Why Quantum Physics is Cool Pt 2 (Updated with pt 3 URL)
Created on: September 23rd, 2006
Continuation of http://quantamiscool1.ytmnd.com
Part 3 at http://yqpic3.ytmnd.com/
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (4.43) | 942 | 141 | 329 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 45,173 |
Inbound links:
Actually, think of it this way. If you are at a baseball game, you can watch a baseball cross home plate without changing it. But what if you're blind? What if you have no way of "visually" observing a baseball? The only way to understand it's movement is to touch it somehow, but by doing so, you would change the path of the baseball. Subatomic particles never "touch" they interact through electromagnetic energies, but the point still holds that "visual" observing would have a different result that
The electron leaves untouched after it is fired. If there is no path detector, it hits the final detector in such a way that can only be described by the particle traveling both paths at the same time, however, if the path detector is placed on one path and turned on after the electon is already fired, the electron acts like matter and only goes one path. So how did the electron know to collapse and act like matter leaving the accelerator when the detector was not even on at the time?
By theory, it arrives at both slits every single time. But when the detector is there, it disappears from one. The only explanation is that once there is evidence of a definite location of the particle, all the other probability waves cease to exist.
If the detectors where placed on both slits, exactly the same distance from the accelerator what determines which probability wave sets off which detector, thereby exterminating the other particle wave's existence?
What bothers me themost is every *ssh*l*e who said something like "1'd 4 makn me read" or "makn me lern"
or "fuk you, teacher"
Jesus christ, if it bothers you that much to find out something new, you ignorant hicks, and you'd rather be surrounded by idiotic f*cking stupid entertainment for retards all day, go attend church, and if you're american, you can praise George Bush some more. F*cktards. 5 for bring some intelligence, te good, interesting kind, to YTMND. Counter-Points/Criticism would be nice, tho
-2 for misleading information. Detection involves modifying the thing you are observing. In order to "see" a small object, like an electron or photon, you would have to set up your detector in such a manner as to affect the thing you are observing- and this modification collapses the probability waveform of said object- unlike with seeing large objects, photons aren't bouncing off of it. If you could "see" your object without interfering with it, you would see diffraction again, but this isn't possible.
Wait- this is retarded. We're altering the photons because we're messing them up. There's a difference between passive and active observation. Becasue of limitations in technology, we can't detect photos without complelty altering their trajectory. The current technology is like standing next to a road and the only way you can tell if there's car is if one hits you.
How can you claim anything concrete about the state of the particles?
Actually, you're a little less-than-accurate. If the windows were small enough, then the tennis ball WOULD interfere with itself. You'd be faced with the problem of getting a tennis ball through windows that were that small, but you never actually specified the size of the window.
I KNEW there was something wrong with an Aggie talking about physics.
Even though I explain it in the slide show as if the particles "know" we are observing them, to make it more accurate, I would say that our comprehension of reality alters its very state, for by seeing and knowing the location of a particle, you then also know that it is nowhere else, therefor the probability wave cannot exist at that instant.
I finally got around to watching part 2. You made fewer mistakes this time, but there are still some misconceptions. Most notably, your Mach-Zehnder interferometer has some mysterious plane labelled "detector". With the way you've drawn it, there would be no interference and therefore, no interesting results. Half the photons would travel one path, half would travel the other. (Continued)
Since your title is "Quantum Physics is Cool", don't you think it would be cooler if you (correctly) explained that you can force the photons down one path while blocking them from the other just by shifting a mirror? Also, if what you labelled the "detector" is actually another beam splitter (as it should be), it should be aligned at the same angle as the rest of the mirrors.
I would say most physicists just adhere to the Copenhagen Interpretation. It still doesn't explain what causes the collapse. It merely keeps scientists out of theology. And many scientists will deny conscious entanglement due to the fact that either they don't truly understand the results, or they are too scared to think about it.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link