Google Videos - Best of Google Video

More of this!!

This was great. Now I feel like a real smart dude.

This was actually quite interesting! I wish he was my teacher instead of the one I have now :P

Bleep: sorry to break it to you but i believe he is not for real

Awesome! Anyone know where it's from?

The clip is apparently from "What the bleep do we know" director's cut DVD. http://www.whatthebleep.com/ The full movie has some propaganda in it apparently, since this is produced by "followers of Ramtha". http://skepdic.com/channel.html :)

This is a load of crap! in the case of the electrons causing interference; this is nothing new. Ordinary light-particles, photons, have long been known for behaving like particles and waves at the same time, just like the electrons in the clip. Sub-atomic particles, like electrons, are not self aware, they're just in 2 different states simultaneously. It's like having a fruit that is an apple and orange at the same time. It's hard to grasp but in the world of quantum mechanics it's quite logical.

The thing they teach is not crap. The thing about the pattern changing upon adding an observer is supported by wikipedia for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

God created electrons you know, my ass!

djdgyjdtyjdgmdgjdtue567w47w4 w48)/()V &)&() ()%/

What is matter? Never mind. What is the mind? It doesn't matter.

very interesting!

Very Cool!

Very interesting

C'est super génial^_^ trop intéressant ce truc

Best demonstration of this subject I have ever seen!

Man, I wish all my classes were this interessting.

wow! excellent explanation. wish i had this for physics!

eccelente, bizzarisimo

Marcus, he's discussing what happened in the early twentieth century. Of course it's old news. That doesn't mean any of it's wrong, though; the quantum world knows when it's being watched. Plus, he explained the superpositions and how they collapse when observed. Nothing he said is crap...

this will give me all sorts of paranoia

If this is true, then it's unbelievable! So does this mean that things are solid particles just because we can see it? This raises more questions than answers. Interesting nonetheless.

It is perfectly possible for a universe, even ours, to exist where nothing exists until it is observed in some way. In this case the tree falling in the woods not only would make no sound, but would not even exist, unless someone was there to hear and see it.

How can something "observe" (that creates existance) without it first being existing?

I think the whole idea of something not existing until its observed is just a human frame of mind. There are forces at work that we cannot with all our scientific knowledge comprehend in measurable form (dark matter, wormhole physics) yet without them the universe would be a much more chaotic place, probably not even a place at all.

Don't take it for face value, research it some. Ulf made a good point, Google it.

Kenny: I'm with you, I don't think either that he is a real human

I like quantum physics. I still find the theory about observations "creating" the universe to be slightly difficult to embrace. Nothing that doesn't do anything doesn't exist. Creepy.

As an student of engineering physics I want to say that is quite an good presentation of the subject. What is more intresting that he does not talk about is that scientist now can make this work with atoms and small molecules. If you studies the laws of quantum mecanics it is nothing strange with this behavier. But what was amazing when, in the early 1900, they first came across this behavier was that it did not follow the normal laws of mecanics that had worked for quite some time. Take a course or to in physics, its realy intressting.

Quantam physics is damn confusing. I get it, but I don't get it. Argh! Why must my thought processes be as confusing as the thought it's trying to process!?

I am just a simple psychologist, but I think the teacher was wrong in his conclusions. I tried to apply analogy proof, which is a no-no. I think you cann ot - at the quantum level - just observe. You must direct rays or a stream of particles at hte object you want to watch - and then by recording the fate of those particles or rays come to the conclusion of what happened. I.e. the observer interfered with the object he was watching.

correction "He tried" not "I tried"

correction "He tried" not "I tried"

Sigvardl -- I thought something like that myself -- I mean, how could they look at something from that up close ? Who knows it always works like a waves, but the observing device simply interfered with its wave pattern, that it resorted to the straightforward approach? I might just be bullshitting, but who knows... it might be something along those lines!

sigvardl and Mesingel- It makes total sense. If he interfereed with the electrons by sendend light, magnetic stuff or something like that at the electron before it went through the slit he interfered with it. So long we agree. But because he interfered with it, the electron choose/didnt too behave like it was matter and not affected by the sorting of liquid physics (like water). Therefore, if he wanted to meisure without interfere, he used light. But does light interfere with electrons??

The bottom line is there is no such thing as a passive observer. All actions of observing the universe adds to its complexity, and change it in ways we can't imagine. Even you reading this sentence changes the universe, it will send potons to your eyes, thoughts to your brain, heat from your monitor to your room ... I started the chain of reaction bt typing this, and you continue the chain, without even noticing. The circle of life continues :)

Amazing! Truly amazificating! I wish my teacher was like that! :Weep:

The movie this is from actually uses a lot of psuedoscience. For instance, it explains that particles are part of space, and space is nothing, therefore, particles are nothing. Then it says that light travels everywhere simultaneous. So if particles are nothing, and light is everywhere, the same object must be everywhere and simply picks a point at random, which it obviously doesn't. It just changes a couple of things, but that seperates the whole factual aspect of it. It's more philosophy and metaphysics than science. Interesting, but not something one should mistake as solid, realistic truth.

Correction: I meant to say "simultaneously". And the clip it goes into with the lady with the sunglasses walking is where it gets into the part I just mentioned. It uses the example of a boy bouncing a basketball, and says that the basketball is everywhere and something about it never TRULY touching the ground. Which is right...almost...

i saw this movie and i remember the part with the boy on the basketball court but not this clip, which is really interesting

Best teacher ever!

That was pretty cool even though it didn't really explain why it happened. Electrons behave that because of Particle/wave Duality. Matter with no intrinsic mass can be expressed as a wave and a particle. A light wave and a photon for example. The fact they behave differently when observed is explained by Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. particles like photons and electrons are so small they have to be observed with scanning electron microscopes which fire electrons at the target and record the reflected electrons. So if you hit an electron with another electron you change it's course, making it impossible to properly observe it. The Uncertainty principle states you can either know a particles speed or direction but not both. A Breif history of time by Stephen Hawkings is a great book for explaining this kind of thing better. I'm just a mechanic so I'm not the best person to do it.

observing means interference. observing is getting information about something. in order to do that something else has to interfere with the observed, and bring the information to the observer. so, in the end, the observer is disturbing the process. pretty simple, no magic...

its just as Waldo said. this is what makes determinism not only practically, but also theoretically impossible.

even sub-atomic particles act differntly in private.LOL

Its like in games, you "stream" the world, instead of loading it all at once. :)

^^I was commenting the "if a tree falls in a wood and no-one was around it" comments, above.

boring. it's the physics basics. nothing new or interesting.

Forget the Wu Li crap. Observance IS interference. On such a small delicate scale, the approximate view that you can observe without being a part of the experiment falls apart. The measuring device can't help but perturb things. Nothing shocking about that. Giving the electron human characteristics, like it "knows it's being watched and changes it's behavior", is quite deceptive. Listen to Niels Bohr... just do the math and use it for predictions, don't get all mystical because it's not warranted. Ah, I just noticed Aldaris said something damn similar. Cheers dude.

someone´s right ;) @all : check the internet (Wikipedia, ... ) and READ your ass out on that topic... you won´t understand it by watching that kiddie-comic-stuff...

I think God gave us the answer within our holyspirt. It makes sense to me!We do not need to look to science for the answers..That is why the ""eye they set up could not see the truth..

Or, Azcountrygirl, it could be electric charges and stuff. Why must God contradict science? They should be one and the same. No need to turn it into another hate-filled religious debate, which I know will probably happen because that's what ALWAYS happens with videos on here. Oh, and I'm not sure if you're aware, but this video was made by members of a cult called The Followers of Ramath or something like that.

At Azcountrygirl, there is no god.

Awesome animation!

This experiment IS real. It can be shown over and over again in laboratory settings. Ask any physicist.