Also on other Tech blogs...


COMMENTS

  • Anton

    Wow, that was a well produced video. Would you know, what movie it was from?

  • James

    This site friggen sucks.!!!

  • http://omgwtfbbq Gayboy

    what james said

  • Sam

    If you are interested in quantum phenomena read a book, you will learn more. I don’t know who made this but they were no physicist.

  • wai

    An excellent video! This would be great for schools.

  • Ed

    Being an amateur physicist, I fail to see what is wrong with this, short of anthropomorphising electrons, which is a very minor issue.

    Excellent work!

  • rob

    I believe it is from “What the Bleep Do We Know”

  • Pingback: High T3ch Magazine

  • Naten

    Could someone explain to me whats so bad about this? I know very little about quantum physics so all I can say is that the measuring device caused a magnetic interference, email is naten186@gmail.com

  • http://? Alfie

    errrrrrrrrrrr du?

  • Janitor

    After some pondering, the ‘observer’ question seems to be at work on a lot of different levels other than the quantum level.

  • Freeman

    Basicaly what they are saying is that light “the path of electrons” is relative to the veiwer. So, what they are saying is that Einstien’s theory of Relativity {which states that time and space are relative to the observer and that the speed of light is absolute}is finally obsolete. Personaly i don’t want to believe that Einstien was wrong. Oh yeah, the guys who said ” This sight friggin sux!” He is in fact a retard who knows nothing about shit. o yeah, this was a cool video

  • Mitch

    Quantum theory does not state that “the path of electrons is relative to the viewer.” It is entirely mathematical. Quantum theory is comprised of statistical laws which determine where certain types of electrons are RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. Schroedinger’s equation is very precise, and it also provides the most accurate answers to these types of questions in physics to date. The reason that quantum theory is so hard to understand is that it is not deterministic. i.e.: there is no explanation as to WHY these particles appear at certain points relative to each other. They just do. That is why Einstein refused to believe in quantum theory. He could not deny that the equations provided the most accurate information, but he believed that there IS an answer to the question of “why,” but the very nature of quantum mechanics is that there is no answer two that question. For more information on that subject, look up Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

  • http://newsongames.tk poolman09

    Hmmm… this is an interesting nerd fight that i would like to join. So, doesnt light move in waves? and isnt a path of electrons a form of light? I think that it might explain at least a part of this problem. {even though its nearly impossible to understand or proove quatum physics} because light moves in waves {like the water, and the electrons} wouldnt it make an interference pattern? like the waves? {this is where this answer kinda falls apart} but, because they tried to observe the electron, it made two patterns {like the marbles}, two slits. But, how could they be relative to eachother when there was only one electron which went through the slit? {even though they recorded that the electron went through both slits and no slits at the same time.} Like i said, it is almost impossible to prove, observe, or mathematically understand quantum physics;{which Einstien said he “couldn’t beleive that God plays dice”} so, is this why the mathematical equations conflict? This is an interesting topic of discussion, i tell ya. But, personally id rather play video games.

  • Dave

    This isn’t exactly an example of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which says there are pairs of properties that a particle can have (e.g. position and momentum) which are so related that the more accurately you determine the value of one property, the less accurately you can determine the value of another. These are known as ‘conjugate quantities’. See the Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

  • Dave

    The key point to the ‘collapse of the wavefunction’ by an observation, is what an ‘observation’ actually consists of. It isn’t that you have to physically interact with a particle to observe it (e.g. bounce a photon off it) that causes the collapse – it happens as soon as the capability is present of observing which slit the particle goes through – even if a particular particle isn’t actually detected, it still behaves like a particle not a wave… Some very cunning experiments have verified this. This is the deeper weirdness – the whole experimental setup is involved. When detection becomes possible, the wavefunction collapses beyond that point.

  • kenneth

    i know almost nothing about physics but it seems that if the big bang theory is correct didn’t the world start out a black hole if all the matter of the universe was in one dense spot

If you wish to receive a notification each time a new post appears on High T3ch, feel free to subscribe.


 

© 2006 - 2014 - High T3chdesign by mili.me