Light is both a particle and a wave. It seems confusing to average Joe, and it may seem to be a paradox, but the definition of "paradox" is: An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises. A paradox is not a "circular statement." That is something entirely different. That may be what you are thinking of when you think "paradox." When I was studying the quantum mechanics section of physical chemistry class, I honestly thought I would go crazy. It is NOT easily graspable. The equations that Schrodinger used and others like him used are insanely complicated. In the end, I, like everyone else, forgot all the equations and only remembered the concepts and the sheer TERROR of it all. If anyone here chooses to pursue it in curiosity, I recommend keeping to the general terms and avoiding the math... unless you're a genius or some sort of servant, that is.

Anyway, relativity is easy to buy and it has been proven. In brief, they synchronized an atomic clock "stationary" on the ground (that is, it was the "stationary" frame of reference for the experiment) and an atomic clock on a high-speed jet that proceeded to fly VERY fast around the world and such. At the end of the experiment the clock on the jet was BEHIND the one on the ground. There were significant and quality controls in place that allow us to conclude that time itself was moving at a relatively slower rate on the jet than it was on the ground. Light is related to both velocity and "length" of space. A GREAT explanation can be easily found on Wikipedia.

The mind-boggling part of this is that if you are on the top of a high mountain, you are experiencing time at a slower rate than those in a valley. Soooo, if you wanna life a millionth of a second longer than the Jones's in the valley, get thee to a mountain.

Also of note, several authors have used special relativity as a key part in their works, see the "Ender's Game" series (A LEGENDARY CLASSIC) in which Ender et.al. sometimes jets off into space at HUGE speeds in order to let a HUGE amount of time pass before he returns.

I absolutely love special relativity, but it really complicates everything. Newton may have been right about a number of things, but not on a quantum level. And not in reality in fact. Chaos theory is the new Newtonian theory. Now THAT is fun stuff.

In brief? Chaos Theory is the idea that in order for one to understand an event in REALITY, one must include EVERY SINGLE VARIABLE in addition to Newtonian physical calculation. That means: the mass of the object, the wind, the air resistance, the chemical make-up of the air at that moment and throughout the experiment, the particulate matter in the air, the light amount and angle, the gravity, the velocity relative to the many gravity sources, the many gravity sources, the human error, the sensor error, and on and on and on. This is of basically impossible since it would change constantly... in other words, it would change so fast that you would not be able to isolate a single moment with everything stable. mwahahaha fun.

And all this makes Rougy's citation absolutely relevant: "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."

Good quote, dude.

Quantum Mechanics was the SINGLE MOST PAINFUL CLASS I'VE EVER FREAKING TAKEN.
Anyone who survives Physical Chemistry deserves a year-long vacation if you ask me. I'm still waiting for mine. WTH.
Schrodinger is my worst freaking enemy. Never have I felt so insufficient.

>> ^supersaiyan93:
Schrodinger's kitteh.

wow, a hilarious and intellectual 2 word comment in a lolcat thread? maybe VS is OK after all!

Schrodinger's kitteh.

The 'collapse of the wave function' is a mathematical term relating to a measurement being taken of a quantum system. NOT that they don't interact - this is wrong, the opposite in fact is true.

It is real world *predictions* from the mathematics that cannot be made, due to the uncertainty of knowing initial conditions - which is heisenberg uncertainty. This is the basis of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment which is a quantum system linked to a physical real world event.

Ok, folks. Here's my take.

Initial impressions: Each interview is very shortened and not always as thorough as should be expected, but nothing is outright incorrect. I'm getting the distinct impression that this video is cutting out hours and hours of interviews to get a few little blips of speech that are being slapped together by layman TV people to get the nice easy piece they want. For example, I'm not particularly sure why Professor Lloyd is brought in, he seems to be speaking to an entirely different set of questions than the video is supposed to be asking.

Eric, the roulette table is in reference to the Schrodinger wave equation and its implication in wave function collapse. In theoretical terms, the video is putting forward an interpretation of such an event, specifically Everett's many worlds hypothesis. If you want an explanation, I can put one together for you, but altogether it's a reasonable (albeit not the most widely-held) hypothesis, insofar as quantum mechanical hypotheses are.

Overall, the video just seems to be very disjointed and sloppy. Each speaker is cohesive individually, but the leaps the video is making are not connected and occasionally simply off-topic.

I'm tempted to leave this video in the Science Channel because it's at least making people ask questions. The question "Are there parallel universes?" is one that is still in the hypothesis stage without substantial data in support of or against an answer either way, so it falls within the softer side of science, the part not yet locked down by solid evidence. In this sense, the video is still in keeping with scientific principles.

I am, however, concerned that this video does seem to be misleading in that it is presenting a number of phenomena and theories that are not quite topical or sufficiently linked as to be topical to the specific question of whether parallel universes exist, and doesn't place them appropriately. Why are they getting into entanglement theory? Why are they talking about quantum computers? ....I don't really know. Hell, they don't even distinguish a change in topics when they move from the "Dang there could be multiple versions of you within the same universe because the universe could be infinitely big" theory to the "Holy crap there could be multiple universes because there could be branching due to quantum decoherence" theory. Bad bad bad. Naughty TV show.

In short, I think I see both sides of the argument here. KP, you're right, I think the scientists are cool and damn smart (and Seth Lloyd is fucking BALLER) and their research and theories are great. Irishman and Jonny, you're right, the overall video is being screwed up by crappy TV program producers/editors and their regrettable fill-in voice-overs. I'm at a loss for what to do. I think I'll come back, see how a few more people weigh in, and then decide whether this video stays or goes.

P.S. If you happen to think a video in the Science Channel is questionable, please let me know via profile comment or email. I happen to be SWAMPED in my own research, and I don't have near enough time to clean out all the swill from the channel as throughly, as often or as quickly as I would like.

Would prefer the second experiment use an opaque bottle...

Schrodinger's Ninja Cat

According to the Many Worlds theory- an interpretation of quantum mechanics that is undergoing a kind of renaissance of examination- the quantum level events DO scale to the macro level, we in our universe only perceive one possible quantum outcome but all other possibilities are simultaneously occurring in other parallel universes. Therefore Schrodinger's cat may be dead in our universe, but is wholly alive in another. The waveform function of our Macro universe does not collapse at all- all possibilities exist.

In reply to this comment by Memorare:
maybe siftbot is operating in some parallel universe where time is sped up.

In these physics videos one thing they never offer an explaination for is why the quantum level events don't scale up and occur on our macro level since everything is made up of sub-atomic particles organized as atoms. As with the Schroedinger's Cat paradox it would be kind of disappointing to finally discover a unified theory of everything, only to learn that it really doesn't matter since it doesn't scale up to mundane reality and therefore only "exists" as a theoretical concept. (personally i think the notion that the cat is both dead AND alive simultaneaously and observation determines which, is a lot of mathematical bs, ie it's not Really true except on paper but then i'm not a cosmologist or metaphysicist so what do i know)

Also, a simpler question that has an answer but i just don't know what it is...
with all the anti-matter positrons bombarding the planet via cosmic rays, don't they ever bang into some electrons and create a tiny but big enough to be measured matter/anti-matter explosion? Sure matter is mostly empty (or not so empty apparently) space and possible collisions are few, but cloud chambers indicate tons of these thigns zipping around so Howcome there's not bazillions of these tiny explosions going off all around us constantly?

According to the Many Worlds theory- an interpretation of quantum mechanics that is undergoing a kind of renaissance of examination- the quantum level events DO scale to the macro level, we in our universe only perceive one possible quantum outcome but all other possibilities are simultaneously occurring in other parallel universes. Therefore Schrodinger's cat may be dead in our universe, but is wholly alive in another. The waveform function of our Macro universe does not collapse at all- all possibilities exist.

Calling BULLSHIT on me? OH NOES, SERIOUS BUSINESS. Well, ok then, BATTLE ON CAPS LOCK CRUISE CONTROL.

(Patriot, I'm sorry I won't be addressing your specific concerns in this post, but Qruel really wants to earn that Earth Badge so he can catch 'em all and get this sift back in the mecca of manhood that is the Science channel, so this one's for him but you may read along as you please and we can continue our discussion once the dust settles and the poo falls.)

Now, where was I? ALLONS-Y PIKACHU GO.

SCIENCE CHANNEL
Funny how you just happened to leave off the second part of my channel's description. Let's read that part, shall we?

"Be proud that although quality science videos are somewhat rarer to come by and harder to find, we do not play to the lowest common denominator, that rather our Science sifts are raising the bar and challenging all sifters to step up and THINK.

On a casual note, what belongs here: science-related sifts, obviously. Please be sure not to sift technology-only videos, or slightly geeky/nerdy videos. Videos belong here only if there is something definitely about science in them. This can include appropriate descriptions, so be sure to add more reading material when possible. In addition, if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate."

Note that last bit there. It's the same reason why I will kick out videos that say we never landed on the moon because the earth is actually flat. Oh, sure, it's a theory. It's also an incorrect theory. The term science is so damn broad that it could encompass damn near everything, but I'm not going to lower the quality of sifts on my channel just because it might include something poorly passable as science. It should NOT matter whether I agree or not IT IS BAD SCIENCE AND SO IT GETS KICKED OUT OF THE CHANNEL.
______________________________________________

I went to the Science channel and checked out videos and comments and have had a number of instances where I require submitters to prove the worthiness of their video, and subsequently removed it from the channel. That's not our job. It's my job. You think I don't require the same certain standard for other sifts? Tell me exactly what my comment was on this Schrodinger's Cat sift. Hell, and that's even well within scientifically supported theory, rather than a theory that's been dissed and dismissed for decades. Don't tell me about how I'm running the Science channel. I would know. I RUN IT, CHRIS BROWN STYLE.

This video discusses SCIENCE, and as I stated, IT DOESN'T MATTER. There are a shitload of intelligent design apologists' videos out there that discuss SCIENCE and I sure as hell won't willingly put those religious closet-case videos on here either.

I'm reading through your post above and I see numerous NON-SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES to studies done on fluoride by BIASED WEBSITES and just happened to notice that YOU FAILED TO QUOTE ANY STUDIES YOURSELF. Copy-pasting is not exactly awe-inspiring debate, and copy-pasting sources that can't be described with words like "PEER REVIEWED" and "STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT" and "DIRECT PROOF" is actually not even worth debating. Come back with real sources and then maybe we can actually begin the debate proper.

I kicked the video out after putting on a number of comments on fluoride and getting nowhere, specifically the part about meeting on even scientific ground by citing papers from well-accepted journals. And here you are again, copy-pasting from FLUORIDETRUTH911.org or whatever site it is you've found on Google.

I should NOT reinstate this video into the SCIENCE channel until I really feel like it deserves to be there, and I hate to say that things don't look promising.

Now, let's take a look at two real scientific papers! I'm going to toss these out here, and you come back and analyze the data and refute the conclusions. I'm serious. You can choose to meet me on a scientifically-accepted level, or this sift can sit and watch all the real science sifts play while psychic healing videos try to get it to pay attention to them.

STUDY 1 WO MEN QU LE HAO DOU TIAN
Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review.
Abstract: The aim of this paper was to critically review the current role of community water fluoridation in preventing dental caries. Original articles and reviews published in English language from January 2001 to June 2006 were selected through MEDLINE database. Other sources were taken from the references of the selected papers. For the past 50 years community water fluoridation has been considered the milestone of caries prevention and as one of the major public health measures of the 20th century. However, it is now accepted that the primary cariostatic action of fluoride occurs after tooth eruption. Moreover, the caries reduction directly attributable to water fluoridation have declined in the last decades as the use of topical fluoride had become more widespread, whereas enamel fluorosis has been reported as an emerging problem in fluoridated areas. Several studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities suggested that this method of delivering fluoride may be unnecessary for caries prevention, particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has became low. Although water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in poor and disadvantaged populations, the use of topical fluoride offers an optimal opportunity to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries.

This article is gathering evidence through a metastudy of sorts in order to analyze the efficacy of community water fluoridation in preventing dental damage associated with low fluoride levels in combination with poor dental care (significant past 0.1%) while also noting that efficacy drops off due to proper fluoridation through topical application and personalized regular professional dental care. The paper goes on to suggest that suboptimal care results in a negative trending in the absence of general fluoridation.

STUDY 2 VAMOS A LEER DESU
Position of the American Dietetic Association: the impact of fluoride on health.
Abstract: The American Dietetic Association reaffirms that fluoride is an important element for all mineralized tissues in the body. Appropriate fluoride exposure and usage is beneficial to bone and tooth integrity and, as such, has an important, positive impact on oral health as well as general health throughout life. Fluoride is an important element in the mineralization of bone and teeth. The proper use of topical and systemic fluoride has resulted in major reductions in dental caries (tooth decay) and its associated disability. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have named fluoridation of water as one of the 10 most important public health measures of the 20th century. Nearly 100 national and international organizations recognize the public health benefits of community water fluoridation for preventing dental caries. However, by the year 2000, over one third of the US population (over 100 million people) were still without this critical public health measure. Fluoride also plays a role in bone health. However, the use of high doses of fluoride for prevention of osteoporosis is considered experimental at this point. Dietetics professionals should routinely monitor and promote the use of systemic and topical fluorides, especially in children and adolescents. The American Dietetic Association strongly reaffirms its endorsement of the appropriate use of systemic and topical fluorides, including water fluoridation, at appropriate levels as an important public health measure throughout the life span.

Now, mind you, this is a position paper from the WORLD'S LARGEST ORGANIZATION OF FOOD AND NUTRITION PROFESSIONALS, WITH OVER THREE QUARTERS OF THE MEMBERSHIP AS REGISTERED DIETITIANS. Functional as a broadscope metastudy, the ADA took the position by announcing their support of fluoridation, noting the support of the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL, THE UNITED STATES' AGENCY FOR MONITORING DISEASE AND EFFECTING PROPER PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY IN RESPONSE. The ADA notes that high doses of fluoride have typically been avoided, while also noting the organization's widespread and unanimous rejection of the theory that fluoride levels have reached toxic levels or that such levels of toxicity are even accurate. Furthermore, they note that levels of toxicity have not been well-established in comparison to demonstrable negative health effects beyond surface-level observation of the possibility of dental caries developing with rats exposed to doses many times those any community in the US receives. They outright reject the theory that high levels of fluoride, even at factors well beyond the maximum range that limits first world countries' drinking supplies, can result in complications beyond aesthetically-noticeable but healthwise insignificant dental issues, even countering with a notable upcoming experimental study on the use of even higher doses of fluoride for pre-empting the development of osteoporosis.




Now feel free to sort through this comment's combination of knowledge and bullshit that I've just dropped in a steaming pile on this sift. Oh, and watch out....it's fluoridated.

Great clip! The comic quantum-probability waves generated from this endlessly creative clip (process) has caused states of laughability well beyond the perplexities of "Schrodinger's Cat" uncovering the eternally amusing ambiguities of the "Vedantic Net" of the Unitary Quantum Sea we swim in as the non-local beautiful wave-functions collapse into local high-resolution Actuality due to "Mind's Eye" "observation" generated in ripples from the Universal Vacuum State (fluxuations) or the Super-Implicate Order (not chaos) Ground Of Being of the Majesty/Mystery of GOD.