I stopped listening when the author said: a scientist pointed a detector at a single ...
Using mass, energy, space, and expecting to be able to see reality is so ... hopelessly irrational. Sorry. I don't have the answers, just know how many things which goes into elaborated double slit experiments ...
and light and particles can end up giving reactions as both waves snd particles.
Subatomic world is just different. You can't exploit it.
I want to focus on time as the definition or prerequisite for space and weight and energy. Who said that when you are below molecule size then the rules change -- long before you reach Plancks.
Sigh 😂
This video on quantum mechanics is absolutely top-tier and captivating! 🌌 I love the part at [15:04] where the channel explains how placing a tiny detector next to the slits completely causes the wave interference pattern to vanish. The way you guide viewers from the double-slit experiment to the Zeno effect and delayed-choice eraser is incredibly logical, easy to follow, and thought-provoking. This mind-bending scientific knowledge becomes extremely engaging thanks to the visual graphics and fascinating narration. Thank you for such high-quality content; dropped a like and can't wait for the next episode! 🔥🎬
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle also extends into economics….
You might determine exactly how much a project might cost, but then again you will not know/(be able to) raise it. 🤣
Didn't China beam one particle to the moon by manipulating its entangled particle on Earth? So essentially they teleported 1 particle and brought it back. Thats huge. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ONE PARTICLE.
In the ocean two crests form a trough of water so violently people are sucked out to see. We call it undertow. However if all the wakes work together you do not get a though of undertow. It's strange how actual waves in the ocean can act strangely when the two waves do not break together.
What if I say I am going to observe the particle and a hundred other people say they are going to observe the particles, how will the particle know whether to act like the 1st observer, or the 37th observer or the 90th observe. And everyone has a piece of paper in their palms with their decision as to whether or not the will observe??? So not only will the particle know what the observers de vision is but it also doesn't know who will observe??
I love that every answer in science seems to uncover a deeper question. The universe doesn't feel like a machine to conquer, it feels like a relationship to participate in. Curiosity, wonder, and humility may be the greatest tools we've ever been given. The mystery itself has value. 🌱✨
We use cookies, device fingerprinting and cross-device tracking to personalise content, serve targeted advertising, and analyse how you use our site across your devices. By clicking Accept all you consent to the use of these tracking technologies. Your data may be used to build a profile of your interests and show you personalised ads on other sites.
Privacy policy
Comments (20)
Daily Junction discussion mixed with clearly attributed comments from the original video provider.
Join in — free. Comments on Daily Junction are for members, so real names stay rare and bots stay out.
One field. We email you a 6-digit code — no password needed. Your comment is kept while you do it.
Under 13? You’ll need a parent’s OK first — it takes them one click.
Using mass, energy, space, and expecting to be able to see reality is so ... hopelessly irrational. Sorry. I don't have the answers, just know how many things which goes into elaborated double slit experiments ...
and light and particles can end up giving reactions as both waves snd particles.
Subatomic world is just different. You can't exploit it.
I want to focus on time as the definition or prerequisite for space and weight and energy. Who said that when you are below molecule size then the rules change -- long before you reach Plancks.
Sigh 😂
You might determine exactly how much a project might cost, but then again you will not know/(be able to) raise it. 🤣
No we didn't, and no it didn't.