|jim - 2007-04-17 |
-1 for animated narrator, +1 for science
|Wintermute - 2007-04-17 |
That animated guy is really annoying.
|kingarthur - 2007-04-17 |
+5 for science, but -1 for using it to justify any of that "What the Bleep" movie's new-age junk.
|HURF BLURF DUH - 2007-04-17 |
I once did a double-slit experiment with strippers and an 8-ball. The results were provocative.
|fluffy - 2007-04-17 |
-1 for the implication that electrons act under volition.
|Aernaroth2 - 2007-04-17 |
dammit matter, make up your mind.
|Gamara II - 2007-04-17 |
The electron isn't "aware". Any "observation" requires interaction, changing the experiment.
|Caminante - 2007-04-17 |
Enough babble! Show us how to time travel!
|Feyd - 2007-04-17 |
The narrator was motherfucking Gomez Adams.
|timmylean - 2007-04-17 |
You ever get the feeling scientists come up with this shit to fuck with our minds?
|Dummy Rum - 2007-04-17 |
|arjay - 2007-04-17 |
That narrator was Dr. Breen. Also, this video was made by the Raelians and pushes their agenda.
|bopeton - 2007-04-17 |
Then Gordon Freeman came and blew up his laboratory.
|Urburos - 2007-04-18 |
Oh come on. It's made for kids. If you don't rationalize it they'll never shut up.
|Syd Midnight - 2007-04-20 |
This was made for adults, most of whom now think they "understand" QM
|Shion - 2007-04-21 |
Look, Gamara II thinks he understands QM.
He's right though - in real experiments the "observer" isn't just passively standing by the slits watching traffic - it has to intercept or interact with the photon or electron somehow in order to observe it! This changes what was one simple interaction (particle leaves emitter, intercepts screen) into multiple possible interactions (particle leaves emitter, goes through slit 1 and proceeds uninterrupted to screen OR leaves emitter, goes through slit 2, strikes detector, and then that particle, or another, similar particle proceeds to the screen).
QM is still mindbending and absolutely violates common sense but the video emphasizes the wrong part of the weirdness, if you ask me, and is very misleading in how it represents this particular experiment.
|BAC - 2007-04-22 |
just because its what the bleep doesn't mean it isn't true...I actually have no idea if thats true.
|Camonk - 2007-06-03 |
Bah. Warm fuzzy nice nice! What good is science if no one gets hurt?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|