "a homo sapiens can use their mind to,like,control the world, man" but ppl believe what pleases themt2believe
lbarzilai 2 years ago
the experiment was done a lot of times with differnt observing tools, some that didnt record anything but were simply present. The double slit experiment has nothing to do with the law of attraction.
codownni 2 years ago
doesnt the fact that observation appeared to change the behaviour of particles tie it in nicely to the law of attraction generaly? You the observer can, and do change the nature of the universe, without even neccesairily being aware of it?
DonAlcopop 2 years ago
The observor only has to be a proton for the "Observer affect" to happen. The observor does not need to be a concious one. That tells me that i have as much affect on particles then anything eles does.
codownni 2 years ago
Thanks for answering me. I like that! Forgive me, but would it be to far a stretch to question the definition of conciousness? I mean if an electron can behave differently when observed by whatever, doesn't that make it "aware" even if only as a reflex action? and if the electron is aware, then why not protons too?
DonAlcopop 2 years ago
Your getting off topic a bit here, but another example is: If heat (fire) is applied to water, some water will evaporate. Hence a change in form and behaviour. yet neither has a consciousness. My point before was that the double slit experiment has nothing to do with "the law of attraction".
codownni 2 years ago
I agree, i am a bit off topic and at best the attempt to link the double slit experiment to law of attraction is weak. I think what they are trying to imply is that if a proton effects the outcome of an experiment just by being there, then what effect might you, on your level of conciousness be able to achieve. Whats the phrase, a watched pot never boils? Like you've said however there isn't really a direct link no. Its more about applying a bit of philosophy to physics results, i guess.
DonAlcopop 2 years ago
It makes no connection at all though, i believe in the law of attraction, but this proves nothing about it.
codownni 2 years ago
No, our observation does not change the nature of the universe. Our observations can how ever affect the perticular experiment we are doing and there for change the results.
Vitringur 2 years ago
Slick video. The first few minutes are great. But then the leap from the double slit experiment to "the law of attraction" is a heap of speculation.
Quantum theory is a prescription for working out probabilities. It is not believed to be a complete theory. If you want to learn quantum theory do a physics degree. It is mysterious and not well understood, but then the lesson should be - don't jump to conclusions about what a good theory is. That includes people selling "what the bleep..".
bakwaasjunk 2 years ago
no it is true. If i want to get a pile of gold in front of me it can be done. that would take a lot of effort though and my will may not be strong enough and it will take a long time.
AEVautomatic 2 years ago
real scientists thought time was absolute for several hundred years, i just don't except dr quantum's explanation, it's just wrong. I find i hard to think the average person would be this gullible to think this explanation is reasonable, I'm an average person and I think it misses the mark by far.
dickwa 2 years ago
ya i thought about that to to look for a different explination.
AEVautomatic 2 years ago
quantum mechanics is not intuitive. You do need to actually learn the math and physics behind it, to get some understanding of why it makes sense.
realisticHomeboy 2 years ago
Sorry, Dr Quantum "video". I'm having a difficult time thinking that Mach is flawed. If Planks constant where zero uncertainty would play no role in the micro world then empirical knowledge could be given logical justification. Not to say this is how the world works, but, who's to say Planks constant is a constant. I'm not a scientist and sometimes I do not use logic to solve a problem and, perhaps I use artsy words, but my gut feeling is that Dr Quantum interpretation of electrons is incorrect.
dickwa 2 years ago
That said, I would think science and philosophy go hand in hand, one without the other would lead one aimless. I'm not so thick as to think one need's to hold an electron in one's hand in order to know it, but, using no empirical knowledge at all, to me, is incomplete. This, I think, is where Ayre's argument is weak.
How did Dr Quantum produce electrons? Do they "fly" through air? Air is filled with electrons, do they interact? Not a single person alive can prove that an electron "fly's"
dickwa 2 years ago
from a source through single or double slit and projects on a wall. No one has ever seen one, it's not like a bullet that fly's out of a rifle down range and hits a target. I can not except the modern interpretation of electron/ particle behavior, I don't believe in conscience particles, or my observation has an effect on the experiment, to me this kind of thinking is stupid, not scientific at all. It's too non-logic for me. There is no beauty in it.
dickwa 2 years ago
How is this not scientific?
And is your argument that you can't see electrons so therefor they don't exist?
cofoidh 2 years ago
They do exist, just not the way dr quantum says they do.
dickwa 2 years ago
Electrons have wave-particle duality. This experiment may not seem scientific because "dr quantum" is explaining it in a vary vague way to which the average person can understand whats basically going on. This is a real experiment, which involved a lot of math, preformed by real scientists.
cofoidh 2 years ago
The effects caused by the electron traveling is measured. They are traveling through vacuum in the experiment. They have no conscience.
The error is to think of a particle as an object that must be at one point at one time. It's about probabilities. You can think of it as the particle being all places, taking both paths, at the same time. That's an interpretation, not a fact.
And yes, philosophy is very important in both math and physics.
This video is very simplified, but it's not wrong.
realisticHomeboy 2 years ago
It amazes me that no one has ever seen an electron, no one has ever touched one, heard one, smelled one, etc....but scientist talk about them as if they were a mouse or a tree. How can anybody conclude (logically?) that they must be in two places at one time? Fools they are those scientists. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says you'll never know where they are if you know their momentum, you'll never know it's momentum if you know where it is, you can not think of them as ordinary objects.
dickwa 2 years ago
You don't believe in electricity then?
Zantorc 2 years ago
Electricity is a phenomenon of electrons, electrons are not a phenomenon of electricity. An electron as an entity is not necessarily electricity. Think about this video before you accept their conclusions.
dickwa 2 years ago
Then I don't understand the point you were making. You accept the existance of electrons but deny scientists the right to talk about them like any other entity, is that it? I assume you're aware that a 'mouse or a tree' is subject to the uncertainty principle just as much as an electron.
Zantorc 2 years ago
Well, I guess I'm old school. I think Mach had it right when he speaks of scientific laws have more to do with describing sensations than with reality as it exists beyond sensations. Has anyone seen an electron as they have seen a mouse?... or held one in his or her hand? Thus to draw conclusions as this video has done, to me, is just wrong. And that's my point, I think they are wrong.
dickwa 2 years ago
A J Ayer demolished Mach's argument in his book "Language Truth and Logic" - I recomend it.
There are a few minor errors in the video:
1) It implies electron are "aware" or "conscious" that's nonsense.
2) It doesn't make it clear that with a single slit (or the non-interfering case) electrons don't give a sharp edged pattern - you get diffraction. Just as with light where you don't get sharp shadows.
Zantorc 2 years ago
Thanks, I've read Ayer's book. It seems to me that Ayer's modified Mach by emphasizing experiment over experience that verifies a particular phenomenon. This, modification to Mach's arguments placed science on the path it is today, the video climaxes the fallacies within their arguments because it relies on experiment alone rejecting experience. So we somewhat agree that the video is a bit misleading and not science.
dickwa 2 years ago
So you understand why Mach's philosphy is flawed? Ayre proved: claims to empirical knowledge could not be given a logical justification, only a pragmatic one - so electrons are no more fictious than chairs. Ayre 'placed philosophy on the path...', (not science). The 'problem of induction', was shown to be a fictious problem. I do not understand your phrase, "the video [...] experience". Climaxes? whose arguments? what fallacies? what do you mean by experiment? and 'rejecting experience'?
Zantorc 2 years ago
Science and Math are proofs, philosophy is a belief system not proofs. Ayre's thought process is based on uncertainty, basically Planck's constant, This constant is not proven to be constant, therefore Ayre's argument is not a proof. Classical science would triumph if it was not for this constant having value, Mach would be vindicated as well. I will not ever read any philosophy as proofs, same with any religion. To me, Mach is better suited for physics reality,
dickwa 2 years ago
I think, Ayre's makes an induction in a world that he claims you can not, he simply dismisses classical physics induction and replaces it with his own, based solely on things are unknowable in a sense of absolute sensation. This argument has been in process since the dawn of humankind. I can not accept his style of thinking, in his world reality has little or no meaning. I would say I'm rather hard headed and Ayre did not break the cement surrounding my head......
dickwa 2 years ago
Classical physics is wrong. It does not describe the way physics works any more than Plato's theory of the 5 elements describes chemistry. None of Ayers books makes any reference to Planck's constant - so I don't understand what you're trying to say. If Planck's constant was zero electrons would radiate causing them to spiral into the nucleus in a fraction of a second. This is was one of the unsolvable problems in classical physics which led to quantum theory.
Zantorc 2 years ago
philosophy is of huge importance in math and science in general.
realisticHomeboy 2 years ago
The same as every layman's explanation of the double slit experiment I've heard to date, but as a layman, it still doesn't make sense to me. How does one "observe" the paths of the individually fired electrons without interacting with them? And having interacted with them, hasn't one introduced an uncontrolled variable to the experiment, invalidating its results?
If someone educated in what's actually going on with this experiment could explain that to me, it would be much appreciated.
DrakeDun 2 years ago
sorry, seeker, there is not 1 live scientist "educated" enough to explain this today.
You´ll have to try a spiritual approach.
For an alternative "scientific" point of view you might wanna visit (coralcastlecode) (dot) (c o m) or check Ed Leedskalnin on (perhaps) Wiki.
Enjoy
CaptainShitbeard 2 years ago
You have got to be kidding me.
DrakeDun 2 years ago
The language of physics is mathematics. Particles are described by a complex valued wave function whose modulus is the probability density given by the Schrödinger equation. These functions form a Hilbert space, Hermitian operators correspond to observables. Conjugate variables such as (p and x) are represented by wave functions which are Fourier transforms of each other, hence Heisenberg uncertainty. From there just follow the maths and its obvious. Hope that helps.
Zantorc 2 years ago
This video really misrepresents the concept of electrons, and, in fact, all subatomic particles. Electrons, like photons, are not only particles but also waves. They have the same properties as photons in this respect. As such their behaviour is not that of switching between two states, it is that they are in both at once. The reason the pattern changes when the electrons are actually observed, is because in the act of observing you interfere with the electron and thus change the outcome.
Braksis8 2 years ago
but if it's interfered at the right place, than there should be lines at the left side? so why aren't there lines more to the left side?
Dragonovus 2 years ago
But the result of interfering is not that you see a diffraction pattern, but instead that the electron will act as a particle instead of a wave. By attempting to observe this process you, in fact, change the nature in which the particle acts, at least in a limited sense. All I can really say after this is that my understanding of quantum physics is in a limited sense and while I do have some experience what you are beginning to look at are mysteries we don't fully understand.
Braksis8 2 years ago
You do not need to observe the electron directly to get the effect. Check out the Delayed Quantum Eraser Experiment (with photons). The photon is split into two entangled photons right after it goes through the slit. One goes directly to the screen while the other is observed AFTER the first one hits the screen and it still WORKS!
LeeKrystek 2 years ago
This explained buggar all.
All this video did was raise a question about wave particle duality I already knew.
I hate false labelling.
Unlocalist 2 years ago 2
And therein lies the paradox. It's unsolved and whatever the answer is, it's currently beyond human comprehension. The video explained the situation, so it's not a false label. What do you want?
Kooptroopa 2 years ago
Believe it or not I was hoping it might explain the law of attraction.
Unlocalist 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure that the wave function collapses because light is being shined on it not because it is being consciously observed. It is the fact that conscious observation requires light.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
It's a cartoon... That's probably what they mean, that light was added... we need light to see, don't we?
missylectro 2 years ago
Yeah we need light to see but that's my point. It isn't consciousness that is collapses the wave function it's light that we use to observe it.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
Of course they forgot to explain exactly how this "observer" worked. You can't just magically spot partials, you need to hit them with something first which messes up the whole thing. After all, we see things because light bounces off of them. But if we bounce light off a little partial the partial is effected as much as the light. Now if they cleverly found a way to detect the partial without throwing something at it and watching it bounce off, I would like to hear it.
KilloZapit 2 years ago 2
No, the experiment preformed is exactly that. They hit the electrons with high-frequency photons. The effect is that they gave the electrons more energy interfering with the pattern and causing the particle effect.
Braksis8 2 years ago
@KilloZapit
not quite
just cause we arent observing it doesnt mean light isnt bouncing off it
the room around is is fill with light (electromagnetic waves) as well as non- light (radio waves, ir waves, ultraviolet waves) in a humongous network of activity. the small amount of this that interferes with this 8 millimeter hole we view the world through is all we see, but its there
ibajem 1 year ago
@ibajem I am not sure if it actually counts if it's not actually used for any meaningful measurement, but regardless, my point is that they are intentionally skipping over an important part of the story and implying observation it's self changes things, where it's really more like changing things causes observation. The point is, human consciousness has nothing to do with it. Observation has a particular meaning here they are ignoring to make their point.
KilloZapit 1 year ago
Comment removed
ibajem 1 year ago
@KilloZapit
no. if the detectors (¨observers¨) are on but the detection screen is off, it doesn´t affect the results. the conscious part of osbervation (knowledge of slit choice) that modifies the chosen path(s) doesn´t seem to be a characteristic of the actual experimental apparatus. this can be better understood in the ¨delayed choice¨variation, in which no detection is made at all until after the slits are passed, at the actual screen. you modify their previous trajectories, basically
ibajem 1 year ago
@ibajem I mean that random partials that are not part of the experiment do not effect the experiment because they can't be used to determine anything related to the experiment. If two particles of a unknown quantum state interact the result is still unknown.
More formally, as far as my understanding goes, quantum partials, as the ¨delayed choice¨ variation shows, sort of go down every possible path they can at once, and only when they need to be "observed" do they decide which they followed.
KilloZapit 1 year ago
@KilloZapit
then you understand completely!!
the findings imply that photons/electrons/atoms/etc ¨go both paths¨ (exist in overlapping quantum states) as a wave function until the act of observing them collapses this wave function into one quantum state. there are other experiments that suggest the same thing (quantum tunneling; not Psi-Fi tho it may sound like it).
ibajem 1 year ago
@KilloZapit I completely agree with you.
inqubeko 1 year ago
Look at all of you all talking about "God."
Before you have this senseless argument about "god," why don't you define him first?
My god ,may be different than yours, and vice versa.
God may very well be the energy, the life form, that keeps this Universe and its Laws together.
vladislav0202 2 years ago 6
@vladislav0202 Alas, one can not take quantum physics in to account and then deny the existence of a God. It is a near impossibility. I am not saying we should shut our eyes and believe that only God is doing this, but for now, with no ability to even come close to comprehending this phenomena, we must at least entertain a possibility of a higher force, which controls all of this.
JakeEricson 1 year ago
@JakeEricson So because YOU don't understand it, it must be GOD'S doing? That's pretty damn egocentric of you. That's probably what people said about fire too back when they "invented it". And astronomy. And when they saw a cell for the first time. And any other silly situation or cartoon where someone incredibly retarded like a caveman saw an electric razor for the first time.
Adkit2 1 year ago
@Adkit2 No. I'm saying we must do the exact OPPOSITE of that. Did you read my post at all?
JakeEricson 1 year ago
@vladislav0202 way to appear superior Gandhi. All you're doing is giving your own valid theory among other valid theory's and implying you're as correct as everyone else. You're no different.
RAJTeunis 1 year ago
@vladislav0202 God is subjective issue with that being so there is no god of all reality; but there is one god of your reality; you just like I am the god of my reality. You have you own personalized reality just like I have my own. The two interact though the use of energy.
E = MC^2 It’s all energy.
ttopperr 11 months ago
you should just fark off mate you dont know me or my education!
you sound like a christian?
anyway just go away & bother someone else!
tblruby 2 years ago
fuck god ! hhhmmm sounds like more blind faith, by god proberbly needs some more money by now! religon is for sheep..
tblruby 2 years ago
Do you REALLY understand any kind of science, or do you go by faith that someone else does?
No faith is blind.
ignosco 2 years ago
Umm.. this isnt the law of attraction..This explains the collapsing of the wave theory
end1r44 2 years ago
this brings up the theory that existence is created by ourselves
22RaNdOmViDs22 2 years ago
atoms are 99% nothing but not the subatomic particles are solid forms of energy what you are thinking of is the empty space between the nuclues and the electron cloud big difference
ken0is0gay0fan0club 2 years ago
This doesn't have anything to do with the Law of Attraction. Quantum mechanics does not support the law of attraction. This is just an attempt at trying to add credibility to "the secret"(if you haven't heard about the movie, look it up) hype bullshit. People the person who posted this video are trying to exploit people, that is all.
metainfinity 2 years ago
it has absolutely everything to do with the Law of attraction! or did it just go over your head? the idea of this video is that thoughts create different outcomes, our thoughts create change. In this video, the said material being ejected, acted differently, when it was being monitored, than when it wasn't being monitored, which also shows that there is far a lot of mysteries out there still, so don't you say it's bullshit, I personally remain open minded, because I'm not ignorant
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
You're a moron.
The video didn't say "thoughts create change". It said "observation changes results". Don't just rely on a youtube video for your facts(not that it wasn't made utterly obvious here).
If you're going to attribute everything that you can't explain to god, then you are the arrogant one. You claim to have an answer to the problem in a field where there are people who research this for decades and find nothing. Tell me, who's the arrogant one?
metainfinity 2 years ago
and you have more evidence it's God?
I believe in God, but really, lol
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
No, I'm an agnostic atheist.
metainfinity 2 years ago
"When you die, nothing happens"
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
because there's no legitimate, objective reason to believe that something does
metainfinity 2 years ago
Do you know where your consciousness is located?
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
consciousness is a concept, not an entity
our consciousness is a product of our mind
metainfinity 2 years ago
and you know that for a fact? Scientists aren't even 100% sure if consciousness is located in the Brain...
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
do we see consciousness without minds? if you can provide an example of such a case in the real world, i'll be glad to acknowledge that as a possibility.
like i said, consciousness is just the idea that we are self aware, it isn't an entity(something that exists)
I don't know anything with 100% certainty, but unless you give me reason to believe the contrary, then i would say it's a legitimate assertion.
metainfinity 2 years ago
I wouldn't say it's an entity myself, I just think we are very ignorant to assume we know for sure where it's located, we don't understand really why were even alive, or the meaning of life, so how can we assume we understand something like that..
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
You keep asking the same questions. ..
"we don't know for sure where it's located"
What reason do you have to believe it's locatable(as in an object/ an entity)? Why do we have to assume anything other than it being a byproduct of the mind?
"we don't understand the meaning life"
That is a question posed by man. It's a question that doesn't necessarily have an answer. I don't know why you're restricting yourself. There is no necessity to answer that question.
metainfinity 2 years ago
watch?v=OrcWntw9juM&feature=related
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
there are very little tests we can actually do to even support string theory
metainfinity 2 years ago
You're strict, left-brained understanding is the same reason most scientists can't understand quantum mechanics. The fact is, consciousness is now proven, not necessarily 'accepted', to be the foundation of the universe.
llevivell 2 years ago
Well if you dont find that question interesting i guess you two shouldnt be discussing.
ejswe 2 years ago
what is the 'legitimate' reason to believe something does not?
Explorer766 2 years ago
I said there ISN'T a legitimate reason to believe something DOES.
metainfinity 2 years ago
And the other funny truth is, everything (including science), at it's ultimate fundamental level, is attributed to "God".
llevivell 2 years ago
It is not the observation that changes the behavior, in the sense that someone needs to see it; merely the presence of light or some other disturbances ruin the wave effect.
By all means remain open minded, but read some textbooks.
henrikhhhhh 2 years ago
its funny seeing someone who thinks they know so much yet really know so little.
killzy 2 years ago
lol either way there's light reflecting on the particles, only difference with an observer is that after the light reflects it reaches the observer, so I don't get how what light does after reflecting off a particle can still changes it's actions. Obviously there's some other reason then that observing causes this.
iamdamasta1 2 years ago
The particles are so small, they get "kicked around" by the light itself.
henrikhhhhh 2 years ago
yea but i'm talking about why would the particles get affected by what the light does AFTER it bounces off the particles and is no longer in contact with it. Leads me to believe it's probably something else causing it, or some crazy physics explanation as to why what light does after hitting the particles can still have an affect on it.
iamdamasta1 2 years ago
Heisenberg loves you
thebigfatmonkey 2 years ago
I bow to you oh lord metainfinity, thy keeper of said universal secrets, tell me my fair lord, what is the meaning of life? what happens after you die? why do planes go missing in the Bermuda triangle? who provided the plans for the Great Pyramids? Why does the brain work harder when you are asleep, than when you are awake? why do we all have unique fingerprints? Why do the rocks at Death Valley move all by themselves?
I thank God, u have been blessed with the gift of universal knowledge!
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
Why do people believe that a crazy quantum effect involving electrons has any effect on their financial standing? "O look at that crazy hard to understand particle physics. That must mean that wealthy, happy people wished themselves that way, and if I wish really hard, I can be wealthy and happy too." That experiment has been ran since the beginning of civilization people and it has been demonstrated as a false hypothesis. Prayer fails. Wishing fails. Hard work, knowledge and luck succeed.
NyelaniousTour 2 years ago
electrons have a negative pulse "whatever" who says that the type of metal that they used in this experiment "holes" did not interfear which way they were going.?
Frankyyourpimp 3 years ago
ummm elements cant just pick up electrons with out a bond and with a bond u need/release energy plus free electron cant bond bythemselves.
ken0is0gay0fan0club 2 years ago
Well, technically, yes and no. There is a field between particles within an atom and particles themselves can be subject to entanglement. In fact, the entire universe is entangled at some level, so while normally, yes, a free electron can't bond by itself, if it's counterpart is affected by an outside force the free electron will have energy that can cause it to create a bond which in turn will affect it's counterpart.
Also, at the smallest level, all particles are made of vibrational strings.
Elliandr 2 years ago
Awesome, time to wake up!
ZZAKON 3 years ago
The title is wrong. This is just the double slit experiment for kids.
nonphixional1 3 years ago 2
What a load of shit..Dont try to combine quantum physics with bullshit.
An0nym0usPunK0930 3 years ago
FAIL
Lucky14970 3 years ago
it's exactly true, if you read about this movie..
ez45 3 years ago
What is true?
Lucky14970 3 years ago
I like this video but it explains and demonstrates the theory that 'nothing is real until observed.'
This video, however, does not explain the law of attraction scientifically.
brasilianfool 3 years ago
everything is consciousness in an energy waveform .
mmtot 3 years ago
No it isn't. People who know nothing of quantum physics have for far too long been leaping on words like "vibration" and "evergy" as though they understand it and it somehow adds some degree of credibility to to their nonsensical beliefs in Homeopathy, Psychics, The law of attraction and other claptrap fantasies.
Just stop it. You don't understand quantum physics. If you did you'd realise that these things are nonsense.
CrunchyMush 3 years ago
Go back to sleep Jake . Go back to sleep.
mmtot 3 years ago
This is complete and utter clap-trap.
Not the video. Aside from some slightly simplistic descriptions, the video is quite accurate. What is rubbish is the conclusion that this lends *any* scientific credence to the law of attraction.
Don't try to co-opt science to describe nonsense because you don't understand it. Learn the real implications of wave/particle duality and superposition before trying to draw conclusions from it.
CrunchyMush 3 years ago
ah now thats what i needed, now i get it all, thanks mushy
StretcherJatt 3 years ago
"The energy waves from his consiousness reached out into the universe and were relayed to Mucksavages.Mucksavage was compelled to respond,thus proving the methods of the secret."
mucksavagemacey 3 years ago
I agree with muck. This isn't about the law of attraction. And weed is good. XD
THEGREATMAX 3 years ago
Duhtruthbaby ,you are talking pure and utter garbage.You see,the soil is brown,so is my skin,so if i plant a seed in a crease in my ballbag a hashplant will grow,then you can use my dick as a bong and suck all the positive energy resen outta my nuts
mucksavagemacey 3 years ago
Pleiades Seven,if you want to know what the chip on my shoulder is,ask the universe.
mucksavagemacey 3 years ago
This has nothing to do with the "law" of attraction.Grow up you hippy morons.How dumb do you have to be to believe that the bullshit "law" of attraction has anything to do with science
mucksavagemacey 3 years ago
LOL. Seriously, though chemistry is about molecules and atoms being attracted to one another and the actions and reactions they have to one another and little reactions lead to bigger ones. C'mon, what's that chip on your shoulder? This is silly fun, and does remind me of Gulliver and the energy from sunlight in cucumbers, and he thought that was batty but now we know it's possible, that is essentially what chlorophyll does. :)
PleiadesSeven 3 years ago
it does deal with the Attraction Theory because of the fact when MATTER is being observed, it is being pulled by a magnetic force, in which we all create! without that measurment of force it'll re-act like that of waves of water, well something of that matter! as far as the SECRET or the LAWS of ATTRACTION, and defining what NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE ENERGY DOES, this is a prime example of that, because it's up to MATTER to define what negative and positive energy is, in whci it reacted
duhtruthbaby 3 years ago
'...because of the fact when MATTER is being observed, it is being pulled by a magnetic force, in which we all create!"
No - depending on how we observe an electron, it will go through one slit or another, AS IF it was aware, or being forced. This is because of how we 'see' an electron, which isn't detected by our eyes (and photons) but by some sort of electron detector.
Nice try... still feeling optimistic?
jamespfp 3 years ago
Um this has NOTHING to do with attraction theory. This has to do with Quantum level science. If you want to see why it cannot be applied to the non-subatomic world look at schrodinger's cat. According to subatomic theory the cat will exist as two wave forms both dead and alive at the same time. Completely tosh! Which is why it is only used for quantum level events.
wormbaby79 3 years ago