Comments by "" (@nightmareTomek) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. ​ @todorstojanov3100  You don't get the pattern by shooting a single particle or molecule. What you get is just a single dot, one impact. For the topic it doesn't matter what the photon does after hitting the screen or whatever there is at the end. Whenever they say they fire just one particle and there's an interference pattern, they actually fire multiple particles, maybe it's just one at a time, but the interference pattern doesn't appear from a single dot. This is the confusing, mystified language I'm talking about. Just like when they omitted telling us for several decades that they're measuring light with a polarizer. A polarizer primarily changes light, measurement is only like a side effect. But they are treating it like photons were tiny dwards that hide under their hat when you come closer to take a good look. This mystified language is misleading, it's not even how the experiment was conducted originally. A bunch of particles, or a wave of particles are needed to see an interference pattern. Thus I also said that an individual particle doesn't go through both slits, not that the whole wave can't. The wave being reduced to contain only one particle I believe is a math trick in quantum mechanics that make calculations possible, but doesn't appear in reality. Just like square roots give you an additional result that sometimes is outside of reality.
    1
  2.  @todorstojanov3100  certainly not the particles with each other. You're right. They must interfere with something in the slit, because obviously the single fired particles change trajectory. And not randomly either, after multiple particles a pattern emerges. I don't know what they could be interfering with. Maybe they bump into the edges. Or there's some sort of field, electro magnetic or even nuclear that's acting on the light, and differently depending on the particles properties.
    1
  3. If we can build this machine for real, then we can speculate about the real answer. For now it's just sci-fi fantasy and we can use a fantasy answer.
    1
  4. I wish I were a physicist. Got lots of ideas without the need to invent new theories. Instead I would like to unmystify quantum mechanics because it has been mystified with sci-fi language which leads to us being so confused about it.
    1
  5. I still don't get why there's an interference pattern visible on the photons that go left when you measure the photons that go right way later by detector 3 (or 4). Shouldn't it just stay a blob no matter what happens? Does detector 3 retroactively disable some of the photons that went the left way?
    1
  6.  @OrbitTheSun  What? I don't understand a thing. I think the actual problem is that after the 2 slits the light is never split into 2 directions the way graphs are showing it, and thus the information cannot travel back in time because there's nothing to travel to. And these measurement devices actually don't measure the light at all, they polarize it. The entanglement isn't shared information, it's that we can calculate something about one particle if we know the value the other particle has. Essentially it's nothing more than a phase shift. The delayed choice doesn't mean timetravel, but just that the light waves from the 2 slits are put back together and then randomly split and the measurement is delayed. Everything is just a bunch of imprecise explanations.
    1
  7. This singularity thing in black holes annoys me so much, but especially pop science can't stop with it. But isn't it obvious that it's a mathematical artifact when we apparently know that the neutron stars get smaller when they absorb mass, and at one point they turn black? Why is the main assumption that they suddenly implode instead of that they just keep getting smaller?
    1
  8. Maybe the gravitational force (erm, gravity isn't a force, right? ) isn't stronger, but turns into a spiral itself at great distances? Dark matter was invented without being found, still sounds to me like people making too many theories and everytime these theories stop predicting the observations, they make these theories more complicated. But what do I know, I wish I were a physicist.
    1
  9. This is a human mindset, "either you agree with our methods or you have to be reeducated", somewhat religious or cult like, and even science hasn't gotten rid of it. I'm not even surprised.
    1
  10. I LOVE THIS VIDEO!!!! xD I'm still waiting for that super-exotic rainbow-particle. It's more rare than a shiny pokemon. I think these scientists are trying to imitate the geniuses which invented particles but which actually have been found. I see the same in art, where people try to replicate the success of an artist by reusing his best ideas and making them much worse.
    1
  11. I think we misunderstand it because it has been mystified with sci-fi language. We need to unmystify it first, but it's not wrong at it's core. What is wrong are the theories built on the mysticism, they're bandaids to our lack of understanding.
    1
  12. These fundamental particles merge or split in other fundamental particles. Is that information "obtainable", with the uncertainty principle an all, if we don't even know the position of these particles? How could we know that particle a hit b instead of c?
    1
  13. I see it this way. Building blocks make mikro organisms, those make us, if our numbers grow so much that the earth can be seen as a thinking organism that lives for a billion years, you could probably scale this thinking even further.
    1
  14. Omg he sounds like a flat earther with all his erm ehh ahm ehm err hmm aerhm hrr ehm hrhh.
    1
  15. Maybe you find that on the dark web.
    1
  16. It's not just that it's slow, it devolved into the sci-fi realm, fantastic stories about multiverses, white holes and supersymmetries. Maybe it has always been this way, but most of the time these people called themselves authors and not scientists.
    1
  17. I'd love cities to turn off the majority of lights for a few hours at night. But people are way too afraid for that.
    1
  18. Her haters hate that about her. Prof Dave for example, he's so stoooouuupiiitd.
    1
  19. Probably it hasn't. I wonder if you'll ever get an answer. I think I saw somewhere that the interference pattern gets weaker with wider slits. And recently also that a single slit also produces an interference like pattern, just way weaker. I'd also like to know what'll happen when the edges of the slits are rounded off. Because since water also shows waves behind the slits, I suspect it's water molecules interacting with the edge somehow, either having their trajectories altered by some nuclear forces, or just bumping into the edges and then dispersing the new energy vector among the other particles in the wave.
    1
  20. It's like the US justice system being like the Russian arms production system, full of corruption. Similar story in the psychology sector with psychologists being rather sick themselves than knowledgeable, the pharma profiting from sick people and prescribing rather than treating, and the education system prioritizing adapting their students to a work ethic rather than cultivating intelligence.
    1