Quantum physics also proves evolution.

"Just animals" as if being the bleeding edge of billions of years of evolution isn't special. Bundles of living energy that can self-reflect just isn't amazing at all. Quantum physics shows that evolution is built in to how nature works at as basic a level as we have yet discovered. If you think there are "problems" with evolution I would suggest you don't grasp the concept fully enough. Try harder. Think bigger.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by pumkinandstorm.

>> ^eric3579:

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


Thank you!

yup! *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Quantum-Physics-Double-Slit-Experiment-amazing-results

number 9 video of all time, yo!
>> ^eric3579:

Guessing its a dupe http://videosift.com/video/Quantum-Physics-Double-Slit-Experi
ment-amazing-results

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Fusionaut. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

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

@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.

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^messenger:
I was thinking the same as you two, especially about the level, but then again, anybody who thinks they're going to understand relativity without a very strong grasp on mathematics is, well, like me, totally deluding themselves that they can ever really understand it. But still I plod on, starting with a couple hundred hours of Khan Academy videos. Hopefully there'll be some quantum physics ones up there by the time I'm through the Linear Algebra, Calculus and Physics playlists.>> ^dannym3141:
As much as i love science, i really can't appreciate this style. I watched a few bits and found that the language he used was over complicated for simple ideas, he talked very quickly over even mathematical content and in a fairly monotone style which only made it more difficult to follow, and the visuals weren't very good either because they were utterly filled with text - the whole point of visuals is to simplify.
I think anyone would get more out of even a half decent text book.

>> ^Jinx:
Yeah, this is perhaps too advanced for somebody without a very solid foundation of maths. Still nice though.


Yeah, I think you're right. Mathmatics is the language of Science. People are turned off by seeing equations with wierd triangles in them, and letters with subscript 1s and 0s when its really just shorthand for things they already understand. I think it would be possible to describe almost all the contents of this video in plain english with simple maths, but it wouldn't be nearly as concise or precise.
Basically. I watched this video because my 16yr old sister has been doing relativity in school and I thought she might find it useful. After watching for about a minute I realised she wouldn't get any of it.


I'm doing physics at a master's level right now, i understood the video because i already understood the physics, however the maths explanations were too fast and confusing for me to even relate to the maths that i already know must appear! It's only when i saw it on a huge screen of formulae that i strung it all together.

As for your sister; that's why i mentioned the text book. This is degree level stuff, and anyone understanding it either already knows it or would get far more from a textbook anyway. Tipler 6th edition for example explains this in less time (!) and better.

It's just a bad presentation, but i knew it would get 10 votes and i'm happy to see you lose your p. (to bloodscourge that is, ofc)

>> ^messenger:

I was thinking the same as you two, especially about the level, but then again, anybody who thinks they're going to understand relativity without a very strong grasp on mathematics is, well, like me, totally deluding themselves that they can ever really understand it. But still I plod on, starting with a couple hundred hours of Khan Academy videos. Hopefully there'll be some quantum physics ones up there by the time I'm through the Linear Algebra, Calculus and Physics playlists.>> ^dannym3141:
As much as i love science, i really can't appreciate this style. I watched a few bits and found that the language he used was over complicated for simple ideas, he talked very quickly over even mathematical content and in a fairly monotone style which only made it more difficult to follow, and the visuals weren't very good either because they were utterly filled with text - the whole point of visuals is to simplify.
I think anyone would get more out of even a half decent text book.

>> ^Jinx:
Yeah, this is perhaps too advanced for somebody without a very solid foundation of maths. Still nice though.


Yeah, I think you're right. Mathmatics is the language of Science. People are turned off by seeing equations with wierd triangles in them, and letters with subscript 1s and 0s when its really just shorthand for things they already understand. I think it would be possible to describe almost all the contents of this video in plain english with simple maths, but it wouldn't be nearly as concise or precise.

Basically. I watched this video because my 16yr old sister has been doing relativity in school and I thought she might find it useful. After watching for about a minute I realised she wouldn't get any of it.

I was thinking the same as you two, especially about the level, but then again, anybody who thinks they're going to understand relativity without a very strong grasp on mathematics is, well, like me, totally deluding themselves that they can ever really understand it. But still I plod on, starting with a couple hundred hours of Khan Academy videos. Hopefully there'll be some quantum physics ones up there by the time I'm through the Linear Algebra, Calculus and Physics playlists.>> ^dannym3141:

As much as i love science, i really can't appreciate this style. I watched a few bits and found that the language he used was over complicated for simple ideas, he talked very quickly over even mathematical content and in a fairly monotone style which only made it more difficult to follow, and the visuals weren't very good either because they were utterly filled with text - the whole point of visuals is to simplify.
I think anyone would get more out of even a half decent text book.


>> ^Jinx:

Yeah, this is perhaps too advanced for somebody without a very solid foundation of maths. Still nice though.

This goes back to exactly what I said when the lecture was put on-line , and that is that some things can not be simplified and understood to any usfull level. Sure have some vaague descriptions and get people intrestead but then make sure you tell them that it simply cannot be understood unless you do some research into it and understand the principals behind it to a reasonable depth.



http://videosift.com/video/Professor-Brian-Cox-A-Night-with-the-Stars

"I actually think its probably futile trying to explain or teach Quantum physics to the general public other than saying it exists and this is how things are. It would be far more productive teaching the importance of science and the scientific method and the philosophy of science as that is something that can be grasped fully by sum-one of very limited knowlage of the subject matter and has the largest ramifications. "

>> ^EMPIRE:

I think someone really doesn't understand the offside rule.


Nobody does, it's like quantum physics. As Richard Feynman said, "If you think you understand the offside rule, you don't understand the offside rule".

Even though I was sceptical, I wouldn't accuse others of gullibility for believing this, given that it's not an unreasonable leap to go from this video to the current one.

I think most people who have a reasonable scientific background have a good feeling for what is potentially possible (this video for instance) and what is extremely unlikely (ultraluminal particles).

>> ^longde:

@gwiz665
Witness the intersection of science and religion. Ordain something in the raiment of science and people will believe. More so, if the field is as esoteric as quantum physics.

I'd say that spoco2 applied some fine skepticism to the whole thing. Extraordinary claims, such as this one, requires extraordinary evidence. If a youtube video is the only evidence, then it's not a very persuasive case.

Technobabble has been around since soothsayers and before, right now it's just all quantum because it's super mysterious to average folks.
>> ^longde:

@gwiz665
Witness the intersection of science and religion. Ordain something in the raiment of science and people will believe. More so, if the field is as esoteric as quantum physics.