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

*discard

That's what special about this video. See, it's a quantum physics thing. If they'd put a detector next to one of the inflatable donuts, the fat man would have gone through both at the same time.

He's a palaeontologists? Hmm. Wanna read my paper on quantum physics? I did some research.

Wait- There's something wrong with teen pregnancy?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'time travel, future, fusion, ITER, global warming, hadron, quantum' to 'time travel, future, fusion, ITER, global warming, hadron, quantum, physics' - edited by kronosposeidon

In reply to this comment by MINK:
trying to apply logic to god is very "fallacious"

great word btw.



In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
>> ^MINK:
blah blah blah i have a logical problem for you blah blah blah why don't you believe in fairies blah blah blah quantum physics is completely understood by modern science blah blah blah
shut. the. fuck. up. if. you. don't. understand. what. you. are. talking. about.


I never claimed quantum physics was completely understood, but thats not the point--the point is that things you think you know, are actually just probability functions--and that the same is true for the question of whether god exists. What exactly was fallacious in my post, though?

why is it not possible to apply logic to god? how do you decide whether unicorns exist--is that not a logical process?

>> ^MINK:
blah blah blah i have a logical problem for you blah blah blah why don't you believe in fairies blah blah blah quantum physics is completely understood by modern science blah blah blah
shut. the. fuck. up. if. you. don't. understand. what. you. are. talking. about.


I never claimed quantum physics was completely understood, but thats not the point--the point is that things you think you know, are actually just probability functions--and that the same is true for the question of whether god exists. What exactly was fallacious in my post, though?

blah blah blah i have a logical problem for you blah blah blah why don't you believe in fairies blah blah blah quantum physics is completely understood by modern science blah blah blah

shut. the. fuck. up. if. you. don't. understand. what. you. are. talking. about.

>> ^Johnald_Chaffinch:
Great until just before the end, the concept of 'reality tunnels' is a bit too new age-y.
Someone's perception doesn't change what's actually in this universe in front of them (don't forget the other physics).


To a great extent, yes it does.

Our perception of the universe is in fact all that we know of the universe.

Our eyes aren't the only eyes in this world, nor the best.

When RAW noted that when we measure light as a particle, it is a particle, yet when we measure it as a wave, it is a wave, that was a pretty good example of that paradox.

I think Anais Nin said it best: "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."

Yes.

In reply to this comment by AceOfKidneys:
Aw fuck, now i get it again.

OMG I had soo many theorys and im starting to remember them all because of this. This is as good at acid (and minus the voices), its funny but its things ive though of since i was about 8. Everything comes around full circle.

>> ^deathcow:
> OUR RESTRICTED FRAME OF REFERENCE
As imposed by universal law. When our technology gets close to breaking those laws, we'll become aware of where the legal limits are posted.


Interesting point for sure. However, when/if we reached those limits, how would we truly know that those are in fact the limits. What defines what a limit is? We are yet again stuck within the bounds imposed by our frame of reference. The problem is, we can never see beyond our current point of reference.. though over time, without a doubt, our capability and reference frame will change. Whether it be through social or biological evolution.

Quite interesting, and confusing In reality, who the $#%$ knows for certain about anything. For all we know I may be a figment of your imagination!

Wow. Amazingly concise way to explain the impact of quantum physics on people's understanding of existence.

1. I never said Christians cannot/shouldn't be scientists and nor do I think so. I know several good scientists that are religious, and I respect them, even though they were indoctrinated as children and have since interpreted some of their experiences as proof of a deity. It is sad, and it all comes back to indoctrination, like I said previously. Now, supporters of ID, however, are a disgrace and they're undermining the whole concept of science. I think you'd agree that there is quite the correlation between religious fanatics and supporters of ID, wouldn't you? So it's no real surprise I assumed you might be one. I apologize for this assumption, and I'm happy you say you're not of the ID crowd.

2. I didn't attack your interests; just essentially said you should expand your knowledge in most fields - as should I and pretty much everyone. I just get annoyed when people talk about advanced sciences with great ignorance, misconstruing and making up facts on the spot, and that was what you did.

3. We are in agreement on science not making the claim of (ever) having the absolute truth; yet you seem to be one who believes this is possible via faith, that science has no truth to it at all and also, that making this claim is a good thing; this is where your logic and rationality fail. Anyone making the claim of absolute truth is wrong, and hence, it's a bad thing.

4. The mass of an atom isn't "the most simple thing in particle physics". It also isn't the smallest particle. Nor the one with least mass. It is also, in most common cases, a known, and I am at a loss how anyone could forgo this knowledge in their secondary education. Just because you lack basic knowledge in particle, no, basic, rudimentary physics, doesn't mean the scientific community does.

5. I won't argue semantics of 'fact' here. If you don't like the scientific definition, you can... well, do nothing about it. A discussion should be based on impartial principles, however, you attempt to impose your set of definitions and interpretations.

6. How is a METHOD true or false? Do you have any understanding of what a method is?

7. It appears your 'knowledge' of particle physics is drawn from http://www.videosift.com/video/Quantum-Physics-Double-Slit-Experiment-amazing-results. That's just sad, man. You should at least browse through Wikipedia before you engage in a discussion about these matters. We cannot as of yet see an electron or a photon - it has to be registered - interacted with, to determine which slit it goes through to carry this experiment out - hence the intrusion and the different results. The cool thing that baffles scientists is that it's the first time we've had a situation in which one cannot measure without interfering. That's it. That's the easy explanation. I don't think I should go into how the complementarity principle and wave-particle duality work.

8. In response to your request (you ignored mine) - here's 7 ideas from a 200 years ago that we hold true and still use today, quite in their original form, include:

Heliocentric theory.
Narrative history.
Electromagnetic induction.
Electrolysis.
Oxidation numbers.
Kinetic theory of gases.

and finally, a dessert - Evolution. It's occurrence has finally been proved in a lab experiment. Did you know that?

9. Please, don't just talk about it, do also look the Theory of Everything up. You actually think it's a theory that tries to describe everything - which is hilarious. I hate schooling other people and doing the internet's job, but you ought to know it is a theory that would explain the 4 known fundamental forces of our universe - gravity, electromagnetic force and strong and weak nuclear forces. That's it, doing that alone has proven to be difficult enough. There may be other forces required to explain any and all physical phenomena, which is what it's geared towards, but it won't in any way try to explain, for example, why kittens are cute or why you're arguing about that which you have little to none understanding of on the internet.

All in all, I apologize for my sometimes hostile tone; it's rather challenging for me to tolerate blatant ignorance. And you saying "It is impossible to prove something truth with science.", that's just plain wrong and illustrates just to what extent you misunderstand science and its methods.

Anyway, if you think it does not further true knowledge, then why the hell are you studying science, huh?

>> ^EDD:
^Dear GeeSussFreek,
you call yourself a scientist. That is fine. However, I will warn you right away that many on this website would question your devotion to scientific method based on your username alone - tell me, is it a coincidence that it's pronounced exactly like "Jesus-Freak"? I'm asking this (rather rhetorical) question because religious fanatics claiming to be scientists are often proponents of Intelligent Design, which is (I'll be frank here) a load of steaming bull excrement. I hope you are not one of this fold, because I've had my share of "dialogue" with these folks, and it has never, ever resembled anything like a reasoned, structured discourse.
With my worries laid before you, my response is this:
there are many fields of science and from your short stay on the Sift you would apparently style yourself as a jack-of-all-trades (economics, military, political science, theoretical and quantum physics, chemistry, just to name a few of which you've shared your opinion). Yet, it would also appear that you may be master of nothing.
A scientist (especially one talking about science and scientific method) would not ever, under any circumstances, attempt to draw their own definitions of FACT. Or any concept previously and universally known, for that matter. Me, I was taught what general as well as specific definitions of 'fact' are in secondary school. It would appear your "science diploma studies" have taught you nothing of this. Scientific fact feeds directly back from scientific method, which includes fancy notions such as peer review, one which has unfortunately so far eluded the scope of ID proponents. In science, fact may at times not be the absolute truth, it's what's agreed upon by the informed public. Our knowledge in most advanced fields of study can never be perfect and complete, but the ones most often making this claim are religious folks, saying that scripture "has all the answers".
Now, mass. My oh my.
Mass, assuming we're talking about gravitational mass, not inertial-7th-grade-physics-mass here, is the interaction of gravitational fields. In other words, yes, gravity. The same concept you differentiated, indicating exactly how much you understand of this and that I have no need to go into supergravity, supersymmetry and duality and start actually looking things up. Thanks for that. Oh, and by the way - mass is not created. Neither is matter, for that matter.
Continuing on-
regarding your nonplussed ideas about quantum theories, I have to disappoint you a little bit - it's still discernible, natural science; it hasn't obliterated all previous theories in physics; in fact, I dare you name three it has. Yes, the math involved is a 'bit' harder, the conjectures deeper and at times wilder, but scientific method is still applied.
You also said: "The fact is, that science doesn't deal with facts and has no method of proving things true, only methods of proving them false."
First of all, I LOVE your use of "fact" in this sentence, just love it. Anyway, hypocrisy aside, all we need, is a YES/NO or a TRUE/FALSE experiment. Their initial assumption will either be true, and they will PROVE something to be true, or it will be wrong, and they will prove that it is wrong. Works both ways, just like logic's supposed to, in your brain.
In conclusion, I return to my initial lines:
"You call yourself a scientist. That is most definitely not fine."


So, because I am a Christian, I can not be science minded. Thats a weak assertion. Moreover, its a showing of the new bigot mind set against any of those who have a different mind set. It is the new thing. To expect me to tolerate and be tolerant of your ideas, but the same latitude is not relayed back. I wouldn't count someone out just cause they called themselves agnosticfreak, would you? But that isn't the point of this conversation.

Intelligent design is crap. I never even mentioned it here, but yet, you rolled me into an automatic assumption that I believe that...I don't, its a fundamentally bad idea of applying impartial physical interpretations of the world and using those to apply to a metaphysic's of the creators doing. This is bad, it is not even an theory, but thanks for the assumption.

And thanks for the unmerited attack on my interests, I won't return the favor.

In your third paragraph, you totally just reiterate what I always said that science has no claim to absolute truth, so I will take that as a consesion on your part, but then you automatically assume that I do agree that ID is a valid theory in which I believe, which you are wrong. So I will take your concession and your incorrect assumption and slide right by your personal attacks for the moment.

As for mass, I was trying to show that even the simple idea of where the mass of an atom, the most simple idea in particle physics; in a unknown. So in effect, the basis of our understanding of particle physics is incomplete and yet we call things on the higher level facts, and I object to the terminology, just as one might also object to a Christian saying that God being real is a fact...its just a misuse of the language. I also object to things being called laws, but it is more of language that we are talking about on these things. There is a connotative and denotative meaning obviously, but I still think the terms are misleading. So my battle was over terminology abuse in this case.

You talk about the scientific method again. I would like to bring attention to the scientific method 2 problems that very prominent people in science have had with similar instances of rules in empirical practice. First, was one of my heroes, Alan Turing. His problem was one in computer science (my field btw) where he was trying to prove or disprove the ability to make a program that could test if other programs terminate (ie not suffer from an infinite loop). The problem was, you could make such a program, but you would have to then turn that program back on itself to make sure that it also terminates. This presents a problem. Because we still don't know if the program terminates. So, the problem was that there was no way to verify the thing that was created to verify things. Thus, the proof showed that there is no way to create a program that can test of other programs terminate.

Likewise, there was formerly a school of thought that has now all but vanished called the Verification theory( I believe this was the term, correct me if you know better). The verification method heralded that unless something could be empirically verified, it is meaningless. However, the same thing that happed in Mr. Turrings proof destroyed this idea as well for when we tried to verify the Verification theory, there was no verification to be had. So, I use the same argument on the Scientific method as to show its level of truth is very low indeed. It is a Theory that can not be turned back to proof itself. It rests on arbitrary principles that seem good...and they are good for lots of things, but truth is not one of them. The Scientific theory can not show itself to be truth using the scientific method. In fact, quantum physics shows us more and more that the very act of observation changes the data. In other words, sciences attempts to claim things being the way they are might only be so because they looked, not because they are actually that way. Once again, the problem of phenomena and Noumea.

You then use a classic example of why I choose my battle of language with science. It is impossible to prove something truth with science. Things are truth in science until they are not...which is no truth at all. Can you name one idea from 200 years ago that that isn't radically different from today? In essence, those proven theories weren't proven at all, they can only be disproved. Science only deals with negative evidence, not positive. Things will always be revised in science, and more over, we never really know when they won't need to be revised again; and thus this is why science can never have a claim to have a TOE (theory of everything) because you don't ever know when you know everything...you don't know when every fact is accounted for, every essence of the whole is taken into account...it is an unknowable thing (from the standpoint of absolute knowledge).

*edited out cause Internet people can't be trusted with humility*. However, I don't think my claims are baseless, and I attempted to have a civil talk about them. If I came off as rude or condescending in my first reply, then I do apologies as this was not my intent. I have a real eagerness to talk about such topics openly and freely on the sift because we have some very intelligent people here and normally some pretty good discourse (we are many stars above the youtube crowd). I look forward to perhaps a more civil reply in the future Hopefully I have covered all your points here, I tried my best.

Edit: spelling

^Dear GeeSussFreek,

you call yourself a scientist. That is fine. However, I will warn you right away that many on this website would question your devotion to scientific method based on your username alone - tell me, is it a coincidence that it's pronounced exactly like "Jesus-Freak"? I'm asking this (rather rhetorical) question because religious fanatics claiming to be scientists are often proponents of Intelligent Design, which is (I'll be frank here) a load of steaming bull excrement. I hope you are not one of this fold, because I've had my share of "dialogue" with these folks, and it has never, ever resembled anything close to a reasoned, structured discourse.

With my worries laid before you, my response is this:
there are many fields of science and from your short stay on the Sift you would apparently style yourself as a jack-of-all-trades (economics, military, political science, theoretical and quantum physics, chemistry, just to name a few of which you've shared your opinion). Yet, it would also appear that you may be master of nothing.

A scientist (especially one talking about science and scientific method) would not ever, under any circumstances, attempt to draw their own definitions of FACT. Or any concept previously and universally known, for that matter. Me, I was taught what general as well as specific definitions of 'fact' are in secondary school. It would appear your "science diploma studies" have taught you nothing of this. Scientific fact feeds directly back from scientific method, which includes fancy notions such as peer review, one which has unfortunately so far eluded the scope of ID proponents. In science, fact may at times not be the absolute truth, it's what's agreed upon by the informed public. Our knowledge in most advanced fields of study can never be perfect and complete, but the ones most often making this claim are religious folks, saying that scripture "has all the answers".

Now, mass. My oh my.
Mass, assuming we're talking about gravitational mass, not inertial-7th-grade-physics-mass here, is the interaction of gravitational fields. In other words, yes, gravity. The same concept you differentiated, indicating exactly how much you understand of this and that I have no need to go into supergravity, supersymmetry and duality and start actually looking things up. Thanks for that. Oh, and by the way - mass is not created. Neither is matter, for that matter.

Continuing on-
regarding your nonplussed ideas about quantum theories, I have to disappoint you a little bit - it's still discernible, natural science; it hasn't obliterated all previous theories in physics; in fact, I dare you name three it has. Yes, the math involved is a 'bit' harder, the conjectures deeper and at times wilder, but scientific method is still applied.

You also said: "The fact is, that science doesn't deal with facts and has no method of proving things true, only methods of proving them false."
First of all, I LOVE your use of "fact" in this sentence, just love it. Anyway, hypocrisy aside, all we need is a scientist performing a YES/NO or a TRUE/FALSE experiment. Their initial assumption will either be true, and they will prove something to be true, or it will be wrong, and they will prove that it is wrong. Works both ways, just like logic's supposed to, in your brain.

In conclusion, I have come full circle and return to my initial lines:
"You call yourself a scientist. That is most definitely not fine."

According to quantum physics you could travel back in time but it would take incredible amounts of energy, and by doing so you would be still going forward in time but just putting the past in front of you, so the people you'd meet in the past wouldn't be the same person in your past. So in effect if you traveled back in time, you'd no longer exist in our universe as we know it.
OR
Someone who would have that technology would probably have invisibility.