This Will Mindfuck You: The Double-Slit Experiment
The video below shows scientific proof that there is something NOT quite logical or scientific about this universe. The mere act of observation can completely change the outcome of an event! Before I get too ahead of myself, you need to watch the video below to understand:
(Forgive the corny cartoon character explaining the concept — at least he knows his stuff)
Recap: When a camera observed the electrons, they acted as particles. However, when the no equipment was used to observe the electrons, they acted as waves and particles simultaneously.
So what’s the reason for this? Does the electron somehow know that it is being watched? That was the only “logical” reason that scientists could come up with so much skepticism and controversy followed.
Want even further proof?
Then in 2002, a group of researchers set up the experiment in a way that the electron could not possibly receive information about the existence of an observing instrument. The setup was on a much smaller scale: a single photon was emitted and an interferometer that observed the wave-or-particle behavior was either inserted or not inserted. (Click here to download the full report)
Here’s the kicker: The insertion of the interferometer took only 40 nanoseconds (ns) while it would take 160 ns for the information about the configuration to travel from the interferometer to reach the photon before it entered the slits. This means in order for the photon to “know” if it was being watched, that information would have to travel at 4 times the speed of light, which is impossible (the speed of light is the universal speed limit).
The Results: The photons acted like particles 93% of the time that they were observed. Even if the photon “guessed” the configuration each time, statistically speaking it would never have more than 52% accuracy. In scientific experiments, a 93% success rate is as conclusive as they come.
What are the implications of this?
1. Matter can act as both a wave and a particle depending on whether or not it is being observed (Wave-Duality Theory)
This is the least meaningful implication for you as a macroscopic organism, but nonetheless it’s a pretty crazy concept.
2. Observation can (possibly) affect the outcome of macroscopic events
After all, you and everything you know are composed of these microscopic particles, so why couldn’t something large be influenced as well? It would be the sum of a seemingly infinite amount of pieces of matter acting as either waves or particles. Scientists have very mixed opinions on this topic so I’ll just say it makes sense to me that this could happen on a larger scale.
3. We don’t know very much about this universe (Science is not yet an ‘exact science’)
There are a couple things out there that science still cannot explain like the characteristics of gravity, but this blows Newton’s discovery out of the water. As we study smaller and smaller particles in order to understand more about what we’re made, we seem to find more things that just don’t make sense. Point being that nothing should be ruled out completely because we simply cannot know anything for certain at this point.
What other implications did you get out of these experiments?
1. http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit2.html
2. http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2597
3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Loading ...
Anonymous said on 09.02.2010
“As we study smaller and smaller particles in order to understand more about what we’re made, we seem to find more things that just don’t make sense.” i think this is a problem because the universe is fractal there is no absolute position for the scale of things and it is all perspective. We see the effects of things and the smaller the things you look at the less they will make sense because they’re that much smaller and existing in a different realm of spacetime. What you need to do is find the underlying pattern that governs these different sizes of things and how they relate to each other people have figured it out and it does also have to do with a “higher power” because that power is the result of this energy.The reason it is a higher power is because we don’t understand it as a species and the more you try to separate them the farther you will be from the answer
Tr1bL said on 09.02.2010
“As we study smaller and smaller particles in order to understand more about what we’re made, we seem to find more things that just don’t make sense.” i think this is a problem because the universe is fractal there is no absolute position for the scale of things and it is all perspective. We see the effects of things and the smaller the things you look at the less they will make sense because they’re that much smaller and existing in a different realm of spacetime. What you need to do is find the underlying pattern that governs these different sizes of things and how they relate to each other people have figured it out and it does also have to do with a “higher power” because that power is the result of this energy.The reason it is a higher power is because we don’t understand it as a species and the more you try to separate them the farther you will be from the answer
Bob said on 09.05.2010
Nice clip but it’s doesn’t give enough info to understand what is happening in the double slit experiment(1961). It’s very funny to read the comments of people trying to blame the camera for making the electron behave like a particle (or stuff with light donno what some of these people were saying).
If you do want to understand what is happening here go (http://ipb.quicksilverscreen.com/index.php?showtopic=44150) there.. and watch that series about physics (relativity and quantum shit)… You should watch it from episode 1 but if you just want to understand this start with 17..
If you watch it from episode 1 you’ll have a real mindf*ck .. and hopefully understand a little more about everything:)..
Got more docu’s i can recommend if you are intrested
Benson said on 09.06.2010
This is a very interesting article about a phenomena that has been of great interest to me for some time. I think I first heard of it in the DVD “What the Bleep? Down the Rabbit Hole” A very interesting documentary about some pretty out-there theoretical physics.
The only question I wanted to raise is about the assumption that the speed of light is the “universal speed limit”. I’ve read some differing opinions about the idea of ‘inflation’ or the rapid expansion of the early universe, which has been argued by some (and denounced by others) to have exceeded the the speed of light. Also I’d like to address more generally the grounds for stating a “universal speed limit” in a universe when considering relativity. If two photons move in opposite directions, then relative to each other they are moving faster than the speed of light, example: it has been seen in Astronomy that some galaxies are actually moving away from our galaxy at speeds faster than that of the speed of light (c = 2.99X10^6 m/s) relative to ourselves. I understand the argument that relatively speaking, there is nothing to be said about absolute limits, and I understand that this is a little out of scope, but I figured someone might have something to gain by grappling with a few of these ideas in conjunction with this article.
Thanks for letting me get my two cents in. Great article, love the lively debate about theoretical physics!
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575
Diego said on 10.14.2010
the thing is that its not moving its expanding, so its not like its literally moving as in you throw an object and it moves, its expanding. It’s a weird concept to think about.
Drew said on 09.07.2010
I think it is rather simple. Energy causes a curvature of space. This curvature is what causes the wave-like results. But since the energy is also a “mass” it has properties of a particle. When observing the results, we register the wave pattern. This causes a disruption of the wave and gives us the particle results. Observation interferes with the normal properties of the energy, causing different results.
Almekhlafi said on 09.07.2010
oh this very great video, we in 21th century
thankyou very much
Audai E. Louri said on 09.08.2010
Welcome to the world of Quantum Physics. If you think this is bizarre then research entanglement, where a particle can exist in two different place at the SAME time. Do one thing to one particle and the other is affected in the exact same way.
P.S. Our world is governed with the laws of physics. Sometimes, they dont work the way we predict them to work just like with the case of Time Travel and Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity, But there is always and explanation.
Anonymous said on 09.08.2010
Technically doesn’t this mean that the universe only exists due to conscious observers? With a lack of observation life would just be waves of possibilities with nothing definite ever really occurring.
Anonymous said on 09.29.2010
“Technically doesn’t this mean that the universe only exists due to conscious observers? With a lack of observation life would just be waves of possibilities with nothing definite ever really occurring.”
Philosophically, we could argue that things only exist because we are there to observe, document and describe. Technically, there’s enough truth in Newtonian physics to say that the macro-universe will behave exactly as predicted – planets, stars and galaxies will follow exact orbits, all very definite. The real problem is that quantum mechanics is at odds with a lot of “big-things” physics and until Steven Hawkings and his chums can come up with the Unifying Theory of Everything, we’ll still be scratching our heads. Actually, even when they do, I’ll still be scratching mine as it does get waaaaay beyond my limited brainpower even at this stage!
noah said on 10.23.2010
you clearly don’t seem to understand what constitutes an “observation”, when they say observation they mean any technique they could use to figure out where it is, this normally means that we interact with the particle, anytime you interact with a particle, you change it. The electron is not aware of if it is being observed, there is no possible way for it to know
scientist said on 09.08.2010
Neat video, but it makes it sound like that its the scientist act of observing the event that changes it. This is only partially true.
Its really that the way in which the scientist measures it that changes the event. Typically, the observation in this kind of experiment would be made be shining light on the impinging beam of particles to be able to see where the particle is and where it is going. So, it is actually the photons in the light in this setup that would collapse the probability wave. Nature doesn’t give a damn where anyone is looking at the instrument readouts or not. It has nothing to do with conscious observation. There is a rule however that no experiment can be designed to “trick” nature into telling us which hole the particle went through without affecting the experiment (see Heisenberg uncertainty principle for detail).
sallm said on 09.08.2010
João Magueijo’s explanation for the horizon problem states that the speed of light may vary.
Anonymous said on 09.08.2010
huh?
Alex said on 09.09.2010
Well, i’m not a physics major either, but i do watch alot of History Channel and have picked up a little hypothesis: Matter and energy are interchangeable. They say that in the quintillionth of a second after the bigbang, there was only pure energy, but somehow it became matter. We know now that we can take matter and convert it to energy (ie nuclear fission/fusion and antimatter) but maybe, for some reason we have yet to learn, subatomic particles transfer back and forth only when unobserved. As if to keep us from being mindfucked by something even more crazy >.<
Ian Gammon said on 10.18.2010
the big bang theory will probably be proved false in the future, its our millennium’s equivalent to the world is flat theory
Jordan said on 10.26.2010
I completely agree, it’s more symbolic than scientific
Sam said on 11.19.2010
Just for context:
This experiment was first done in the early 1800′s.
Kestrel said on 09.11.2010
This whole page is very saddening in the level of education and general intelligence it exhibits. The few posters who have demonstrated even an iota of awareness of physics principles have been completely ignored in subsequent posts. For all of you who are turned off by the word “Fuck” in the title, it’s probably for the best. This video leads you to a sticking point in physics theory which is difficult to understand, and then pushes the viewer to the provably incorrect conclusion. To try to correct this, here’s how this actually works.
It has been experimentally verified that all moving objects (specifically, all objects having momentum) exhibit a wave-like behavior which can be described in terms of their mass and momentum. This is called the DeBroglie wavelength of the object. For macroscopic objects, this wavelength is extremely small in relation to the size of the object; however, in quantum scales, this behavior is far more pronounced. This indication of a wave-particle duality is extremely important in quantum physics and chemistry as a measure of internal energy. Particles can exhibit wave-like behavior, and waves can illustrate particle-like behavior.
In order to see this behavior in action, we need to take measurements of the particle. On a macroscopic scale, we are accustomed to observing objects by interacting with them in some sense. For example, we experience vision as an interaction between our retinas and photons which are reflected off of objects we wish to observe. This double interaction has small effects on both the observer and the observed (if it didn’t, we couldn’t experience a change in our state corresponding to the observation!) Again, on a quantum scale, these effects are much larger. In that regard, we cannot observe something without changing it. We cannot observe something without interacting with it, and interaction causes changes in state. Generally we observe quantum objects in terms of their location and momentum. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle quantifies the limit to which we can know the two, as observing one will change the other. When the observation device in the experiment above was added, it needed to interact with the electrons to observe their location and momentum; and in doing so, it altered both such that they no longer interfered with themselves.
In any case, I hope that this at least inspires some interest in physics; just remember, it’s not that we can’t explain things. It’s just a matter of time and ingenuity.
Kelly said on 10.14.2010
Thank you Kestrel.
erhan said on 11.08.2010
thanks for taking time to explain it scientifically!
One Powerful Word said on 11.13.2010
Thanks for explaining. But this means we have immense power and energy flows where focus thus changing both the object of focus(achievement of desire) and the subject
Jordan said on 11.16.2010
Yessssssss, Neo. (for those of you who’ve seen The Matrix)
Dean said on 09.13.2010
Just like the bose einstein condensate,but behaving like a solid.
Anonymous said on 09.23.2010
This experiment never happened. There is no paper for it, if you go to one of the sources cited they SAY the experiment never happened. And if you go to the other, its a paper that disproves what the video is saying…Don’t believe everything you see on the internet.
julian said on 09.23.2010
This may be a double post, if so delete the other one.
The experiment in this video never happened. The source at colorado.edu states it never happened, and the scientific paper cited also proves exactly the opposite of the conclusion in the video.
The statement that there are a “couple of things” that science doesn’t know yet is ridiculous, we are FAR from knowing even close to “everything”.
matt said on 10.01.2010
I saw this video in a wacky documentery called “down the rabbit hole”. It is a in increadible movie that puts some parts of quantum physics into info that the average ‘lay’ terms. It goes into depth about superposition and proves that an electron can literally be in more than one place at a time, meaning a electron that gets stimulated on earth can also get stimulated on the other side of the universe. Very glad i bought the dvd because it helped me look at the world and life in a different and better way. It makes me believe that nothing is the way it seems. we are alive, as well as the earth as well as the air we breath. It also makes me think that if theyre is a higher power in this ‘life’ then it may be in everything…every atom, every molecule, EVERYTHING…
Fun stuff, definetly a mind fuck. possibilities are definetly endless!!!!!
zenhog said on 10.01.2010
Kestrel said: “When the observation device in the experiment above was added, it needed to interact with the electrons to observe their location and momentum; and in doing so, it altered both such that they no longer interfered with themselves.”
What force acted upon the electrons by means of observation that was not present before observation???
Buster said on 10.01.2010
If we are sing photons as a tool of measurement for particles of relative size there is no wonder why the results are screwy. Think about measuring the movements of a star with another star is close proximity. The mass is enough to dynamically change the pattern. Similar mass theory.
Dr. Sartori said on 10.08.2010
When we look at a house from the front, we see the front door. When we look at a house from above we see the roof. Does the fact that a front door is not a roof mean we are no longer looking at a house?
The double-slit experiment is not a controlled experiment in that a single slit experimental setup has a vastly different perspective on that electron than a double-slit setup does. A wave is not a particle, but wave and particle are two ways of looking at an electron, two different perspectives on the electron, two different points of view.
Double-slit experiments have shown that the point of view of the detector (single to double slit and back) can change faster than information from the electron, traveling at the expected speed of light.
Dr. Sartori said on 10.08.2010
The last sentence on my post should read:
. . . can change faster than information to or from the electron, traveling at the expected speed of light.
Anonymous said on 10.13.2010
Taking the “observer effect” into a whole new level.
EFG said on 10.16.2010
If only you hadn’t made yourself look like an undereducated troglodyte by spoiling the article with your language. Is there any really reason for this, or are you and your peers just too stupid to use the English language skillfully?
Riskboy said on 10.16.2010
Well first i had a hard time watching a video which i think was made for children and did not over much information, but as would like to point out that this experiment observing electrons using a camera which is an electric equipment, and therefore has a very high chance of interfering with the experiment is no surprise to me. every electronic device creates some sort of electric/magnetic field hybrid which can cause electrons to act differently by changing their path and patterns, thats how our tube TV’s work, they use magnetic fields to deflect electrons from their path.
So our so called Physicists of today, decided to describe it as acting different because they are being watched, why can’t you say the camera interfered with the electrons. Eyes and cameras may give same image output, but they act differently in acquiring the image, at very low level scales like protons and electrons, cameras might actually be interfering with what is actually happening and giving out a wrong image.
Also maybe our machines are still to weak to give correct results.
Science sucks these days, cos people are looking for noble prizes not actual discoveries
Your Name said on 12.02.2010
In response to your last point: there is a strong correlation between the two.
Andrew said on 10.17.2010
I know I’m a little late, but just as a P.S. please allow me to add one final thing. This clip, as you can tell from the poster in the animated background is off a indie documentary called “What the Bleep Do We Know?”. It was made by a group called “Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment”, a group in no way scientific. In fact the leader of the group, and founder I might add, J.Z. Knight believes that “A 35,000-year old disembodied entity from an ancient civilization” was or is being “channeled through her”. This from a book of her own authoring called Ramtha: The White Book, pg. 28. Some of the science in this video may or may not be accurate, as I’m not sure of the details of the experiments in question. But, believe me when I say that rational minded people do not jump from interaction of observers changing results of very sensitive experiments to some sort of spiritual control of your surroundings.
Ian Gammon said on 10.17.2010
ARE WE SERIOUS RIGHT NOW!!!. I pray that the person that made this video didn’t consult with a smarter scientist who would come up with the more obvious ANSWER. By watching this video which showed, FIRST: Marbles, SECOND: Water: and THIRD electrons. THESE ARE FACTS: ok so Marbels acted like marbels, and electrons acted like water.(except when then tiny eye watched it acted normal).
Question I have to you is – whats the main difference between water and marbles, their density/shape, but most important is that Marbles are a solid, singular form, U can have 18 marbles in a bag, u can’t put 18 cups water into on bag and still get the same exact 18 waters, molecule for molecule out. On a atomic level, a single water molecule is larger then on single electron. Better yet Air has a higher density then a single electron.
Conclusion in my opinion, An electron passing through the air, something of similar density, i know i said it was heavier, but on an atomic level they are close enough that perhaps the electron was assimilated by the air as if it were part of a single body of water. producing wave like interference.
Not scientific, but LOGICAL, and most of the times science reinforces rational thoughts. If there are too many shifts of public conventions, then your probably wrong.
Your Name said on 12.02.2010
He got it wrong but you got it more wrong.
Scott Smeester said on 10.18.2010
I was about to share this on my FB, but the “Mindfuck” part is a little inappropriate.
Scott
Pablo said on 10.18.2010
Loved it all the way…
Dr.Quantum you really rock…
tim said on 10.18.2010
it does make perfect sense when you think about it. in order to “see” something photons have to leave the object and hit your eye. what your seeing is a constructed image your brain produces from the photons that hit your eye. the only way the object exists is through the mental construction, a conceptual dependent arising. because of the way this works the object has to exist minus the photons that hit your eye (if the photons never left the object, there would be no way for you to see it). therefore following this logic, all perception is based on the object without the photons. because of the limited effect of wave nature at the macroscopic level your brain automatically converts sight perception as objects, a much more useful sense from a natural selection standpoint, and why it is difficult to conceptualize wave nature. now if you can imagine for a minute that the photons have not left the object (therefore there is no way to observe the object, or measure it in any sense) then it is an object surrounded by (or composed thereof) photons. this means that the ultimate nature of all particles is that of a wave nature. since no perception can occur faster than the speed of light all perceptions are based on the moments in time and space when and where the object is deficient in photons (i.e they have shot off). the instrument used to measure the electron being shot has to measure something, and what it measures is at the precise moment in time that the electron has ejected something off of it. How can you not see a particle nature when observation can only occur when the object is in the process of emitting. detection occurs at a specific time and place, whereas existence occurs continuously through time over many parts of space (as all objects in motion stay in motion).
travis said on 10.19.2010
this is from a movie called what the bleep do we know (novie poster can be seen on the wall)
Anonymous said on 10.20.2010
So..science has discovered something it doesn’t understand. Why is that suprising and why is it a “mindfuck”. It’s just wierd, that’s all. But no doubt sooner or later someone will come up with a plausible theory. To those of you who get so excited about this, perhaps take a step back and consider what does science really KNOW about anything? It’s just a lot of plausible theories…
ken Damrau said on 10.22.2010
The universe is always logical and scientific. Always. Just because we don’t understand it does not make it magical or illogical.
Travis said on 10.25.2010
I think we are all missing what this actually explains… When your computer isn’t working when your repeat the same exact command, then someone comes to help (observes) and it works!! It just took an extra pairs of eyes! :)
Kiesha Jean said on 10.26.2010
@Travis … Hilarious :) love it.
Johnnnnn said on 10.27.2010
STRING THEORY SUCKAS!
Twiz said on 10.28.2010
The Tao of Physics uses this as the proof for Eastern Philosophy.
Eric said on 10.28.2010
If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around does it make a sound?
d said on 10.30.2010
It was great until the part with “the electron decides…” Jesus, are you kidding me? the last thing we need is to turn science into religion, “decides”? Really? Terrible, terrible choice of words, it misconstrues the whole thing and totally unravels all the good the rest of the video does.
Bob said on 11.05.2010
For most of you, I have only one word: SPELLING. For the rest, what did you expect from a five minute video explanation of quantum theory? It was a simplistic explanation designed only to give you a sense of the anti-intuitive nature of quantum physics. I found it entertaining. Don’t get too concerned with its inaccuracies. It’s a teaser, not a PhD thesis.
Bob said on 11.05.2010
Another thought: Particles do not “travel” in waves. Whether the particle is an electron, or photon or even a tennis ball, the waveform represents only the probability that the particle will appear in a given place at a given time. In other words, as far as we know, photons travel in a straight line from their source to their destination (if travel can even describe as what a photon does). What happens between the start and finish is completely unknown, and any attempt at observation completely changes the event. The probability of the particles ending up in a particular pattern can be described very precisely mathematically and ends up as the pattern we see on the wall in the two slit experiment. Still, it’s a decent video as an introduction to some very strange stuff.
Anonymous said on 11.11.2010
The first part is a decent introduction. But when he starts saying, “so we put a camera there” and describing what happens as if they actually did it, it just becomes completely false and misleading. I mean look at all of the replies to these threads, people claiming that this phenomenon explains all sorts of wacky things…IT’S NOT TRUE. People use the damn uncertainty principle to justify who knows what, the last thing we need is some guy making videos and claiming things have been experimentally justified when they absolutely have not, and giving internet heroes the license to make all sorts of false claims everywhere about what they read in a scientific paper (because this guy claims that it was).
lmnop said on 11.11.2010
God is Life!
Your Name said on 12.02.2010
How is this relevant?
joe said on 11.14.2010
1 year of physics at A-level and i don’t get it, 5 minutes of this video and i know exactly whats happening WTF
Jordan said on 11.16.2010
Oh the wonders of our education system :)
Josh said on 11.14.2010
Kinda like Schrödinger’s cat.
Jarooko said on 11.22.2010
I really don’t get why some of you (by my guess, plenty of you) think that this experiment explains something, anything about the world in its unity. Just to say that here there isn’t a need for great knowledge of physics. Knowing some basic quantum physics, the dual nature of all matter and Heisenberg uncertainty principle, I think I understand this.
It is fun, and a couple of comments here are great and useful, but that “This will mind-fuck you”, I doubt it.
padraic said on 11.22.2010
I would LOVE to show this to my wife’s high school physics class, but you just had to put the f-word in the title. too effing bad. it’s exceedingly well done. Is there a non-profane resource for this?
Jordan said on 11.22.2010
Simple solution: show them the YouTube video or copy and paste the article without fuck in it.
Anonymous said on 11.22.2010
Why would you want to show high school students a video that is misleading and false?
Your Name said on 12.02.2010
It isn’t technically false as such, just a really bad explanation that will leave most of the students either confused or laughing.
Anonymous said on 11.26.2010
FMM I’M FUCKIN CONFUSED
Nathanial Beltz said on 11.29.2010
This means that my theory of me being bad luck for the Lakers and their unfortunate mishaps are due to my viewing is TRUE.
robert said on 12.01.2010
isn’t funny how throughout our existence as humans. The more we’ve been able to measure. The more we’ve been unable to measure. There is always something. This is called the law of diminishing returns. For centuries people demanded proof of Christ,so they got it. They got the shroud of turin,the roman crucification logs. They found the private journal of the wife of Pontius Pilot detailing the event. Not to mention the tomb of Joseph,Christ’s brother(which also detailed the circumstances) yet it’s not enough. About the only thing left to prove is that he actually was the son of god.We call it a god particle,why? Now Stephen Hawkins says he can make the big bang without an external initiant? Come on Stephen, you got a degree in physics,and now you’re gonna blasphemy. I still believe.
Your Name said on 12.02.2010
I enjoy studying quantum physics but both this video and the surrounding text are a terrible explanation of these principles and all they do is make me cringe.
Kailee said on 12.04.2010
The electron is playing a trick on humanty. Way to go electron!
Daniel said on 12.04.2010
Couldn’t the mass of the camera cause gravity in a smaller scale to do this?
Brian said on 12.10.2010
Ummm. . . .no. Gotta read the text too man, not just watch the video.
“The insertion of the interferometer took only 40 nanoseconds (ns) while it would take 160 ns for the information about the configuration to travel from the interferometer to reach the photon before it entered the slits. This means in order for the photon to “know” if it was being watched, that information would have to travel at 4 times the speed of light”
Brent said on 12.14.2010
That was exactly what I was thinking. I’m no physicist though
Rico said on 12.14.2010
A) no, that’s not how gravity works.
B) no, that wouldn’t cause the electrons/photons to become more aligned, just more chaotic
C) no, the infereometer is not exerting any additional gravity.
gaberh3 said on 12.17.2010
How do you know so much about gravity if scientists dont even know the characteristics of it… learn to read nay saying ass clown
Michael said on 12.21.2010
A) That IS how gravity works. The larger the object the more gravitational force it exerts.
B) They wouldn’t become more chaotic; they would just be pulled closer to the camera therefore only entering one slit or neither.
C) How do you know it’s not exerting any additional gravitational force?
Drmgiver said on 12.21.2010
A) My new hypothesis: The female breast has a gravitational pull. “The larger the object the more gravitational force it exerts.”
Michael said on 12.21.2010
Not quite, the body the breast is attached to does because all objects have a gravitational force; but nothing on Earth is big enough for us to actually observe it’s effects on other objects.
It’s possible in this case because quantum particles are extremely small meaning something the size of a camera could have a gravitational effect on them.
Drmgiver said on 12.21.2010
FAIL
Michael said on 12.21.2010
Yes, because the word “FAIL” automatically means I’m wrong. No need for evidence of any kind just, “FAIL”. While I have one of the most brilliant scientific minds in the world on my side, Stephen Hawking.
In his theory about time travel, he says how gravitational forces can be used and that, although it’s not noticeable to the human eye, the gravitational force exerted by a pyramid (on Earth) effects time by slowing it down for those close to it compared to those farther away. Therefore, the larger (more massive) something is, the more gravitational force it exerts.
This is supported by Einstein’s theory of gravity as well if you don’t think Stephen Hawking is good enough.
Drmgiver said on 12.21.2010
lol! I said fail, because my original post was simply a comment to inspire humor, not meant to be taken seriously. Taken as a mans (or woman if said woman is into other women) hand being attracted to said breast the bigger it is.
Sam said on 12.22.2010
In the early days of physics, experiments were conducted with balls to measure the gravitational pull one had on another. Objects on earth do have an affect on each other via gravity, although it may not be noticeable.
We learned about this in my high school physics class, perhaps you should take the basics before asserting yourself an expert.
retard said on 12.27.2010
ever heard of universal gravitation?
Dr. Q said on 12.19.2010
Gravity doesn’t matter on microscopic scales, let alone quantum scales.
B said on 12.19.2010
I Thought the same thing
Mike Sebring said on 04.03.2011
Because its clear that this is not an area of science that we understand perfectly, the most logical conclusion to draw from this is that there is a fundamental effect in place here that we have no knowledge of. It is illogical to assume concretely that observation causes the effect. That is possible, but we cannot say it with certainty. For example, when they suggest in the experiment that it was impossible for the electron to know it was being observed, I think they are looking at it wrong. Its not whether or not the electron is aware of the measurement and that impacted its path, its whether or not we as observers were aware of the observation and how that impacted our viewpoint or what we witnessed (or think we witnessed).
They are making a leap in faith to say concretely the observation caused it … its much more logical to realize there is probably more going on here than we know, either due to lack of appropriate technology, understanding, or perhaps viewpoint in the universe (ie. perhaps some things are unknowable in certain situations).
Jason said on 04.26.2011
Actually, science has discovered that matter is in a diffused state when not being observed. Matter is only coherent and focused when being observed. This is more information which relates to the awareness that observation is affecting reality. More evidence of this is in the holographic universe theory. I forgot the gentleman’s name, but he was working as a plumber in New York when he heard a lecture Stephen Hawking gave in San Francisco in the 80′s about black holes. Hawking said (at that time) that black holes break the law of conservation of information because “Hawking” radiation contains no information about the matter that was destroyed inside the black hole. The plumber set out to prove him wrong (20 some odd years later) and discovered along the way that 3 dimensional matter is just a projection from a 2 dimensional image. Hawking capitulated.
tony said on 03.20.2012
It isn’t a leap of faith, its called Occam’s razor.
Alex said on 04.12.2011
This is a really simplified explanation of the actual experiment which was conducted. It is difficult to understand the theories behind what quantum physicists believe is taking place here if you do not know about quantum mechanics, string theory, etcetera. As human beings, we tend to portray the way we visualize things as universal truth, for example, time and space. Outside of this world, time and space (L x W x H) actually merge to create 4 dimensions, not just 3 dimensions and time, as time isn’t relevant in the same way as we understand it while sitting on a revolving planet in orbit. Also, you need to know some other things: 1.) electrons are composed of sub-electron particles known as quarks (up and down quarks) which are theorized to consist of even smaller “sub-quarks” and 2.) matter (particles in this case) often behaves like energy (waves) and vice versa [photons for example are particles of light, but when we "see" light we see it in wavelenghts of the visible light spectrum]. All elements exhibit wavelengths, which can be observed when they are heated by using a spectroscope. I’ll get to the point…basically and most simply put, the electrons are theorized to be alternating between waves and particles based on the dimension they are traveling through once accelerated (space in time), the observation accounts for a variable we add to the phenomenon which in turn effects the cycle of which dimension at what time and through what space the particle or wave is traveling through….think “The Terminator”…like how if John Connor never sent Kyle Reece back in time he would have never been born…not the same, but it opens you up to the idea. I need to meditate now, my brain’s fried.
If anyone with more knowledge of quantum mechanics can explain this better, feel free. I tried.
Alex said on 04.12.2011
Better explained the particles or waves emitted in one dimension of space and time react with the particles in another dimension of space and time, or do not react, based on the influence of observation, so that interference bands are either formed or not.
Eric said on 05.31.2011
I myself am a physicist, and there are a couple of corrections I should point out to your ideas. First, electrons are not made of quarks; they are themselves elementary particles (as far as we know) called leptons, in the same particle class as muons or neutrinos. Protons and neutrons are made of three quarks apiece however (two ups and a down or two downs and an up). Second, particles do not alternate between particle and wave natures depending on the dimension they’re travelling through, because they are travelling through all the dimensions all the time. They are actually both particles and waves at the same time. What’s waving you ask? A mathematical construct known as the wavefuntion ψ(x,t), which by itself has no physical meaning (because it’s a complex function, meaning it has imaginary numbers), but when we take the square of its magnitude |ψ(x,t)|^2, we get a function called the probability amplitude, which is the probability of finding the particle at position x and time t. Third, The probability that two particles will interact is actually a very complex problem that involves a solution to the Schrodinger equation with two different sets of position/time vectors, and is further complicated by the fact that particles like electrons are indistinguishable from one another.
Lisa said on 09.17.2011
The gravity of any instrument is irrelevant, because the equipment is always there whether measuring or not! This theory may sound crazy, but the change from wave to particle could be due to the mere thought/intention of wanting to observe. If (and this is a big if) our thoughts turn out to be pulses of energy themselves (as some legitimate scientists have postulated), then our mere intent to measure could be the actual culprit of what’s interfering with the wave function that causes it to collapse into the tangible particle. (Granted, this brings up another hundred questions about extra dimensions, etc.), but at least it would answer the first question of how the observation itself causes the change! We are probably all entangled (matter, energy, gravity, every living thing, everything) at the subatomic level, so our particles are simply reacting with those other particles in a logical way that is yet unknown to us. I think once we have a better understanding of consciousness and what causes a group of atoms to become self-aware (something probably out of the reach of science which only measures the material), we will have a concrete explanation. Until then, we are left with this amazing clue!