Favorite youtube video
- Thread starter LunchBox
- Start date
Yeah, sure, and those were your games, right?I was joking you know.
about you having insulted him, he is my dad
Silent_Buddha
Legend
That was actually the first thing I thought of when I saw the earbuds.
Regards,
SB
Vsauce... A mish mass of science and culture with some history and math thrown in.
Here is the Space playlist
Space: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZRRxQcaEjA5tpoxlKeVnPKIvfD1IavPq
Here is the Space playlist
Space: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZRRxQcaEjA5tpoxlKeVnPKIvfD1IavPq
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I wonder how long it took the guy to make that? For those wondering that's an almost exact duplicate of the trailer that Amazon released.
Regards,
SB
green.pixel
Veteran
New Curtis on the block. Lots of good stuff to digest.
Seen it tabs,
I'm a big fan of the pilot wave hypothesis (de Broglie–Bohm theory) of quantum mechanics to me it makes more sense than the Copenhagen/ Many Worlds/ Von Neumann Interpretations
I became a fan of it because I thought to myself "could I re create the double slit experiment at the macro level" and I found I could (with some caveats) by making an object fired through a randomly generated (allthough not totally random, there are some values the rng controlling the electromagnetic field is not allowed to have) oscillating field (think of it as a huge cathode ray tube but firing magnetic balls and not electrons) the rng generating millions of random numbers per second and those numbers control the voltages sent to the plates so you get the ball having it motion affected by a wave in the field between the plates.
ps: if you like this kind of stuff
Measure for Measure: Quantum Physics and Reality
discusses the various interpretations
I'm a big fan of the pilot wave hypothesis (de Broglie–Bohm theory) of quantum mechanics to me it makes more sense than the Copenhagen/ Many Worlds/ Von Neumann Interpretations
I became a fan of it because I thought to myself "could I re create the double slit experiment at the macro level" and I found I could (with some caveats) by making an object fired through a randomly generated (allthough not totally random, there are some values the rng controlling the electromagnetic field is not allowed to have) oscillating field (think of it as a huge cathode ray tube but firing magnetic balls and not electrons) the rng generating millions of random numbers per second and those numbers control the voltages sent to the plates so you get the ball having it motion affected by a wave in the field between the plates.
ps: if you like this kind of stuff
Measure for Measure: Quantum Physics and Reality
I think we live in a simulation and the doubleslit experiment has come uppon its artifacts. It simulates particles at higher LODs and aproximates that in voxelspace further away from cameras. That's why sensors interfere with the result of the experiment.
I'm more of the sort of person who likes to listen to clever people talking about stuff I barely understand. I find it very relaxing - maybe the same feeling some get sitting outside a cafe watching people hard at work.
To be honest there seemed to be a jump between the introductory explanation segment and the stuff they were actually arguing about. For me they never made the discovery of observation affecting the experiment particularly clear.
I leaned towards the Qbism idea that basically what we have is a set of tools to calculate odds and that was it. What I took from it (possibly quite wrong) wasn't the same as what the other panellists seemed to be arguing with. I pictured a definite universe with definite properties that would be discovered by the observer. For example the spooky action at a distance diagram seemed perfectly clear to me - that one was up and the other down, and you'd only know which was which when you actually looked.
Anyhow this is probably all me not really understanding perfectly, but it was enjoyable to watch and think about. It was good edutainment, but not something I wish to study for myself.
The many worlds guy reminded me of a religious person who is a real believer. The main issue with his position was that there doesn't seem to be a test that could prove or disprove it.
I'm most interested to look forward to tests being made on the three Italian guys version of the formula. It was mentioned the tech isn't there yet, I wonder how far out it is?
Dont you find that unsatisfying, a bit like I have a wood chipper I know if I feed in logs I get sawdust but I have no idea how the wood chipper works and i dont care I know what it does and thats enough.
I get many worlds, if a particle goes through the left slit then in an alternative universe it goes through the right slit, but how does the particle going through the right slit in an alt universe affect our particle going through the left slit to produce an interference pattern no one explains that?
Actually it isnt perfectly clear to you. They are not saying one is up and one is down and you only know which is which when you measure. They are saying the particles are each up and down and not up and down at exactly the same time (called a super position) and only when one is measured does it have a definite position and the other instantly assumes the opposite position even if its a billion miles away the mystery is how does the particle instantly know its twin has been measured no signal could instantly travel a billion miles.
what I havnt seen a good explanation of (by good i mean one that an average joe could comprehend) is how they know superpositions exist as any attempt to observe or measure a superposition instantly destroys it ?
(theories that maintain a particle that is measured to be spin up were always spin up we just didnt know until we measured are called hidden variable theories) there is an experiment said to prove superposition and disprove hidden variables called
Bell's Inequality
ps: its been ages since i watched the video what was the 3 Italians theory ?
Last edited:
Well the 3 Italians basically had a different formula than the classic one, whose differences would only be shown in experiments that hadn't been done yet.
I'm very much 'Joe Layman'. I still don't quite get the spooky action thing. How the hell do they know what is going on until they look?
I'm very much 'Joe Layman'. I still don't quite get the spooky action thing. How the hell do they know what is going on until they look?
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
