Does the quantum theory bother you? Lieven Vandersypen at TEDxBreda
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 ноя 2013
- Quantum theory says that an electron can be in two different places at once. But do you believe this? Does it bother you, and why? It certainly did bother Einstein. For much of the 20th century, precisely this point was hotly debated among the greatest minds on the planet. Eventually, experiments left no doubt: we better get used to the wonderfully strange ideas of quantum theory. In Lievens research, he goes beyond surprise and asks himself how to use quantum behavior for doing things that are otherwise impossible and how and when quantum mechanics may show up in your life.
Regarding Lieven Vandersypen
Lieven Vandersypen (Leuven, 1972) is a professor of Quantum Nanoscience at the Kavli Institute of NanoScience at TU Delft. Led by his fascination for quantum theory, he explores how to make use of quantum mechanics for creating new technology based on nanoscale devices. He studied in Leuven, Belgium, received a PhD degree from Stanford University in California. Lieven carried out his PhD research at the IBM Almaden Research Center, before moving to Delft in 2001. He became known for pioneering studies using the spin of electrons and atomic nuclei as quantum bits in prototype quantum computers.
No, "I don't understand" doesn't mean "I don't believe it."
It means that I don't know how to integrate the theory with daily life and how to apply the theory to a more general class of problems beyond the few examples given in textbooks.
Excellent short overview!!!
The real question: Why aren't we teaching children from day 1 that this is how the world works? If you want advancement, you need a new generation who have grown up knowing no other incorrect intuition. We don't teach kids that spontaneous generation is real and then wait until they reach high school to admit that's not really how it works, ruining their worldview and embedding deep-seated intuitions that they will be saddled with forever, making accepting reality a challenge. Teach them from day 1 that the solidity of macroscopic objects is a complete illusion, an emergent phenomena generated from a cloud of uncertainty.
+Dustin Rodriguez Practicality. Do you think a new direction/ dogma or knowledge will be practical immediately when these children grow up in 10-20 years? Will the era of quantum computing arrive by then?
because you need to understand the world we see , for the world possible to make sense . Like volume is built by areas stacking on top of one another , the "reality" in this video is built on top of what we "normally "see and believe . If we don't understand the world in the natural way we see it first ,we won't be able to understand the quantum theory . if we go the other way around , its like trying to frame a window on a house when there's no walls yet . I think what the guy said about the "reality " isn't trying to prove the non quantum concepts wrong , but to open another gate if possibilities . thanks for reading and this is just my opinion
There is no need for quantum computing to be mainstream for the knowledge to be useful. And there is no impediment to learning Newtonian concepts or other such things presented by teaching about the quantum nature of reality. The key insight that needs to be communicated is that the probabilistic quantum realm, through complex interactions, gives rise to the appearance of solidity and certainty we see. The fact that a simple and probabilistic system can result in solid, predictable, "classical" systems is what blows the minds of older people who grew up being taught that subatomic particles were like billiard balls, solid and certain as everything else, and complexity was simply ignored. The idea that interacting things can give rise to completely unexpected and radically different results should be the new 'common sense'.
+Peter Bellefontaine Maybe so, but some of those things can be made up for easier then Quantum Mechanics. It's the same with languages, the time when the brain in primed to learn them is early on, and if that window is missed learning it becomes exponentially harder more so then other skills. Also a great number of the world changing advancements that are being worked on nowadays directly relate to physics, or their success relies on advancements in physics.
I think you should teach kids that even though our every-day reality is only on 3D, and just boring stuff happens, there's another "world" in us, a little, crazy world in which we are all built up, where crazy shit actually happens. Like, being in two places at the same time and even quantum entanglement. I bet that would encourage a lot of kids to pursue that "world", (because, tbh who wouldn't want to see crazy stuff as a kid? That sounds like magic!) leading them to be interested in science, and that may bring the world a lot of bright minds in the future
Is it me becoming more and more savvy or are these lectures less and less specific?
As I don't have such a high opinion of myself and think I don't know much about quantum mechanics, I believe these lecture are just scratching the surface. They become more entertaining than informative.
That's the tenth lecture on the subject I saw today and it's always the same dish. The only thing that changes is the veneer.
Entanglement, superposition, decoherence (he didn't even talked about actually), qbits, Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and so forth are pretty well known but most of the time, that's what you are served over and over.
Not because it is informative but because it's spectacular or fun.
It's hard to find something in between entertaining lectures and Phd level ones.
Probably because the first ones target people who want to have a good time and the seconds target people who make a living from the topic.
People who are not professionals but still want to know (really) more than the obvious are left behind. Probably because they are not numerous.
That's a pitty.
Sorry, but its impossible to explain Quantum mechanics without mathematics. However, it is certainly not a Ph.D. level topic at all. I am 19 and halfway through Shankar's principles of QM. At McGill, you can take QM as early as second-year undergrad. Its mandatory for all Undergraduate physicists.
It is un-imaginative people repeating the same stories over and over; quantum mechanics was born in confusion and therefore those stories are confusing. Someone could bring order to them by exploring a lot of symmetries; Caltech's sophomore QM class for example focuses on the Stern-Gerlach experiment which is much more obviously symmetrical than the double-slit experiment; but there seems to be no popular treatment of the double-slit experiment (and the rest of that canon) which pays rigorous attention to the symmetries
I totally agree with you. I am tired of QM as an entertaining topic. If you have time and really want to know QM with no magic, just the truth, I recommend you Griffiths book. You only need a math basis to understand it, and a bit of patience, but it is definitely the best one to start introducing in QM. It really explains you uncertainty and other stuff, with the real meaning of the words.
I know this is an extremely late reply, but edX has lots of excellent free courses (by MIT for example) on Quantum Mechanics if you're interested. You can also get a certificate at the end which is pretty cool but costs money. Definitely a more in-depth practical "lecture-based" "real" approach to the subject
Question: the apparatus doing the observing - what was it? And did it not emit a frequency that disturbed the particles? How was the data from the apparatus analysed and can you direct me to a source that explains the whole experiment from start to finish. When I hear a theoretical physicist basing theory upon the words "if this is true " I wonder about the value of this form of philosophy when it is used to put forth these ideas as fact.
Good question.
I had a similar idea of augmenting the 'bit' (to be more than 0 or 1) - but where Lieven suggests it could be 'both' 0 AND 1, my idea was to suggest that it be 'neither' 0 OR 1 (a 'neutral' value). I think this could possibly be implemented in circuits because my (very limited) understanding is that 1 is actually 'captured' by a positive charge and 0 is 'captured' by a negative charge. If that is correct (which it may not be - again, my understanding of circuitry is very limited) - then why couldn't there be an absence of either charge - and thereby allowing a bit to contain 3 'values' rather than 2? I would refer to this as trinary rather than binary. This would seem a more practical approach rather than a bit containing BOTH values - and this is not an attempt to discredit Lieven's ideas here - but I was reminded of this idea when I watched this video so I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in for whatever it's worth!
moving particle can be mass particle and energy wave at the same time. and the energy wave property induced a conclusion that the particle can be many places at the sam time by double slits experiment. the observation is adding interactive erergy to the observable to get a result. we dont need to use weird wording to say that observer has determined the state of the particle. how come so many people has used unreasonable language words to describe that phenomena?
That's why people try to avoid quantum! Anything and everything is possible is too wonderful!
Thanks for this!
Does anyone else think the reason for the superpositioning of cooled electrons is, because before the universe existed it was also in a state of absolute cool. This would mean that the temperature of the vacuum will eventually reach zero, as the matter can no longer interact with each other. Then as the universe expands into a big freeze, it will inevitably become a massive void. Which would be both absolutely dark or absolutely bright, it would also be absolutely cold. Causing this quantum event to happen again, by creating a quantum superposition vacuum of space. This occurence has the probability to spontaneously collapse into a singularity. Food for thought.
Why not make it 3 slits in the double slit experimentlit?
Three slits (and more) have been tested. Part of the reason for the first such Quantum level test was to see if the predictions of Quantum Mechanics (QM) are truly valid, or whether we would see higher order effects. (We saw no higher order effects, by the way.)
Great like the allegory of the cave.,..
this changed me
My thoughts exactly, the actions of particles that we can see may be the reflections/shadows of 4th dimensional beings or energy 🤔
Does it mean that what we see are the e shadows of electrons in fourth dimension
I was hoping this was going to go into Bohm and hidden variables
The more we learn, the bigger the gap between those willing to do the hard work of thinking, and the lazy buggers who want 10-minute answers.
+Arguminium Marcelius Sounds like a form of brain washing....They need us to believe......... Maybe in 2045 they will be able in explain it in 10 minutes if they use QM
Physicists/Teachers are always trying to throw us off track. First they say things like, if a boy on the back of a truck throws a ball forward at 20 miles per hour as the truck moves forward at 60 miles per hour on the road, the ball relative to the road will be moving at 80 miles per hour. Then they say that this addition of speeds does not apply to light. But the point is that 20mph + 60mph does not equal 80mph, but equals a very tiny amount less than 80mph. So this gets the students confused. And then we can have pulses of light coming from lasers that are sending light from left to right across a large distance. If we measure the time taken for one pulse of light to cross this large distance, we will see that based upon the distance it had traveled, that it traveled at the speed of light. However, if we are inside a large long tube, and we were in motion from left to right or right to left, and one of those pulses of light passed through our long tube, we still would measure its speed to be the speed of light. Again, Physicists/Teachers fail to give the student a simple mechanical explanation of how this happens, but instead they pull out the math and basically say that the math did it.
The more we learn about our universe, the more questions we run into than answers.
@@new-knowledge8040 What do you mean ... "how this happens" ?
@@rodschmidt8952 I meant that is is proper to give an actual and complete physical explanation, rather than use math as an explanation tool and or give only partial explanations. After all, it's called "Physics". To give you an example of an incomplete explanation, which therefore does not reveal the complete physical on goings, often time dilation is demonstrated by using the two light clock experiment. If you have two people, and each person is carrying a vertical light clock, and the two people are in motion relative to each other, each person will view the other persons clock as being a clock that is ticking slower than theirs. (Check YT /watch?v=p2nwdS3ia24 if you are not familiar with light clocks) Meanwhile, each person may also be holding a mechanical clock right next to their light clock. In this case, when asked, even some physics professors can not give an explanation as to how both people would view the other persons mechanical clock as being a mechanical clock that is ticking slower than theirs. If they can't explain it, obviously they are not seeing the complete picture of what is physically occurring.
holy shit with that kind of power in computers we will be able to develop technology so effortlessly compared to now
Welcome to 1999 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
"Einstein's Quantum Riddle" is a good explanation for laypeople
Concerning "Spooky" action at a distance, it is said that if one measures one particle, that the other particle of the entangled pair is immediately effected. Thus we have a case of simultaneity. However, special relativity says that simultaneity is relative. Thus SR says that from one frame of reference, the measuring of one particle and the effect upon another both occur simultaneously, yet from other frames of reference it is seen either that the measuring process occurs first and the effect process occurs second, or that the effect occurs first and the measuring occurs second. If you understand what this means, then you are catching on.
However, if you are not catching on, then you will believe that a particle can be at more than one place at a time, rather than a event occur as the result of settings which span over time. In other words, we are talking about a 4 dimensional event. The idea that a particle can be at more than one place at a time is only perceived to be this way by a limited mind that is confined to only the present time, or real-time. Anyhow, to see if you are on track at all, think about motion. Motion contains two variables. 1) Speed. 2) Distance. Variables range from zero to infinity, thus infinite motion would be to travel across an infinite distance at an infinite speed. If you then proceed to analyze the outcome of this infinite motion, you will soon independently discover what is referred to as Special Relativity(SR), and you will independently derive the SR mathematical equations.
NEWKNOWLEDGE so?... its so fast its backwards?
@@silassmith4861 No. It means that it is a 4 dimensional event. Long story.
"it is said that if one measures one particle, that the other particle of the entangled pair is immediately effected"
Actually no; there is no "effect" that can be measured (for as you point out, that would imply transmission of info "faster than c", which in some frame means "backward in time").
What we have is a sort of conspiracy; we can measure them in either order, but when it's all done the measurements will agree
What if the election (if we say that it is a partical and not a pulse in a medium that we still don't understand ) that you observe is traveling faster than light in near absolute 0 and you simply measure it slower than it travels and the results are misleading just because you capture it in the same time in your current capturing speed limit ? It will look like an after image ;)
I'm thinking Lieven Vandersypen knows Columbus wasn't afraid of the world being flat; but was rather constructing a talk on quantum theory, and not a talk on: Hellenistic Flat Earth Theory. ofc I could be wrong here.
It does bother me, it strange and cool but doesn't seem normal.
great
Could someone smarter than myself tell me if I'm completely wrong to wonder if dark matter could be a higher dimension? Ive never heard anyone pose a higher dimension as a possibility for what dark matter maybe but to me it seems like it could make sense and I'm just curious if I'm way off with thinking that. I don't know if that even makes sense or if I've just watched to many RUclips videos on stuff that I don't understand lol. It's a little random from this video but I assume that there's someone watching this video that has a background that makes them better qualified to tell me if that's even possible.
I understand you to be suggesting that dark matter is IN a higher dimension, and that's what makes it dark.
I think you are almost completely wrong. You are trying to find a way that this matter can interact with us via gravity but not with light, but there is no reason why dimensionality would affect one of these forces but not the other; in fact if there is a charged object then it must come to thermal equilibrium with its surroundings via both forces. So if dark matter exists, it is dark because of what it is, not where it is.
I say "if dark matter exists" because a friend of mine who has most of a PhD in physics (and who once worked at CERN as a programmer) tells me that he thinks the postulation of dark matter is the result of computer simulations assuming that all of the mass of a galaxy is concentrated in its center -- as I recall. Or some sort of software error like that.
The existing theory of higher dimensions (i.e. that the universe is a tiny-diameter tube, or sort of multi-tube, with four long dimensions--including time--and seven or so tiny ones) says that ALL matter inhabits all of these dimensions, equally. So we cannot draw a distinction between some matter (in your idea, dark matter) that is in the "higher" dimensions, and other matter that is not.
Thanks for thinking, tho
His daughter can be anywhere before he looks, even on the roof, you can even calculate the probability of the event if you want, or of the coffee cup resting on your kitchen counter suddenly appearing in your neighbor's bathtub, again a quantifiable calculation. Quantum mechanics also tells us weirder things like placing a ball in a smaller shoebox imparts to the ball some additional energy, when physicists try to confine fundamental particles to smaller and smaller spaces they gain so much energy that they can blast out of any enclosure they can build
There's been many times when I dropped something and never could find it, no matter how thoroughly I looked. It might have landed on the moon. Maybe I found a new type of space travel.
I HAVE A SOCCER GAME THAT I DONT WANNA MISS BUT COLLGE GAMEDAY IS GOING TO TCU URGGGGGGG I CANT GO TO BOTH HALP
Or simplistically every action has an equal and opposite reaction and the discrepancy is when the anti electron passes through the electron.
huh---anti-electron
Bravo! Minds like yours are few and far between. Now find me a cure for cancer, post haste.
Has anyone ever tested the weight of different substances at near absolute zero? Gold, diamond, copper, ice, nitrogen. Might teach us something about gravity.
His explanation of an electron interfering with itself, is totally wrong. Why Theory: Finally, a Unified Theory Everyone Can Understand and Albert Einstein Would Love! Paperback - May 18, 2016
by Robert Kaufman (Author) Available on Amazon, print, ebook, and audio. (Audio on $1.99 and is excellent)
I might be wrong but... If you could have not only 0 and 1 but 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 (for computer language)... quantum mechanics could use their potential at, not double but, square (in para-comp) for every "bit?" you add. Since i dont know any other state than "on and off" this comment is a hypothesis, thus clearly i might be wrong.
Anastasios Vogiatzis There is no 0's or 1's as in numbers. 0 means off and 1 means on. So just like how you to day use the value of 0-9 as single digits binary uses 0-1. But as soon as you get the number 10 it rly means 2 or the number 100 means 4 and 1000 means 8 up to 2^M. So in computer language 0 and 1 are bits and a series of 8 numbers making 255 highest number of symbols a Byte (or buss) can refer to.
That said, I don't think this is the case anymore due to the fact that the limit of java memory today is like 2.147 billion. Bits are still the same but the number in a series has changed.
64-bit operative system anyone..? =)
And do not make me "reverse engineer" the number 2.147.... billion just to find the number of 1's in the series to be 64.
To "reverse engineer" any number into binary, simply divide it by 2 if it ended on a whole number add 1 on the side, if it had decimals add 1 to the result and 0 to the side. so: ...
255 : 2 = 127.5 - 0
128 : 2 = 64 - 1
64 : 2 = 32 - 1
32 : 2 = 16 - 1
16 : 2 = 8 - 1
8 : 2 = 4 - 1
4 : 2 = 2 - 1
2 : 2 = 1 - 1
1 : 2 = 0.5 - 1
(The reason the last number (1:2 = 0.5) not becoming 0 is that the number divided by 2 is less than 2, and that adding a number 0 would result in 1 giving a loop, and as binary don't have decimals a loop breaks the code).
Now all you have to do is start with the top number written on the side ignoring the first number that is 0 due to two things, 1.- 9 bits don't fit into a 8-bit buss, 2.- no number grater than 255 can exist in an 8 bit binary series. (this of course not true as the 256th number is 255 and 0 is the 1st).
And to all out there that where involved playing Star Craft way back in the days, this is the reason elements in the game did not surpass the number 255 beginning with 0-255).
This is something that did not exist in my life before I was 24 and was taking a math course (Simplest kind in college with focus on the simplest usage of math needed to go to uni etc.).
For colors and various other coding we use 16 number system going 0-9-a-b-c-d-e-f focusing the number 256 down to FF making white 00-00-00 and black FF-FF-FF
The 20 number system is used by countries like Denmark... where they say half the number 140 is 70 with is true but to understand this verbally in their language... good luck!
The Babylonian 60 number system has the flaw of not including 0 so you never know if they started in position 1, 60, 60 x 60 and so forth.
Now for all that read this far I hope you understand that binary mostly exist due to the fact that electric current can only be on or off. And that i did no mistakes introducing or reintroducing different numeric systems.
Torgrim Hanssen cheers for the hard work here xD thanks
Since I can't get anyone to be more specific I'll throw another 2 cents into the hat...I wonder sometimes if true scientific theorists who make an observation and then generate a hypothesis based on that observation have been replaced by mathematicians who generate an alternate "reality" by playing with numbers. I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that I'm biased because I'm not a math guy but true breakthroughs in any field are virtually always accompanied by practical applications. Just sayin'...
If it wasn't for quantum mechanics our modern technological world wouldn't exist. Would you consider that a good practical application?
You really don’t see the potential applications for quantum theory?? Man think before you type. The possibilities are immense. Even in the year that’s gone by since your comment, quantum computing has gone leaps and bounds.
TheFritz423
You do sound remarkably on-target with that. You are referring to academic theoretical physicists after 1905 or so. There are others, experimentalists and even engineers, who deal with the practical applications (electronics, lasers...)
Imagine quantum computing with AI.
For as long as AI is only doing what we can imagine it is redundant, and in the British employment sense.
@4:56 you should have a disclaimer to send little kids out of the room.
+Gee Squared Bodybuilding If they are smart enough to understand quantum theory then they should not be puzzled by two humans who are barely touching each other while portraying a visualization of a concept of the theory.
ExRepro Guitaro Oh, I thought he busted a quark on her chin.
***** Doubtful... when you see the guy during the unveiling he doesn't look like the type who'd be interested or lucky with women.
ExRepro Guitaro In one of the infinite number of realities he's busting quarks on her chin guaranteed.
One quick thing, the supposition that Columbus was brave for thinking the world might be round instead of flat is not what was being debated, we've know the world was round for at least a thousand or more years.
I find it astonishing how these geniuses (no sarcasm) can get these basic kinds of historical facts wrong.
See: Washington Irving Columbus Story (that's where we got the idea that it was all about round vs. flat, when the truth is that everybody knew the world is round but they disagreed about the size; it turns out the large-earthers were correct and Columbus would have run out of supplies and died before he reached the Orient, but for the lucky accident of the New World being in his way)
And yes, academia is quite fragmented
Nope you have merely turned my will to give people the benefit of the doubt, into a desire for closure..
QT says you have a chance of finding it in two or severl states when you look after, not that it is in tqo states simultanously. Of cource theremust be some underlaying state of processes that nakes this possible, but GT does not tell anything about that. Those telling that something is in two states simultanously, do not believe this themselves, but have fun of making us others believe it.
The way they phrase it in the business is "there is an amplitude that the thing is in this state, and there is an amplitude that the thing is in that state"
Can someone add english subtitles please?
twat.
funny
why? the guy's speaking English at least as well as most English speakers.
Athanasios Dogramatzidis Or.. you could enter an english course.
+Dick Hamilton Because if you have hearing difficulties, foreign accents, or any dialect in the same language can be very difficult to understand.
know almost is better that dont know at all
01:51 Within two minutes it goes terribly wrong. We can NOT see that an electron passes through two ways. If we see the electron, or measure it, it doesn't go through two ways at the same time.
The idea that an electron is in two places at the same time is a misconception. Only a mathematical probability wave will be in two places (or more) simultaneously, as far as we know. That's not very special, for a wave.
Fransamsterdam A better one is the oscillations of the diamond experiment. Where they both sort of dropped out of the atomic world and met up switched a bond and came back. I cant explain it on here you have to look.
So it only does when they're not looking? If they look it chooses ??
Boy this comment sure aged well.
Es geht nicht um Hasen, sondern um Energiepotenziale. ein oder mehrere Potenziale werden verschränkt. Bedeutet im Grunde aber nicht verbunden, sondern im Gegenteil zwangsgetrennt. Eben noch gemeinsam/geteilt, jetzt gezwungen sich zu entscheiden. In diesem Moment ist es schon passiert! Die Natur /das Universum haben entschieden, auch wenn der "Zauberer/Quantenphysiker" noch keine Ahnung hat. Die Sache ist gelaufen. Das Potenzial ist entweder hier oder da. NICHT hier UND da.
Wenn der "Zauberer" irgendwann den Hut hebt, ist das eben nicht der Moment der Entscheidung, sondern nur der Moment in dem der blöde Zauberer auch endlich erfährt was passiert ist. Angenommen ein Hofnarr erzwingt die Entscheidung , indem er heimlich nachguckt. Der Zauberer hat keine Ahnung, bis er selbst auch nachguckt. Wissenschaftler sollten sich mal gründlich mit guten Bühnenzauberern austauschen, dann würden sie sich nicht mit nem plumpen Palmagetrick an der eigenen Nase herumführen und die komplette Physik mitsamt jeder Logig über Board werfen.
the way to see the electron passing through the two slots is stop thinking it as localized particle and start thinking it as a wave exactly what has been done Huygens for visible light....the problem is not there dudes. QM is really incomplete and accept passively such stories is exactly what should not be done
So quantum computers are so spooky that when they in up in my smart phones, that my "q phone" will be giving me answers to questions I did not ask even before I have one.
ufoengines And even multiple answers at the same time - like "Yes" and "No"!:)
So, particles that reach the quantum scale are nodes that exist in a 4(?) dimensional space, which we can perceive to be a single state, a single position along the 4th axis.
What then is the 4th axis? We have Height, Width, Depth and...? Does it even have a name yet?
+Navnik BHSilver time...time is the 4th axis
jetpaq
I've heard that before, but I don't understand (yet) how that would make sense.
Navnik BHSilver well look at it like this. We have perceived direction , North south east and west and up and down. Those concepts are just as abstract as time when you look at it objectively. Theyre just words to describe the dimensions we can see and feel and touch. But you are experiencing time in either direction even now. You remember the past. U live in the present, and you plan for the future. Those dimensions are just as abstract, but certainly, just as real. u feel me?
jetpaq
I feel you yea, but just because something seems plausible does not make it the truth. I appreciate you saying this though, but until I'm presented with some more concrete evidence, I'll have to stay skeptic for now.
It is something I'll keep in mind though for sure.
Navnik BHSilver that's where it starts bro. Open minds are informed in time.
What bothers me is that there is absolutely nothing new here - I have heard the explanations from so many different scientists - each as breathlessly dramatic as the last - as if revealing a novel mystery - it begins to seems they have script they read it from almost word for word; like the black hole description " nothing can escape..." and you know whats coming next - "not even light!" Is there any thing new learned about QM since its discovery in the 1920's?
+Ralph Latham Not really, just verified since then. The problem with it I believe is there is hidden information that we will never have access to, and I think QM would make sense if we did have access to the information.
That's exactly what happens when a kid is dazzled by a magic trick. They describe the trick itself without the physics behind it. But, maybe one one day, the real explanation will emerge.
There are, but popularizers do not bother with them. See: Stern-Gerlach experiment (where the electron in the double-slit experiment can have a wave-shape or a particle-shape, the electron in SG can have spin-up or spin-sideways; the symmetries are more obvious so it's less confusing)
the cat of schrondingerg is a joke for God mainly when you know that the constant of planck h is depending of emittance and not really a constante ....
I think pilot wave theory will ultimately win.
There is a symmetry between the "pilot wave" (more or less, a sine wave) and the "particle' (a spike-wave). When we make the decision to measure the thing as a particle, we impose on it a certain shape. We could equally decide to measure it as a wave, and then we would impose a wave-shape on it and we would know which wave it is (with which spatial frequency and phase).
So a "pilot wave" is not in any sense less real. It is not less real because it's "only a probability wave" (what do you think it is after the measurement?); it is not less real because it's wave-shaped instead of particle-shaped. It is simply the most recent shape that was imposed on the thing.
A GUY TOLD ME ONCE HE WAS A TIME TRAVELLER ...I GAVE HIM 20$ THEN HE TOLD ME TO WAIT 10 MINUTES FOR HIM TO COME BACK....BUT HE DIDNT COME BACK....COULD THAT HAVE BEEN TIME TRAVEL? I SAW HIM AND A FRIEND OF HIS DRIVE BY IN AN OLD VAN ABOUT THREE DAYS LATER ..THEY YELLED OUT THE WINDOW AND CALLED ME A DUFUS !!!!!!!!!!
Could it be that scientists made a fundamental some weirdness causing error hundred years ago continuing hundred years long???!?
As a dog let me say:" ERRARE HUMANUM EST.Wuff"
No, these weird ideas come from a number of experiments that have been repeated over the years.
You are explaining exactly the same of these videos you used . You don't even said something new or original.
For those who wants to see the original put "dr quantum" into youtube !
:)
Quantum Mechanics is based on a structure of theories mostly mathematics, like Tesla said they wander of and build a structure thats has no relation to reality. Yes they are great at Mathematical equation but when thats built on theoretical ideas it amounts to nothing more.
There is another lecture on this experiment on utube that gives 3 or 4 possible reasons. The idea of better computing power is great and is more great mathematics but doesn't proof the theory he trys to explain.
A quantum computer has been built. Not a just theory.
you lost me at Columbus, a genocidial maniac who wasnt eve the first one to discover america. why even mention him, you should know better
+Woof whats up buddy, mad cause you cant own slaves anymore?
me nem nesa
what's Columbus got to do with quantum mechanics? Did he simultaneously discover and not-discover America or something?
There is no superposition only superstition. One part disappears - one part reappears. And how surprising: If it went here, it did not go there?! Physicist should at least once visit a magic show: They will hopefully doubt that the rabbit goes in superposition until the magician pulls him out again.
The scientists can only trigger the moment of separation and disappearance of the binding energybit. Problem is, the poor scientists have no clue where the item goes UNTIL they make the call and lift the cup/box/hat, Atom. But instead of just accepting that they can not yet observe, they claim that the thing goes into mystical heaven(superposition) where the rules of physics have no power. It then waits there for the holy sciencepriest to invite its reappearance on earth. Until this moment it is not only invisible but also undecided, where to go, no wait - it is AND is not and it is when it is everywhere and nowhere. !!! How did the scientists find that out? They did not, they started with logic, failed with what they knew and invented magical solutions. Totally unnecessary- look up Nassim Haramein.
Haha, quantum theory is equivalent to the infant's illusion of object impermanence. That's what they get for refusing to acknowledge that space is a medium that waves.
There is superposition. In fact, any state can be regarded as a superposition of other states. See: quantum states form a vector space
It means another dimension
cool , this is call hyper threading
wat
lol
clap, clap, clap, wooo wooo
Humans knew the earth was round long before Columbus. Check out a nautical map before him.
Yeah..Columbus was kind of a fraud. And the idea that Earth was flat was indeed never widespread. This mistake bothers me more than quantum theory.
Does the quantum theory bother you? Yes, it does. And I need more than a reason to believe in magic. I need working/logical proof that it's true. I saw nothing convincing here.
Dennis R. Levesque takes maybe 45 seconds of google to find the proof your so anxious for before you believe.
But why does he finish off with the cute little quip about his daughter being "kind of right" when she says we are in two places at once? Sort of misleading and ruining his whole speech for the sake of being cute.
Show me the money. If quantum theory is solid show me what you've developed based on it.
ah --- modern communication technology..........
everything electronics
Satnav. Mobile phones. The Internet. Atomic energy.
A simple google search will answer that.
I'm just a simple country boy but atomic energy was first harnessed around 1944 as I recall, and had little to do with quantum theory. Mobile phones depend on radio waves and relativity corrections thanks to the man, AE. The internet is a simple transmission of binary data over simple copper or optic lines.Did I forget to carry the one? Sometimes I forget to carry the one when I'm feeding the cows. Did you get this information from your quantum computer? Mine still can't decide if it's on or off, or both.
The beginning part of the lecture was very interesting anout eletrons and slits but when you started to talk about computers, zeros and ones , I got bored and disinterested.
I hope you never benefit from quantum computers if they are successful. 0's and 1's make watching this video possible in the first place.
Binocularify I'm not an engineer and I'm sure most viewers are not either so if you want to entertain with your video, it's the concept that interests me but not the figures and numbers, leave that to your engineers but if your video is made for them then ok. I'll find other vids that doesn't have technical stuff but more concepts.
Quiet! The adults are talking.
cksammi www.disney.com that should be easier for you to follow.
cksammi Quantum Computing is not for everyone. Glad to hear that you were at least interested in the first part of the lecture. I've personally got 3 books on the topic of Quantum Computing but I couldn't give less of a shit about Shakespeare for example. To each their own I guess.
As for the rest of you; calm the fuck down please.
Said a whole bunch of nothing.
That's such a horrible explanation of quantum mechanics and quantum computing.
A quantum computer doesn't get to do an exponential number of operations. Otherwise it would be trivial to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time with a quantum computer, but nobody actually knows how to do that, and it seems likely that it is impossible.
I saw a talk by Scott Aaronson yesterday and it was very elucidating. Go read his blog instead of listening to this nonsense.
+alonamaloh) You are on the wrong track mate! A suitable quantum computer can do an exponential number of operations, Its the programming of the quantum computer thats the hard part.
This comment sure aged well.
How do you program a quantum computer w/o a quantum computer? It needs to be privy to answers.
I gained nothing from what was really a rambling attempt to inform. Fail as so many others