Aaron O’Connell: Making sense of a visible quantum object

Category : Randomness
Aaron O’Connell: Making sense of a visible quantum objectby wpjljron.Aaron O’Connell: Making sense of a visible quantum objecthttp://www.ted.com Physicists are used to the idea that subatomic particles behave according to the bizarre rules of quantum mechanics, completely different …

http://www.ted.com Physicists are used to the idea that subatomic particles behave according to the bizarre rules of quantum mechanics, completely different …


Related Posts

25 Responses

  1. Peter Paulsen25 June, 2014 at 1:44 pm

  2. princeofexcess16 February, 2014 at 9:44 pm

    I have a question which might require a very technical answer (possibly
    with some math equations) but im pretty good with handling that so i
    appreciate if someone could explain this to me (since its skipped in this

    How did they find out that the particle is both vibrating and non vibrating
    (how did they measure it). Since they cannot use radiation to shine on the
    object and see it in the dual state how do they find out it is?

  3. princeofexcess13 February, 2014 at 11:58 pm

    If you want to make an apple pie from scratch you must first create a
    universe – carl segan

  4. Erik Kershaw14 December, 2013 at 8:10 pm

    *Do you dance when no one is watching?*
    A quantum world above the scale of particles? What does it mean for a
    physical object, not just a theoretical particle, to be in a super position?


  5. spawnofdawnacle29 November, 2013 at 3:42 am


  6. Alex Kostko13 August, 2013 at 10:36 am

    Anything to add, lovely men and women? Think linear but don’t forget that
    we vibrate, hehe.

  7. Joseph Welborn28 August, 2012 at 1:33 am

    no the wieght would be the same its still one object it wouldnt multiply
    just because its in one two or even 3000 places

  8. NoLifeVirginWhoWatches TooMuchPorn26 June, 2012 at 11:37 am

    thank youu!!!!

  9. SecondSince26 March, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    Ugliest. Shirt. EVER!!! ^^

  10. James Dubreze26 November, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    Therefore, we have reasoned that spirituality is any knowledge that has not
    yet been proven to be scientific. We believe that there is a science to
    everything in life; we are simply not using all of our brain ability to
    implement or understand that science. As a result of that anything that the
    mind cannot comprehend is referred to as being mystical which off-course is
    the essence of spirituality. Peoplebreeze com

  11. satranifan24 August, 2011 at 12:56 am

    @LasergunExtreme There’s a reason for that…it takes math. Physics is
    better understood mathematically and he’s not really going to be able to
    discuss the math with a lay audience. “Particles” aren’t even a proper
    construction in small enough spaces, they’re just convenient ways to think
    about something more abstract.

  12. MrTanookiMario23 August, 2011 at 8:32 am

    I don’t know that he explained it well, but still cool stuff.

  13. Morgan Collins28 June, 2011 at 12:25 am

    @Scoob505 it looks ridiculous is what. And lame.

  14. shagster197013 June, 2011 at 10:05 am

    QM is BS. Lets get back to basics and stop with all the weird theories.

  15. David Rosenblatt10 June, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    Unfortunately, talks like this are just used as ammunition for the New Age
    fanatics and “gullibility exploiters”. Witness the movie “What the Bleep do
    we Know?”, which stretches quantum theory well past the breaking point, to
    make all sorts of silly pseudoscientific claims. I don’t think Mr.
    O’Connell buys into that stuff – at least one would HOPE he doesn’t – but
    he plays right into their hands.

  16. Sinuev110 June, 2011 at 1:26 am

    @dbfro1 Well there was the civil rights movement, the women’s movement,
    children’s rights movement, the LBGT movement, the institution of
    Medicare/Welfare/Social Security, unprecedented amounts of foreign aid and
    charity during natural disasters, the formation of the Peace Corps, etc…
    etc… all within the last century alone. I think you’re seeing the ebb and
    flow of these things only from the perspective of where we’re at now. Try
    it from the perspective of society in the 19th century.

  17. Sinuev110 June, 2011 at 12:18 am

    @dbfro1 We don’t have to learn empathy. It’s hard-wired into our brains via
    structures like the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and ventromedial
    prefrontal cortex, and damage to these areas has been linked to numerous
    anti-social disorders such as sociopathy. The brain has amazing plasticity
    though, and environmental factors can modify existing structures resulting
    in either strengthened or atrophied sense of empathy. We are a product of
    Nature AND Nurture.

  18. arendir9 June, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    @HammeredRacoon As a man who pursues my goals and dreams with passion, Im
    sorry that you think so,,, i completely disagree. I hope you can take a
    step back and see how sexist a comment like that is, because that is far
    from the intent of my original comment. Both men and woman adhere to many
    different aptitudes, and if it wasnt for the passion of BOTH your mom and
    your dad im a million percent sure wouldn’t exist.

  19. Melki Hassa9 June, 2011 at 9:17 am

    Thank you a great work, people even those who doesn’t really curious about
    qm should easily relate to this talk imo, smart content, smart
    presentation, imo.

  20. sirachman9 June, 2011 at 7:40 am

    @openuniverse2003 I bet you think you are cute. However I have high doubts
    on whether your level of education is anywhere near this mans level. Maybe
    you should stick to less ‘complex’ topics if this seemed nonsensical to you.

  21. excelgeo7 June, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    @elchafa no, a lot of speakers have said in the past that “i have only been
    given 5/10 minutes and I wish i had more” and just because a guy talking
    about religion wants 20, it doesnt mean he can have it.

  22. ccm8007 June, 2011 at 7:51 am

    @Keeban3 wow. Why would you assume I didn’t read beyond the first three
    words? Why is EVERYTHING on YT a battle of ego and nonsense? His experiment
    is the repeatable, the readings are the measurable – his conclusions are
    theoretical but so too is everything.

  23. myyyke7 June, 2011 at 3:38 am

    Here’s a long Q&A with Aaron that explains a lot more:

  24. parce867 June, 2011 at 12:05 am

    I know, truly amazing

  25. Ichijojichan6 June, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    @22ceavou22 This has always been a conceptual sticking point for me. How do
    we know the metal (or any quantum state object) is not just switching
    rapidly and randomly between two states? Switching would yield the same set
    of measurements, wouldn’t it?

Leave a Reply