@offsetSammy (I'm a physicist.):

Basically what @GlasWolf said. There are in principle an infinite number of things that can happen between the input and the output (you may for instance always add an extra self-energy term as shown in the video at 5:30 onwards), but usually only a few of all these infinite possible processes make up most of the total process.

To understand what I mean by that, it's important to remember that we are talking about quantum physics here. When we say that the different subprocesses have different probabilities, we don't mean that the particles choose (with a certain probaility) one of the possible Feynman diagrams to follow. No, in fact all the possible diagrams are followed at the same time. But the fact that some of the diagrams are more likely than others means that they are weigthed more heavily in the calculations. All the diagrams that contribute a tiny part to the total process can therefore be ignored, making the calculation much easier. And if your calculations turn out incorrect, you can simply add a few extra diagrams and try again.

This is also related to why the Feynman diagrams at first were met with scepticism by the physics community. Particles behave according to quantum mechanics, and don't go along straight lines as in the diagrams. But it turns out that they are very useful for translating the inherently counter-intuitive quantum physics into a language that is easier for the human brain to understand. They were therefore accepted as a very valuable tool, even though they are technically unphysical.

This may scare some to hear, but realistically speaking you may actually be able to make the opposite case. The case that in fact there are really no true "full numbers" as she is stating, that in fact these numbers are merely representations of fractions and other such logical pantomime... Exactly as @Mikus_Aurelius says Math is a very large framework of logical conclusions and determinations about numbers and their nature. It's up to us no matter the argument to decide and resolve the issue--maybe it changes how we use Math, but that TRULY is doubtful.

I could destroy her whole concept by reducing the entire mathematical world to a structure scheme that can ONLY be ever displayed as a fractional environment, except for 0 or infinity, as they are special forces unto Math. Why not also bring our ever lingering doubts about structure in the small scale into the mix? You can only know one of two facts (at the electron scale for example) leaving you with a permanent variable in every problem. Then we could bring in Quantum Mechanics to make it even more fun...

So I would ask her this question concerning .9999~ not equaling one. If we take two pinballs and start to count all the electrons--but, midway through we strip ONE electron from one pin; essentially making this our .9999~ pinball. By the time we get done counting the electrons which pinball will have less and which will have more? Well the problem is that IN FACT the pinball that had one taken off could actually NOW have more than the other pinball. So do either actually equal one?

This is why Mathematics are very specific, but in use--in the field--they will have LARGE caveats where the majority of the mental masturbation falls completely apart. Because, many of these discussions DO OCCUR at the EXTREMES of Math (if you know what I mean) and fundamentally the only places that use these parts are in extreme measurements; measurements where chance can become a powerful player.

Another way to look at this is to realize that the number missing--that doesn't equalize .999999~ to 1--is SO SMALL that it LITERALLY escapes anyway we have in our own Universe to describe it as energy, dimensions, vectors, scalars, or entropy. It is so small that it is essentially "virtual" to us, literally. Hopefully, this helps others understand why .9999~=1 (other than ALL OF THE PROOFS), it just has too.

>> ^shole:

Things do need to be simplified when doing a show of a limited time.
They can't do a show where it's like browsing wikipedia, jumping from one subject into some minute detail of it, and digging deeper until you forget what you were studying in the first place.
Not that i would mind if someone were to make a show like that.


exactly but the compromise is not saying verbs and words that have no real meaning. The compromise is saying , " this is what it is called " " these scientists have done x " "the ramifications are y"
and then include links at the end of a show or a short sting that tells people where to go if they are interested in perusing it or what books to read / maths to study.

The general public is ignorant as to what the basic principles of the scientific method are so trying to then explain the more abstract aspects of quantum mechanics is utterly futile.

Still the lecture was a realy good effort and most of it was fantastic , IT is depressing to me that your average joe on the street probably doesn't know of the slit experiment and that a good proportion of the adults in that room with him didn't .

>> ^spawnflagger:

I like the concept, but I cannot upvote it, because it has BLEEP-ing nothing to do with mother-BLEEP-ing quantum mechanics. It charges via magnetic induction, and you need a special battery/adapter on the device to do the charging.
The question is - will you pay $$$ for the mat and adapters, just so you don't have to plug a charge cable in?
It might be popular in the future if it becomes an open standard and all cell phones/etc have the charging circuits built in.


Oh I dunno... I think you can call it quantum mechanics, just like you can say an auto accident killed someone because of quantum mechanics, pauli exclusion principle quantum field theories etc. You sure as hell could come up with a quantum description for the electromagnetic interactions here right?

"Evolution doesn't "prove" there's no God, while quantum mechanics suggests there's plenty of spaces for (a) God to "hide"."


Using equivalent logic(?): Physiology suggests that there are plenty of spaces for God to hide. Such as in my rectum.

Imagine I come to you and say: "I have here, absolute, definitive proof that god doesn't exist."
You would surely say: "that's bullshit, I don't believe that, I know that god is real, I don't care what you say, etc". In fact, this is not hypothetical, it already happens with evolution, but that's another story.

Evolution doesn't "prove" there's no God, while quantum mechanics suggests there's plenty of spaces for (a) God to "hide".

Now, if YOU came to me or any atheist and said: "Here I have absolute, definitive proof god exists", we would say: "let me see that... hmm... yeah ok. I guess we were wrong. Fuck. This sucks, but god exists even though he's obviously an idiot and an asshole". we would change our minds, when faced with a contradicting reality.

There are people who would deny the existence of God if God appeared before them. I suspect that's why "He" don't bother...

Here's what really matters. People are violent animals disguised as rational beings. Without religion (or traditions) to decentralize their solipsism, they stay animals, however clever.

Atheism's not a religion but it's still a club, even if the only rule is, "Thou shalt not believe in the existence of any deities." I think that's a fair statement.

Maher believing he could bed the quality of tail he has in his stable without his millions? Now that's faith.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

How do you mean? The Miessner effect is purely quantum mechanical, in that, there is no classical mechanics analog for this behavior. And you need wave functions to explain the physics at all. If you want to understand it you can read Yip and Sauls paper...
>> ^westy:
No more or less Quantum than anything else



My point was that ultimately everything is quantum.

This only seems more Quantum on the face of it because its a counter intuitive behivoir at a human scale.

I think there could probably be a better way to describe it such as "magnetic Super conductor Wipe out" , "Magnetic levitation wipe out " , " super conductor levitation track" in this case the word quantum just seems to be used as gimmic / buzz word.

Still if it gets people to read into science and makes them exited about it cnt really complane

How do you mean? The Miessner effect is purely quantum mechanical, in that, there is no classical mechanics analog for this behavior. And you need wave functions to explain the physics at all. If you want to understand it you can read Yip and Sauls paper...
>> ^westy:

No more or less Quantum than anything else

There have been a few possible theories, a more like a strong hypothesis, that has alternate ideas for the presence of Dark Matter. One of which is simply more a misunderstanding by us of the nature of what is happening at a fundamental level concerning the internal structure and spin of galaxies; their part and full presentation into the full dynamics--the true inner workings--isn't fully realized yet, but they assert a new reason for the discrepancy in how the galaxy spins at different radii in that galaxy and in fact kill off the need for Dark matter. Secondly, it's our mathematics involved that have created this absolute need for Dark Matter to even exist, which is explained in the last part about this subject below. Lastly, a few findings like the outer arms, the large gas/ice/dust/etc... volumes (nebulae and plasma lit regions) and the stars (and their systems)--their movement rate on the outside edge of their respective galaxies, which if like "normal physics" (I quote that because if we made a mistake, the fault will always be ours and not the Universes ) would seem to show that the inside should rotate faster than the outside edges, which is not what happens at all--they rotate at the SAME speed. The actual math involved to solve this little mystery shows that there HAS TO be a large chunk of the Universe missing to get the mathematics to finally spit out numbers that work out. They have provided their own set of new cosmological equations that describe the motion within a galaxy; as of this writing they have tried the new math equations on four different galaxies that are known well. The reason this one has most likely been called a theory as of late is due to their new equations completely and correctly describing the motion of those galaxies, from origin, even until their virtual deaths--that makes this small theory the strongest front-runner for getting rid of Dark Matter altogether. This was a large paragraph, I made it small to make it a tad more readable.

But, Dark Matter is a very well-held theory for the scientific community though and it still has quite a bit of evidence for it's case as well. It has much more proof than this smaller theory does, but it's good to keep an open mind and let your mind run free with new ideas every so often as it may give you a new idea as well. Due to an idea I heard from a physicist: Lawrence Krauss, I was thinking about the Universe and some implications concerning Quantum Mechanics with possible larger scale events that are occurring with cosmologists looking for ways to explain things, but they are basically on the run--the fresh ideas are gone. Because, of the little creative idea above that explains away Dark Matter it triggered a provocative idea, one that I'm not qualified to answer or really even guess at (beyond it's initial qualities)--so I will send the idea off and see if they can maybe visualize what I'm implying just a little more clearly. I'm not entirely sure there will be a correct way to view this idea due to it's near "virtual"-like impact on our Universe, one that may be unprovable except for three possible ways I can think of. Two of which are beyond are capability right now, but we will have the ability later and the last using Quantum Foam experiments to look for certain types of superposition maybe even using entanglement (it would need to be a semi-radical setup that is "one-sided" in nature and using information concerning Dark Energy, as I'll finish here at the end of the sentence) that may relate to information that might be probable to gain through later scientific gathering, like the expansion rate or if it's nature is confined merely to space-time or if it actually occurs eventually all the way down to the subatomic.

I had the idea that perhaps Dark Energy could actually be the tell-tale signs of an existing second Big Bang merely hidden under our collective noses due too space-time and it's nature (maybe it's fairly "structurally sound" when it comes to a bubble fight) or it's an active component of the Quantum Mechanical universe, perhaps directly attributed to the Quantum Foam. I'm wondering--and of course I've got no real idea what a Universe "pressing" upon us might do, if this could even happen--if Dark Energy is the pressure wave of perhaps a secondary Universe, probably very much like ours,but the logical, mathematical,constants, and theories have either become slightly different to a lot or the Universe is unlike anything in our book; but I'm assuming it came from the same Quantum Foam that got us here which means it may have more in common with us that we know.

I'm going to try and get some more feedback on this and see if it proves to go elsewhere and opens new doors.

>> ^Ornthoron:

Good question, but I would phrase it a bit differently: Why is it needed?
It is needed because without it, mathematics would be incomplete. (It actually turns out later, thanks to Gödel, that mathematics in a sense is inherently incomplete, but let's not worry about that now.)
What I mean by that is that there are certain mathematical problems that require i to have a solution. The imaginary numbers come out naturally when you try to solve certain equations, just as for instance negative and rational numbers come out of equations.
If you start out with just the positive integers, which are the most intuitive numbers for us to contemplate, you run into a barrier if you try to solve the equation x + 2 = 0. To find a solution for x, you have to introduce negative numbers.
If you want to find a solution to the equation 3/x = 1, you need to expand your numbers to include rational numbers such as 1/3, which is the solution to this equation.
Further on, you get the irrational numbers by solving equations such as
x^2 = 2.
Finally, if you want to solve the equation x^2 = -1, you have to introduce i to your set of numbers. There is no other way to solve it.

We could try to go on in the same fashion, but it has been proven by mathematicians that these numbers are all you need to solve every mathematical problem you come across. As a physicist, I come across many equations that include complex numbers, especially in quantum mechanics. Other times you don't really need the complex numbers, but certain calculations become easier to solve if you use them. That's when they are practical, but they are also in a deeper sense a natural extension of the more well known real numbers.
>> ^schlub:
Interesting, I guess. But, how is this at all practical?



Do not believe his witchcraft. i stands for the Word "I" and is the way to introduce yourself into your equations if you are really high on acid and such.

Good question, but I would phrase it a bit differently: Why is it needed?

It is needed because without it, mathematics would be incomplete. (It actually turns out later, thanks to Gödel, that mathematics in a sense is inherently incomplete, but let's not worry about that now.)

What I mean by that is that there are certain mathematical problems that require i to have a solution. The imaginary numbers come out naturally when you try to solve certain equations, just as for instance negative and rational numbers come out of equations.

If you start out with just the positive integers, which are the most intuitive numbers for us to contemplate, you run into a barrier if you try to solve the equation x + 2 = 0. To find a solution for x, you have to introduce negative numbers.

If you want to find a solution to the equation 3/x = 1, you need to expand your numbers to include rational numbers such as 1/3, which is the solution to this equation.

Further on, you get the irrational numbers by solving equations such as
x^2 = 2.

Finally, if you want to solve the equation x^2 = -1, you have to introduce i to your set of numbers. There is no other way to solve it.


We could try to go on in the same fashion, but it has been proven by mathematicians that these numbers are all you need to solve every mathematical problem you come across. As a physicist, I come across many equations that include complex numbers, especially in quantum mechanics. Other times you don't really need the complex numbers, but certain calculations become easier to solve if you use them. That's when they are practical, but they are also in a deeper sense a natural extension of the more well known real numbers.

>> ^schlub:

Interesting, I guess. But, how is this at all practical?

@shinyblurry

I will not get engaged into a scientific debate about what is or isn't correct via Creationism or other ad hoc sciences, all based on religion FIRST and foremost. I will listen to actual science. Everything I have ever seen from your side (as I do see you in other comment threads, though I may not post) is against what the standard is in science. I put NO CREDIT behind anything that has absolutely no discussion from the scientific field. The argument is happening merely at the point that religion hits a functioning system in education or experiment.

My arguments come directly from college texts, teachers, and other approved scientific texts. If you want to understand my side, read them. I surely will not repeat what I learned by reading, studying, and experimenting. There are those out there that are willing to have long conversations on the topic, but that is not me.

May I also add whether you meant it to be a slight towards me (as I see it) or a general stance; if you believe that you truly are "higher" and see farther than Einstein, "The Shoulders of Giants", I would rethink that stance. That is what I meant if you took it any other way...

Quick edit- I will reply to the Robert Jastrow quote though. I would put ALL wagers off the table until science is fully done investigating this Universe, you may become very surprised at what you find. @shinyblurry , if you wish to know more about this phenomena look back in my blog entries at "From Nothing Comes Something (recent experiment)", I have a few added links dealing with this Quantum Mechanics subject and of course an article about a very intriguing experiment done. Watch this and this physicist may surprise you with something:

Secondary edit- I wanted to answer your question above about my feeling that I had a spiritual connection with God. I have to say that you have a great hatred towards Mormons. I've known them my whole life and I can reassuringly tell you that many of them are the nicest people that you would possibly meet. When there are disasters in areas around the country there is always a sense of community that is restored and people come together and help. When this happens in Salt Lake or the surrounding metropolitan area the community support is ridiculous. I had a tree get blown down in the little windstorm last week (Utah and California got hit, it was sustained 40-75 mph winds with gusts anywhere from 60-100 mph; I think we got maybe an 80 mph gust that took it out). The windstorm didn't end till about noonish, but I was just getting my chainsaw ready when I had about 14 people show up to help with my one tree. They brought their chainsaws and even had an industrial wood-chipper with them. We took down a 40 ft. tree in one hour. But, this sort of thing is the NORM. So just remember this, while I know Mormonism is very wrong in many ways, including the book of Mormon being incredibly wrong in so many ways (where are these HUGE bronze-age and some STEEL!-age remnants for archaeologists to look at and discover--I read the book of Mormon atleast twice and I can tell you that these civilizations were huge; HUGE compared to small archaeological finds. These were also big enough that someone somewhere should have found anything by now.

But, how you remarked about the Mormon religion to me seems to be very condescending. I find it funny that you're very overtly rude over something I no longer believe in and I have yet to say anything about your religion, as I have only spoke about what you have mentioned. I have in fact no notion of what you believe.

As to what I felt. While i may have had a bit of the "burning of the bosom" the key thing I felt was a presence upon my mind. I could feel it when I was scared, I could feel it when I was exhilarated. It felt like light, a light so bright that it pierced everything I did. I could almost feel it, a slight and wonderful warmth affecting my other senses as much as it would my sense of touch. I could almost perceive it via meditation and it seemed to be a line of light passing along and through me, it seemed to be one-dimensional if it could be felt. Later on it felt as though if I truly needed it, it would be there for me--it gave the connotation of a sword of light. So the question is: how much of this is in the mind...

To tell the truth I still can feel the same thing, but I'm warded against any action (like regaining a religion). I'm too fearful that it is in fact easier to be a tool for pain and hurt rather than one for truth. So if you ask me how religious I am even though I'm atheist, I will merely remark that I follow truth, where I can find it.

I hope you can understand that; maybe we share an equal ground here--if not elsewhere.

This idea basically stems from the idea and theoretical work relating to "Quantum Foam". It's been called a few other things, but that is the usual name. As far as Quantum Mechanics is concerned this is also some great framework to explain the big-bang; which is actually in a Physics talk on VideoSift somewhere, but I'll have to look it up.

This guy does a terrible job of presenting his facts. He's not wrong, strictly speaking, he just didn't say it in a way that made sense.

1.) "Teleportation" is a misnomer. "Quantum Teleportation" always refers to the act of destroying something at the source and recreating it at the destination.

2.) See above.

3.) It is a Bell measurement. The specifics get confusing unless you want to do a lot of reading.

The short version: The 'Bell Basis' of A-B is measured. Both qubits are destroyed. The information is sent to the person holding C, via traditional channels. The same process is performed (in reverse) on C. This creates a new copy of A, despite not knowing what it originally looked like.

Confusing as hell at first. But this is the exact experiment they did, and it works.

4.) Because he didn't make the infographic very well.

5.) See above.

6.) To measure the particle, we are bouncing electrons or light off the qubit and surrounding matter. This add energy to the system and therefore changes it's behavior. Therefore, measuring any particle changes it's state.

It's what makes Quantum Mechanics so fun!

>> ^messenger:

This doesn't explain clearly to me that this is teleportation.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'quantum mechanics, surfing, science' to 'quantum mechanics, surfing, science, hoverboard, hover board' - edited by MarineGunrock