Holy ****: This will blow your mind!

[DesT]

lol i don't know who's dumber, me for posting that or you for leaving your apartment with the stove of your kitchen on. dumbass

LOL i guess you won the contest.

[EphedraFree]

What the **** were you lookin for in the first place? Search topic of 'old man in spandex blowing peoples', or just 'slits'? There is some dumb **** in the MISC. section, and I wanna know what the **** was goin through some1's head when they posted it...

This comin from a 13 yr old

[KUDave]

Dude the whole video is basically support of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ... that's about all it is folks... nothing too mind boggling or amazing. The way they illustrate the electron being "observed" and how it's such an amazing event that the behaviour changed is completely retarded.

[panthera]

I found this interesting!


The more I know...the more I realize how little I actually know... ya know?

[siamesedream]

This comin from a 13 yr old

That's what 13 year olds sound like on the internet.

[SlammaJamma]

Dunno if anyone posted this, but the video is describing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenb...inty_Principle ). What it comes down to is that observing the electron requires interacting with it somehow (ie, hitting it with light, etc.) and this interaction changes the properties of the electron. Sort of like looking at a roll of unused film. If you expose the roll of film to the light to see what it looks like, the light changes it and you no longer know what it was originally like.

What I've always found very interesting are the results of the different slit experiments ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction for more info on all this) and the behavior of light/particles in general.

Relativity and the wave/particle duality of light are the sort of things that made me decide to study physics.

BTW, that clip was very well done (although they did dramatize the whole thing a bit much). Is it part of a larger series or something?

[Scaglietti]

theres a scientific expplaination for everything, we just dont know the answer to this one yet.
Remember, the earth a long time ago was once accepted and KNOWN to be flat....

[KUDave]

Dunno if anyone posted this, but the video is describing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenb...inty_Principle ). What it comes down to is that observing the electron requires interacting with it somehow (ie, hitting it with light, etc.) and this interaction changes the properties of the electron. Sort of like looking at a roll of unused film. If you expose the roll of film to the light to see what it looks like, the light changes it and you no longer know what it was originally like.

Yeah I mentioned it above... my quantum chemistry may be a little rusty, but I believe the phenomena that you are describing is not the reason of why it disagrees with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. If one can accurately "observe" (as mentioned by the video) the electron, then one can determine it's position; hence, making it's momentum a solveable factor. Because of this, it is violation of HUP. The aformentioned work you were describing was actually throughly examined by Einstein and some other dead, foreign scientists

[Derek0783]

holy buckyballs, I just replied to this topic like 1 minute ago. How concidental; thats a very quantum situation indeed.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=720854


Anyways, that movie is a damn joke. Look up the controversy of that movie. Its a propaganda peice guys...sorry.

But this movie has an agenda so I suggest you don't learn from this source. It's more unfounded philosophy than hard science.

But this clip in this thread regarding electrons behavior changes under observation are true. Funny how the only clip you can find on the internet for free is one of the only parts of the movie not dealing with trying to persuade people with nutjob philosophy.

[gr8fubar420]

holy buckyballs, I just replied to this topic like 1 minute ago. How concidental; thats a very quantum situation indeed.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=720854


Anyways, that movie is a damn joke. Look up the controversy of that movie. Its a propaganda peice guys...sorry.

But this movie has an agenda so I suggest you don't learn from this source. It's more unfounded philosophy than hard science.

But this clip in this thread regarding electrons behavior changes under observation are true. Funny how the only clip you can find on the internet for free is one of the only parts of the movie not dealing with trying to persuade people with nutjob philosophy.

ya the movie site (whatthebleep.com) is a peice of ****. They are trying to spread stupid ideas about thinking **** into existance.

[A_C]

Okay is that video legit? Or is it something some random person made? Was that experiment carried out? And if so, any legit sources?

[Thin Build]

I forget the name of the physicist who discovered that, but the cartoon was so overly simplifed it was almost decieving. Basically, the observation of electrons caused a difference in the electrons behavior, not because the electrons knew they were being watched, but becuase of some slight interferance or interaction resulting from the overservation itself. Thus, much like humans, the behavior of an electron can change simply by the fact that it is being watched.

but htf could it be aware that it was being observed?

[Oz Enhanced]

The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side.

[Mw6wW]

Awesome

[LoveThyPain]

Physics was never really my thing, but this was an interesting find.

[-calvus-]

Okay is that video legit? Or is it something some random person made? Was that experiment carried out? And if so, any legit sources?

Yes this is legit. The video at the end breaks down a bit and its the implication that confuses people. This is a very common phenomenon in quantum physics. The theorys of relativity and quantum physics do not behave together. We can explain one or the other but rarely can we put the two into a single theory. The numbers just dont match (until string theroy that is but still pretty far out.) The chaotic and unpredictable behaviors in quantum mechanics is just so hard to predict unlike the very constant predictable nature of Einsteins theory of relativiey. We can easily measure mass, velocity, distance of even objects millions of light years away based on how objects behave and act with eachother here on earth. Magnify the model to the size of a distant star or supernova and both sides of the equation match. When the model gets smaller however and dives into quantum physics, the behavior is nothing similar. Why is this? Theres the biggest question. How can we have two models of how the universe work act so differently.

[-calvus-]

For those who like this sort of thing, heres NOVA's explanation of what I talked about above. It gives a good introduction into quantum physics. I miss this suff in school.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Edit again- second part, two conflicting set of laws. If you like the idea of string theroy then watch them all.

[TheIronGame]

It could do the same thing with light.. Consider how delicate electrons and other matter is. The slightest miniscule inkling of change could disrupt anything.

Their camera, or whatever equipment they used to observe the experiment would no doubt change things. It's a machine, machines have to vent and out of the vents come air and who knows what kind of other things radiate off of these kinds of equipment. This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is common sense, but people always like to make things into something they're not, even scientists sometimes. Our world isn't quite as mysterious as we want it to be, no matter how much we pretend.

Your right, you just solved something the worlds brightest physicists have been trying to solve for years now...**** we should just hand the Nobel prize in physics directly to you...

DG

[Ward17]

lol...ill ask my physics teacher...

[JamesD3]

That was prob the best five minutes of your life, so stop b^tchin.

WOW, that was some deep ****. Now I am jealous that I am not a nerd to understand all this crap.

Funny how you try to put out that you're not a nerd.

[RiK]

Verrry interesting info guys, fascinates me.

[user4165146510]

Quantum Physics and nuclear technologies, such as supercolliders, superconductors or cold nuclear fusion are making discoveries scientists only dreamed of. It's amazing to marvel at human achievement and a knowledge base that is constantly expanding. String theory is radically changing our ideas about the nature of space, opening up the possibility that extra dimensions, rips in the fabric of space, and parallel universes actually exist. That is why I laugh when people say they have the world figured out by reading a book that is over 2000 years old... lol

I'm glad people devote their lives toward to advancement of mankind rather than discussing Chuck Norris and silverback gorillas...




good post.

[klepto]

Im taking a philosphy class on death and after watching this i feel the same way i do every time after leaving that class...like i just got punched in the face.

[Jon341427]

... it already fooled them once by acting like a wave. why would they come up with the dumbest most out there possible conclusion for why it does that?? maybe the measuring thing interfeers with the particles some how.

[UCLA2006]

Wow Amazing

[US_Ranger]

Quantum Physics and nuclear technologies, such as supercolliders, superconductors or cold nuclear fusion are making discoveries scientists only dreamed of. It's amazing to marvel at human achievement and a knowledge base that is constantly expanding. String theory is radically changing our ideas about the nature of space, opening up the possibility that extra dimensions, rips in the fabric of space, and parallel universes actually exist. That is why I laugh when people say they have the world figured out by reading a book that is over 2000 years old... lol

I'm glad people devote their lives toward to advancement of mankind rather than discussing Chuck Norris and silverback gorillas...




good post.

Oh the irony!

You say how we're scratching the surface on knowledge of all this and then go on to say how some people use a 2000 year old book? We're constantly changing our theories already so how do you know that things from a 2000 year old book won't be proved right eventually?

[Andrew99]

I forget the name of the physicist who discovered that, but the cartoon was so overly simplifed it was almost decieving. Basically, the observation of electrons caused a difference in the electrons behavior, not because the electrons knew they were being watched, but becuase of some slight interferance or interaction resulting from the overservation itself. Thus, much like humans, the behavior of an electron can change simply by the fact that it is being watched.

Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and others. Its the fundamental basis of quantum mechanics, that electrons can be described only by a wave function which determines a probability of any property. The probability is not 100%, however when you observe, you "collapse" the wavefunction into an "eigenstate" which is a defined (not probablistic) state. So, basically, it only has a probability of being in some state (spin up, spin down, here or there), but when you look it is either in one or the other state. By setting up an interference between the two states, without looking, you can get evidence for the probablistic nature of the wavefunction, ie see the interference pattern. If you look while doing the experiment, the property of the wavefunction goes away. This is one of the harder things for new students of QM to understand (philisophically, the math is another story). Its not the interference of looking by the energy of the device, its the actual act of observing. A simpler way of thinking about it is that any device you use to observe the behavior of an electron imparts an interference that is big (to the electron), so there is no way of looking and not touching. That's easier to understand, but is not precisely correct from the philospohy of QM point of view. But it helps some students sleep better at night.

[MDX]

The only asumption I would assume is the device that was watching the elctron must of effected the electron. Maybe by sending out some microscopic signals that we have neer seen before

[zoo]

If you are interested enough to read about it, then find either book, "Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality", or "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat", both by John Gribbin.

I actually read "Schrodinger's Cat" by John Gribbin believe it or not. He's a good writer I recommend his other books on the subject of Astrophysics.

[braincrusher]

would professor dingus let me piitb?