Your video, Spiral Galaxies - Sixty Symbols, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 5 Badge!

god damn. these sixty symbols clips are so fucking good.

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.

Your video, Sixty Symbols - de Broglie Waves, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Imagine a universe that lasts of only 10 seconds and only has one particle in it. Lets call the end of time X. At X - .99999999999999999999999, we send the particle back to T = 1. At T= 1, we now have 2 particles. At T = 1, we send both particles back to X - .99999999999999999999999. We do this again, and again until we create a universe of infinite density from one particle. I don't know if this is exactly the time of feedback they are talking about, it is from my own thought experiment on time travel.
>> ^Payback:

>> ^jmd:
The whole feedback thing was really interesting though, the reason we can see through the portals is because light radiation is streaming through the portal to our eyes. If you stuck a portal infront of you and then a portal behind you, light radiation would stream in and out of the portals into an infinite feedback loop causing catastrophic energy output.

Why would that happen? You're not creating more sources. It would be the same net effect as pointing two mirrors at each other. Only instead of light bouncing off and heading back, the light stops being in front, and then appears behind.
Light passing through recursive portals would end up collimated, but I can't see how it would multiply, as the light coming out of portal a is disappearing into portal b at the same rate.
Personally, I was kinda let down that the portal system didn't really change, they just added magic goo. I was TOTALLY expecting PortalGun 2.0 to create bi-directional portals, that is, you would exit one side or the other of portal b, depending on what side you entered portal a. True non-euclidean physics. Also, did Valve ever describe the portals as worm holes? I always thought they were quantum teleporters or something to do with nth dimension physics.

>> ^jmd:

The whole feedback thing was really interesting though, the reason we can see through the portals is because light radiation is streaming through the portal to our eyes. If you stuck a portal infront of you and then a portal behind you, light radiation would stream in and out of the portals into an infinite feedback loop causing catastrophic energy output.


Why would that happen? You're not creating more sources. It would be the same net effect as pointing two mirrors at each other. Only instead of light bouncing off and heading back, the light stops being in front, and then appears behind.

Light passing through recursive portals would end up collimated, but I can't see how it would multiply, as the light coming out of portal a is disappearing into portal b at the same rate (and vice versa).

Personally, I was kinda let down that the portal system didn't really change, they just added magic goo. I was TOTALLY expecting PortalGun 2.0 to create bi-directional portals, that is, you would exit one side or the other of portal b, depending on what side you entered portal a. True non-euclidean physics. Also, did Valve ever describe the portals as worm holes? I always thought they were quantum teleporters or something to do with nth dimension physics.

>> ^def:

ok... so you are ripping on the guy's framerate, but playing portal without a mouse.. on a touch pad... for several hours... that's completely fine with you?
unfortunately portal2 was castrated for console players to be able to play it. it no longer has timing puzzles. it's all mostly logic.

Your video, Wormholes & Portal 2 - Sixty Symbols, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Lithic:

Wow, that poor guys frame rate was torture, but the wormhole lecture was interesting.
Also this will probably get cut, bu[cut]


yeah the framerate was bad on his laptop. also, did you notice that he had been playing "a couple hours" and still had the blue-only portal gun? i thought you only had that for like 2 test chambers...

Same here. I've watched them, but didn't pay much attention. I was glad I stuck with this one in the end.

>> ^Skeeve:

I've been kind of dismissing these Easter editions of Sixty Symbols, but this one was excellent.
Excellent as opposed to eggscellent I guess.

I've been kind of dismissing these Easter editions of Sixty Symbols, but this one was excellent.

Excellent as opposed to eggscellent I guess.

Why thank you.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

your sifts are much appreciated. =]

>> ^Skeeve:

True enough, fixed, thanks for pointing out my error.
BTW "capitol" is a building where a legislature meets, I missed "capitals".
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Not to split hairs but, it's Planck time, capitol "P" (for Max Planck).



lol, great minds sir, great minds...

True enough, fixed, thanks for pointing out my error.

BTW "capitol" is a building where a legislature meets, I missed "capitals".
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

Not to split hairs but, it's Planck time, capitol "P" (for Max Planck).

Your video, Sixty Symbols: What is the shortest possible time?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.