Tags for this video have been changed from 'double slit, Heisenberg, wave, particle, quantum uncertainty, Cassiopeia' to 'double slit, Heisenberg, wave, particle, quantum uncertainty, Cassiopeia, exspearmint' - edited by therealblankman

i swear it's the exact same narration as the other video. i would assume that someone wanted to reproduce this without being sued by the original creator...

^ The narration is very similar. I'm guessing that they came from a similar source since changing the wording would have been trivial.

I never liked the end of the other video though. It ended by saying that the observer collapsed the wave form "simply by observing", as if passively viewing something affects it.

It isn't the "observing" that affects the wave form, it's the attempt to actively measure it. This video is much clearer about the distinction and offers more of a conclusion than the other video.

what other video are you talking about?

very cool video, very nicely explained

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

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

I read a book years ago describing the conundrums faced by physicists when dealing with quantum mechanics. One passage described the inability to locate both the speed and direction of a traveling electron, and it's position in space at the same time. It went something like this:

Imagine you've got a moving ball (electron), and you take a picture of it. You develop the picture and because you didn't have the right shutter speed, you see a blurry streak representing the ball. You're able to determine the speed and direction of the ball, but not it's position in space (as theoretically it could be located anywhere along the streak). Next, you take a picture, but this time with the correct shutter speed. Now you've got a perfect picture of the ball (ie. its exact position in space), but no idea on its speed and direction.

I always think of that example when I see stuff like this.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Woah. It's the sea-harvesting robot from Logan's Run. http://www.videosift.com/video/Logans-Run-Meeting-Box?loadcomm=1

>> ^Psychologic:
^ The narration is very similar. I'm guessing that they came from a similar source since changing the wording would have been trivial.
I never liked the end of the other video though. It ended by saying that the observer collapsed the wave form "simply by observing", as if passively viewing something affects it.
It isn't the "observing" that affects the wave form, it's the attempt to actively measure it. This video is much clearer about the distinction and offers more of a conclusion than the other video.


That's a harsh criticism of the other video which i believe has a FAR better explanation of the experiment and results earlier in the video. Trying to watch it as a person who doesn't know what's about to unfold, the explanation of the setup on this one is poor. I prefer the ending on this one, but the other one isn't wrong by any means. I think a few people could put forward a good argument that if you're not trying to measure each electron, you're not observing it.

That and the voice is almost the same as the one in jurassic park when they watch the introduction video in the small cinema.