Quake3World

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &q=quantum

Stuff trips me out, i love it.

That's fucking with my head. I need to go lie down now.

exactly

*sticks a bunch of needles through 2 slits into donny's back*

Do you feel a wave pattern?

Transient wrote:*sticks a bunch of needles through 2 slits into donny's back*

Do you feel a wave pattern?

no but my leg is singing

ok, now that made fucking sense. why couldn't school science be this easy to follow?

I have heard good things about the movie its from 'What the bleep' supposedly it is excellent on matters like this and more spiritual

That's some fucked up shit.

Loved this.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle describes why measuring particles on a atomic and subatomic level changes them.

I thought they made the end a little ambiguous as they seem to imply that it's the observer that alters the system when it's the interaction of particles, not the conscious observer that's most important.

In the subatomic world the only way to observe a particle is to bounce another particle off it. To use a well known example: It's as if the only way to determine the position of a bowling ball is by bouncing another bowling ball off it. Just the act of attempting to measure it, changes it's path.

seremtan wrote:ok, now that made fucking sense. why couldn't school science be this easy to follow?

Because school science is a lot more 'in-depth' than some introduction into science for children that has little more than entertainment value?

dmmh wrote:I have heard good things about the movie its from 'What the bleep' supposedly it is excellent on matters like this and more spiritual

no, it's not. it's fucking retarded. it's some weird cult that did interviews with a few scientists then edited the interview together to make it sound like there was support for their nonsense.

menkent wrote:

dmmh wrote:I have heard good things about the movie its from 'What the bleep' supposedly it is excellent on matters like this and more spiritual

no, it's not. it's fucking retarded. it's some weird cult that did interviews with a few scientists then edited the interview together to make it sound like there was support for their nonsense.

This is an out-take from that movie? Not sure if that's what you're saying.

I liked the factual part of this clip and the way it was explained. What I didn't like was at the very end when they used a human eye to represent the measuring device, saying "the particle 'decided' to behave differently" (as if it was making a conscious choice) and ended it with a woman putting sunglasses on and walking in the park. They were making a link there that was inaccurate.

Unlike, say a bat, that emits sound waves and intereprets the wave interruption, the human eye does not emit light. It passively interprets wave interruption of light waves that are produced by other sources.

In order to measure electrons, the measuring device emits particles (like the bat emitting sound waves) and these particles are what interacts with the electrons being fired and effects their path.

It was a bit deceptive to have the measuring device represented by a human eye.

SplishSplash wrote:

seremtan wrote:ok, now that made fucking sense. why couldn't school science be this easy to follow?

Because school science is a lot more 'in-depth' than some introduction into science for children that has little more than entertainment value?

if it's an intro to science how can it be for "little more than entertainment"?

"in-depth" means jack shit if the person listening doesn't follow or understand the significance of what they're hearing through a lack of context or explanation of the progression of the problem-situation over time, because ordinary people don't relate well to abstract problems while they do relate well to the struggle of other people to solve those problems, and through understanding that struggle they can come to understand the nature of the problems being solved - an inkling of which was conveyed by this simple cartoon

but of course, you knew that

We've the double slit and the single slit experiments with a laser in physics. I didn't know that the observer changes things though, interesting.

Wabbit wrote:

menkent wrote:

dmmh wrote:I have heard good things about the movie its from 'What the bleep' supposedly it is excellent on matters like this and more spiritual

no, it's not. it's fucking retarded. it's some weird cult that did interviews with a few scientists then edited the interview together to make it sound like there was support for their nonsense.

This is an out-take from that movie? Not sure if that's what you're saying.

I liked the factual part of this clip and the way it was explained. What I didn't like was at the very end when they used a human eye to represent the measuring device, saying "the particle 'decided' to behave differently" (as if it was making a conscious choice) and ended it with a woman putting sunglasses on and walking in the park. They were making a link there that was inaccurate.

Unlike, say a bat, that emits sound waves and intereprets the wave interruption, the human eye does not emit light. It passively interprets wave interruption of light waves that are produced by other sources.

In order to measure electrons, the measuring device emits particles (like the bat emitting sound waves) and these particles are what interacts with the electrons being fired and effects their path.

It was a bit deceptive to have the measuring device represented by a human eye.

true, but the eye does reflect some light, so saying it is passive isn't quite right

(so I'm told)

Wabbit wrote:To use a well known example: It's as if the only way to determine the position of a bowling ball is by bouncing another bowling ball off it. Just the act of attempting to measure it, changes it's path.

Now see, THAT makes sense!

Wabbit wrote:

menkent wrote:

dmmh wrote:I have heard good things about the movie its from 'What the bleep' supposedly it is excellent on matters like this and more spiritual

no, it's not. it's fucking retarded. it's some weird cult that did interviews with a few scientists then edited the interview together to make it sound like there was support for their nonsense.

This is an out-take from that movie? Not sure if that's what you're saying.

I liked the factual part of this clip and the way it was explained. What I didn't like was at the very end when they used a human eye to represent the measuring device, saying "the particle 'decided' to behave differently" (as if it was making a conscious choice) and ended it with a woman putting sunglasses on and walking in the park. They were making a link there that was inaccurate.

Unlike, say a bat, that emits sound waves and intereprets the wave interruption, the human eye does not emit light. It passively interprets wave interruption of light waves that are produced by other sources.

In order to measure electrons, the measuring device emits particles (like the bat emitting sound waves) and these particles are what interacts with the electrons being fired and effects their path.

It was a bit deceptive to have the measuring device represented by a human eye.

Oh now it all makes sense. OF COURSE it will change things!

Wabbit wrote:In the subatomic world the only way to observe a particle is to bounce another particle off it. To use a well known example: It's as if the only way to determine the position of a bowling ball is by bouncing another bowling ball off it. Just the act of attempting to measure it, changes it's path.

exactly - this is why "what the bleep" is a piece of shit. They convey only one interpretation of QM and act as if that is the official one that is known (i.e. there is some mysterious force of consciousness which has a causal role upon the system). What is more likely, imo, is the explanation Wabbit just gave.

ToxicBug wrote:

Wabbit wrote:

menkent wrote: no, it's not. it's fucking retarded. it's some weird cult that did interviews with a few scientists then edited the interview together to make it sound like there was support for their nonsense.

This is an out-take from that movie? Not sure if that's what you're saying.

I liked the factual part of this clip and the way it was explained. What I didn't like was at the very end when they used a human eye to represent the measuring device, saying "the particle 'decided' to behave differently" (as if it was making a conscious choice) and ended it with a woman putting sunglasses on and walking in the park. They were making a link there that was inaccurate.

Unlike, say a bat, that emits sound waves and intereprets the wave interruption, the human eye does not emit light. It passively interprets wave interruption of light waves that are produced by other sources.

In order to measure electrons, the measuring device emits particles (like the bat emitting sound waves) and these particles are what interacts with the electrons being fired and effects their path.

It was a bit deceptive to have the measuring device represented by a human eye.

Oh now it all makes sense. OF COURSE it will change things!

Schrodinger's Cat man. read up on it

Wabbit wrote:This is an out-take from that movie? Not sure if that's what you're saying.

yea, this was a small clip. i've got nothing against the little intro to wave-particle weirdness in that clip... it's the bullshit they do with that extremely simplistic and math-free explanation that's worrisome.

MKJ wrote:

ToxicBug wrote:

Wabbit wrote: This is an out-take from that movie? Not sure if that's what you're saying.

I liked the factual part of this clip and the way it was explained. What I didn't like was at the very end when they used a human eye to represent the measuring device, saying "the particle 'decided' to behave differently" (as if it was making a conscious choice) and ended it with a woman putting sunglasses on and walking in the park. They were making a link there that was inaccurate.

Unlike, say a bat, that emits sound waves and intereprets the wave interruption, the human eye does not emit light. It passively interprets wave interruption of light waves that are produced by other sources.

In order to measure electrons, the measuring device emits particles (like the bat emitting sound waves) and these particles are what interacts with the electrons being fired and effects their path.

It was a bit deceptive to have the measuring device represented by a human eye.

Oh now it all makes sense. OF COURSE it will change things!

Schrodinger's Cat man. read up on it

yeah I know what it is, we've covered it in class.

seremtan wrote: if it's an intro to science how can it be for "little more than entertainment"?

"in-depth" means jack shit if the person listening doesn't follow or understand the significance of what they're hearing through a lack of context or explanation of the progression of the problem-situation over time, because ordinary people don't relate well to abstract problems while they do relate well to the struggle of other people to solve those problems, and through understanding that struggle they can come to understand the nature of the problems being solved - an inkling of which was conveyed by this simple cartoon

but of course, you knew that

Fact is, that clip gave you some information that is absolutely useless to you. Interesting perhaps, but useless. It could be useful if you were a nuclear physicist and understood the underlying principles and formulas. But you aren't.

So, since the information you just got is absolutely useless to you - unlike than the stuff you learn in school which only seems useless but actually can be applied pretty easily in most cases - you might as well watch Spongebob.

And that's why school is harder than watching TV.

"but of course, you knew that" - haha, way to be a patronizing asshole while thinking you just learned quantum mechanics from a cartoon.

That's some highly confusing shit right there, but luckily Wabbit's post saved the day.

yeah a few days back I read an article about light, in particular and how when you try to observe it as a particle it acts like one, and when you try to observe it as a wave it acts like a wave, freaky shit

fun! fun !?

ill tell you whats fun

skating down the edge of a razor blade with nothing but your bollocks as brakes

for extra goodness add vindear

yea baby.