File: Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment.swf-(9.89 MB, 320x214, Loop)
[_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)03:39:45 No.3210907
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)04:00:35 No.3210913
Meme magic is real.
>> [_] /b/astard 02/04/17(Sat)04:02:37 No.3210914
>>3210907
Decent flash 5/7
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)04:08:51 No.3210916
learned something new
8/10
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)04:41:05 No.3210924
>>3210914
gb2 imgur
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)05:44:24 No.3210936
I will never understand quantum shit
it changes because you observe it? that just means you're pissing off the gods, time to sacrifice
a goat so they don't rain fiery hail down on us
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)05:55:32 No.3210939
>>3210936
No anon. This experiment is saying that we are the gods.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)06:07:18 No.3210942
Okay, giggle away because the word 'slit' is funny, whatever.
Seriously though: John Astin is a motherfucking pimp and I'll watch him do anything.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)06:57:44 No.3210949
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)07:04:40 No.3210950
the reason the interference pattern disappeared is presumably because of the way the "camera"
physically interacts with the electrons.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)07:16:13 No.3210951
>>3210907
Interesting. I was always prepared for the hood, though.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)07:57:57 No.3210969
>>3210936
>>3210907
this has always been one of the most interesting experiments to me.
It implies the act of thinking about things changes them.
really makes you question what reality is.
good way to give some people an existential crisis.
another interesting experiment with the LHC(hadron collider) suggests that energy and matter can
be converted to one another back and forth and that matter can be made from a vacuum/void with
enough (a fuckton) energy.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)08:01:28 No.3210972
>>3210969
The wavefunction collapses when the quantum is observed. In the case of this experiment, the
quantum is observed when the camera interferes with it. Human awareness isn't a factor here.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)08:06:32 No.3210978
>>3210950
>>3210972
in what way does the "camera" interfere?
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)08:13:30 No.3210980
>>3210978
Suppose they measure using a beam, which causes interference
just a guess
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)08:14:39 No.3210981
This voice sounds really familiar.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)08:17:09 No.3210982
>>3210981
John Astin did the voice.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)08:27:21 No.3210985
>>3210969
Also matter will always appear in a void, It doesn't take energy to do that. A perfect vacuum is
impossible.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)08:40:03 No.3210987
>>3210950
>>3210969
>>3210972
>>3210978
>>3210980
The "observer" is at least an electromagnetic (photoelectric) device
adding a strong enough electromagnetic field/radiation into the environment collapsing the wave
behaviour. Particle superposition must collapse to transfer the minimum information needed to
"interfere with something"/"exchange energy". The wave can interfere with itself without
trade/loss energy and still be a wave, but to interfere and trade energy (prove your existence)
they collapse.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)08:43:33 No.3210988
>>3210969
It's not thinking about it that changes them, it's being observed. schrodingers cat is a perfect
example of this, when the cat isn't being observed it can be dead and alive. Just like an
electron can be both a wave and a particle when unobserved.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)08:44:23 No.3210989
>>3210985
Not that impossible.
Ordinary vacuum still have potential energy.
If we drain this energy we can get some real void.
I don't now how. but this not mean that is impossible.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)08:58:30 No.3210992
>>3210987
This is kinda weird.
the wave of possibilities carry only one coin of energy to be trade when the wave collapses.
What in the hell is in charge to prevent one electron to not mess up inside the wave and hit two
or more places instantly. Hit one place collapse all the wave faster than light, so what kind of
information or lack of it says to the wave "hey the particle hit something, disappear now!"?
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)09:39:32 No.3210996
Meh, just more evidence that electrons aren't real. It's almost like we are drowning in a sea of
positrons and the electron's mass is the energy equivalence of the positrons displaced from by
the positive charge on the nucleus. I have always been suspicious of pair production where a high
energy photon will spontaneously convert into a positron-electron pair. This could also solve the
mystery of dark matter and dark energy.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)10:01:18 No.3211003
>>3210936
>>3210969
There is no magic behind it.
Observing something literally means bouncing a photon off whatever it is you want to measure.
If you don't bounce a photon off it, nothing is interacting with it. (beside itself)
Or an EM field. Or, if sufficiently close to a large mass, the gravities.
>>3210989
Doing so would probably rip a hole in the universe and collapse in to a blackhole.
This is one of the theories as to why blackholes happen, the space is ripped so violently by
gravitational waves that it simply tears.
The fact we found gravitational waves just there is further proof to this theory than Einsteins
flawed ideas.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)10:06:39 No.3211004
>>3210992
We don't know what is "in charge" yet.
All we know is there can't be equal particles in the same unit. (atom in this case, not sure if
it applies to "super atoms")
So no 2 electrons in the same spin or some shit like that. I forgot the exact definition of it.
There was a term for it that defines the rules.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)11:22:31 No.3211014
>>3210907
love quantum mechanics
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)11:54:16 No.3211018
>>3210972
The movies file that the camera creates is then in a superposition until a human watches it.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)13:01:45 No.3211035
>>3210907
Nigga i saw this in chemistry class years ago
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)13:16:43 No.3211038
>Comes on to /F/ to watch stupid flashes about dumb shit
>comes across one of the most interesting discussions I've seen ANYWHERE this year
>Well fuck.
never change /F/
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)13:23:51 No.3211041
>>3211038
>/F/
No, fuck off. Fuck you, go away.
>> [_] /b/astard 02/04/17(Sat)13:35:44 No.3211049
>>3210924
I'll gb2fuckin'yermum
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)13:36:08 No.3211050
>>3211038
>comes across one of the most interesting discussions I've seen ANYWHERE this year
how illiterate are you
FYI, there is more to life than social medias and 4chan
>> [_] /b/astard 02/04/17(Sat)13:41:06 No.3211053
>>3211038
>/F/
You're a daft cunt and I hope your mother dies of cancer
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)13:50:35 No.3211055
>>3210907
this isn't even the weirdest this series of experiments got.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo (a more indepth recap)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs (where it gets so weird time travel occurs)
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)13:54:33 No.3211056
>>3210978
for more info
>>3211055
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)13:56:30 No.3211057
>>3211055
>the quantum experiment that broke reality
>how the quantum eraser rewrites time
This is just clickbait bullshit. Quantum mechanics is a model of nature, not magic.
>it gets so weird
Translation : I don't understand it so it's magic
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)13:57:39 No.3211058
>>3210987
>>3210980
>>3211003
>>3210972
>>3210950
you don't understand enough of what was going on. I assure you the camera was not the issue,
because they found so long as they destroyed the readings it went back to the interference
pattern. It literally only cared about whether people were trying to understand what was going on.
>>3210936
honestly probably the closest of all of you.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)13:58:41 No.3211060
>>3211057
the titles are admittedly clickbait, the content is not. Watch them nigga. Especially the eraser
one.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)13:59:55 No.3211065
>>3211058
>when I try to understand why the walls around me are not collapsing they start to collapse
It's an easy trick if you want to rob a bank
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)14:00:22 No.3211066
>>3211057
>educational programming made by the Public Broadcast Station is bullshit
Okay whatever, lol
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)14:00:44 No.3211067
>>3211053
>/b/astard
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)14:02:34 No.3211069
>>3211057
fine nigga, watch the rest of the /f/ video, which is gonna say the exact same thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_la1VUbcg
>> [_] /b/astard 02/04/17(Sat)14:03:27 No.3211070
>>3211067
At least I didn't put /B/astard
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)14:05:21 No.3211073
>>3211060
I know they're interesting, but the clickbait playing on the general idiocy surrounding quantum
mechanics infuriates me
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)14:11:26 No.3211075
>>3211069
wait, so the entangled twin knew how to shape based on whether its partner was going to be
watched or not in the future?
LITERALLY HOW?! HOW DOES IT KNOW IT'S BEING WATCHED, HOW DOES IT KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE WATCHED
/IN THE FUTURE/, AND HOW DOES IT KNOW ITS /TWIN/ IS GOING TO BE WATCHED IN THE FUTURE?!
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)14:15:49 No.3211076
>>3211075
It's God playing tricks on physicists.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)14:20:42 No.3211078
>>3211075
"In the future" in the sense that the information is transferred faster than the speed of light,
meaning that over a large enough distance, you could theoretically know about an event before you
physically see it. Actual experiments show this is not quite the case though.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)14:25:44 No.3211080
>>3211078
nigga this is an actual experiment, and it's saying D0 had its results corresponding to the
partner that went through B, before the photons from B finished running their course, much less
knew what detector they were going to land in and whether they should be interference or clump as
a result.
That is "in the future" 100% of the definition. It somehow knew where its partner was going to
land in advance.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)14:38:56 No.3211083
ALRIGHT YOU WANNA KNOW FINE! I ADMIT IT! I DON'T KNOW HOW QUANTUM MECHANICS WORK!
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)14:42:32 No.3211084
Here's the deal with quandum stuff:
We are used to dealing with stuff we can observe without interacting with it. In reality, when
you look at something, light is bouncing off of it, and you are observing that. Light bouncing
off of something changes it, but on our size level, it's virtually unnoticeable. Another example
is how a cop observes your speed by bouncing a radar wave off of your car.
On the quantum level, when you observe something (like, bouncing a particle off of it to measure
its location) you change it. If you try to figure out where it is, you change its movement, and
if you try to figure out its movement, you change its location.
This is the uncertainty principal, you can only know one.
Once you understand this, everything else makes sense. I saw someone talking about entanglement
here, and the same thing is true. Two entangled particles stay entangled until you observe one.
Then, you've broken the entanglement because you have changed one, and you haven't changed the
other. It doesn't need to know, it just keeps doing its thing (and you don't know what that is),
and the one you changed is now doing a different thing.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)15:19:52 No.3211089
>>3211080
More precisely... when you later check what the results were, you always find that they agreed
with what you expected.
Maybe everything that happened that far away was in a superposition state until you interacted
with it, and only then does it definitely become the results that you expected. Check out the
delayed choice quantum eraser.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)15:47:51 No.3211097
Now are electrons waves or matter or both? Pretty sure there's a name for it. Don't tell me to go
to /sci/ because that's where proto-neets go to die.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)15:56:27 No.3211099
how do you define observe?
I mean if you just put a "camera" with the sole purpose of getting different results, for atom
waifu production in a distant future?
Does anyone Need to see the results for it to change?
What if you use a broken camera?
What if nobody ever sees that recorded by a camera, doest it still change its behaviour?
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)16:02:50 No.3211100
>>3211080
>>3211089
No, the main issue is that, though the EPR paradox was created to try to illustrate the issue,
you cannot decide the state of the particle in advance, so you cannot communicate meaningful
information. The fact that the state is decided when you observe it ignores that fact that both
sides still have to observe it, meaning that no information can be transferred. So yes, remote
measurements can interfere with one another, but the distribution of outcomes prevents you from
transferring information.
Sources:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/137-physics/general-physics/particles-and-
quantum-physics/810-does-quantum-entanglement-imply-faster-than-light-communication-intermediate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/203831/ftl-communication-with-quantum-entanglement
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)16:04:16 No.3211101
>>3211099
Observe means cause interference in any way, shape, or form. Different types of interference
cause different outcomes (e.g, measuring momentum vs position)
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)16:16:47 No.3211108
>>3211003
i dont know how they measure it but, do they need to throw something at it to get the bounce to
observe?
or there are already things bouncing off of it and you just need to catch it
>> [_] Anonymous 02/04/17(Sat)16:31:19 No.3211114
>>3211058
>>3211003
>>3211108
There is no notion of bouncing or impact. It is purely the type of interference. Photons are not
necessarily a tangible particle, so it is somewhat disingenuous to imply that you physically
interact with something by observing it in the classical sense.
One thing worth noting, that I don't think is mentioned in the video, is that the experiment is
reproducible with larger particles aside from electrons. I believe they were able to reproduce it
with the various particles up to the size of a sodium atom (can't recall exactly, though).
