>> ^dannym3141:

I thought it was from the same one of the double slit experiment with wave particle duality.


It is...like I said, the movie takes actual legit science and tries to force it into the world view they are pushing on those watching.

Its mind-cancer, pay no attention to it.

I thought it was from the same one of the double slit experiment with wave particle duality.

There are many models which have their own proofs. Without wave-particle duality, there would be not electron microscopes. One definition of a wave is the probability of a particle being at a certain time t. This is one topic where Einstein disagrees with de Broglie, who also disagrees with Feynman, and so on, hence the Copenhagen interpretation. They all agree on the differential equations behind the wave-particle model, but their interpretations of the equations are all in violent disagreement. Great topic though

>> ^offsetSammy:

According to Feynman's QED, there's no such thing as "wave-particle duality", it's just all particles. The behavior of the particles, however, is very strange, and that's what accounts for their wave-like characteristics. QED came after Dirac and Schrodinger (it was a refinement of their theories), so I'm not sure why it doesn't get acknowledged in these kinds of discussions.
QED also predicts exactly the results of things like the double slit experiment without ever resorting to the "well the wave collapses into a particle when we observer it" kind of thing.

According to Feynman's QED, there's no such thing as "wave-particle duality", it's just all particles. The behavior of the particles, however, is very strange, and that's what accounts for their wave-like characteristics. QED came after Dirac and Schrodinger (it was a refinement of their theories), so I'm not sure why it doesn't get acknowledged in these kinds of discussions.

QED also predicts exactly the results of things like the double slit experiment without ever resorting to the "well the wave collapses into a particle when we observer it" kind of thing.

Well, de Broglie couldn't get past the fact that in Quantum mechanics, the wave-particle behaves differently if there is an observer. Schrodinger's cat confused a lot of physicists, but it was there to prove a point. When people conducted the double-slit experiment, they confirmed Schrodinger's theory, de Broglie's wave theory, and Heisenberg's theory. Here's the cartoon version of the double-slit diffraction experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&feature=related

Hey ladies, care to try a double slit experiment?

I'm the first person in the world to come up with that!

>> ^RFlagg:

Upvote as it amused me so. I loved the straight forward answer. Of course I probably would have come back with a "but how do we know it moves air to make a sound? It gets to the old Quantum Physics Double Slit Experiment, and Schrödinger's cat, the very act of observing may be changing the results."


What a shitty comeback. It has nothing to do with that. Sound waves in the air is not a quantum phenomenon. Hence Schrodinger's cat and the double-slit experiment don't apply.

Upvote as it amused me so. I loved the straight forward answer. Of course I probably would have come back with a "but how do we know it moves air to make a sound? It gets to the old Quantum Physics Double Slit Experiment, and Schrödinger's cat, the very act of observing may be changing the results."

Between parts 2 and 3 when Krauss is talking about the double slit experiment... I can't help thinking that the conclusion that he presents as "ridiculous" is just that. I mean, I'm sure someone somewhere has thought of this already but if when you're watching the particles, they behave as expected and they don't behave as expected when you're not watching them, I would think that the most logical conclusion is that whatever physical matter is involved with the act of observing ultimately causes the electrons to act predictably but no more than that.

I don't see how anyone can go from "Electrons act funny sometimes" to "alternate realities are plausible" in the same breath and take themselves seriously.

Not that I'm criticizing Krauss at all, I love the guy and I understand that he's just talking about some of the thoughts that some people have come up with. I just don't agree that the conclusion is at all reasonable or should even be considered.

I would however like to know how exactly they are observing the electrons, by what method and if there are multiple methods of electron observance, AND if all of the multiple electron observance methods have had the same results for the same test. I'd also like to know what is happening to the electrons when they're not being observed. We know the result when they're not being observed, but what about before the result.

http://videosift.com/video/Quantum-Physics-Double-Slit-Experiment-amazing-results

this is the 'other video' we keep referring to.

>> ^lucky760:

Nothing is real until it has been observed! This clearly needs thinking about. Are we really saying that in the 'real' world - outside of the laboratory - that until a thing has been observed it doesn't exist? This is precisely what the Copenhagen Interpretation is telling us about reality."


meteorites crash through people's rooftops. so, nope...

it's not all that strange as long as you stop looking at things from a hominid perspective, seeing a 3D world, with linear real-time causations etc.
fundamentally the universe is maths, just mathematic probabilities, laws and limits at certain values - of a possibly infinite array (this is just one branch of possibilities where things like us could occur).
so, when understanding it like this - the smallest detectable limits of this place all just comes down to probabilities, it's all just made of maths. not building blocks, not stuff, but just potentials.

Don't be gullible WRT this video. It was produced by some religio-mystical cult and presents things in a cloudy "isn't it magical?" kinda way (like the Heisenberg Principle and the double-slit experiment).

No, that's wrong. Quantum super-position isn't just an acknowledgement of possible outcomes, statistics or probability. At the quantum level super-position is a very real physical effect, as observed in the interference patterns of the famous double-slit experiment.

I came here to mention the double slit experiment... but is that true shole.. even with the measuring device, the photons still show an interference pattern unless a human observes the measurement?

I was under the impression that as soon as you placed the measuring device, the waveform collapsed.

but it is the observation.. like with the double slit experiment.. the result of it, that is already on the back-screen, depends on wether or not you check the values of the electron counters at the two slits before seeing the back-screen