Just wanted to start a thread on interesting non-intuitive physical phenomena which are illustrated in fun and insightful ways. Feel free to add your own if you wish of course.

This is a short and interesting illustration of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle using a laser

[www.youtube.com]

Cheers,
J

A fun cartoon that deals with the bizarre and non-intuitive wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics. This describes how electrons exhibit both particle and wave-like properties. It also mentions that in quantum mechanics experiments are observer dependent in that the observer can never be completely separated from what is being observed.

[www.liveleak.com]

Cheers,
J

"Physics Fun" is an Oxymoron

Richard Feynman, a Nobel laureate in physics, wrote quite a few fun books for the layman. I liked You've Got to Be Kidding Mr. Feynman and on a more serious note QED, a book that gives a good intuitive grasp of quantum electrodynamics.

Pretty spectacular molecular visualisations of DNA coiling, replication, transcription and translation.

From [sciencehack.com]

I find it helps to be able to visualise in some way how things are working, and this video provides a good example. It's pretty amazing what science can allow us to understand and even visualise.

Cheers,
J

ps Yes, Feynman was a brilliant guy, great teacher too.

Jose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A fun cartoon that deals with the bizarre and
> non-intuitive wave-particle duality of quantum
> mechanics. This describes how electrons exhibit
> both particle and wave-like properties. It also
> mentions that in quantum mechanics experiments are
> observer dependent in that the observer can never
> be completely separated from what is being
> observed.
>
> [www.liveleak.com]
>
> Cheers,
> J


Jose, to me this phenomenon illustrates our connectedness with the whole universe. It appears to demonstrate that our material world only exists as an aspect of the consciousness percieving it.. i.e you and I. To me, this is the same as saying "that I am what is everywhere", and that the concept of being this individual human body is just an idea. To me, this also suggests that I am indeed eternal. What do you think ?

>>>Pretty spectacular molecular visualisations of DNA coiling, replication, transcription and translation.
<<<

Jose, thanks, that was amazing. I wish I'd seen that when I was studying the stuff... way better than a bunch of textbook figures.

Hey lightform,

I just saw that you posed me a question a long time ago which I never replied too. It needs some time so will do it soon.

For now, just wanted to post these interesting articles about how physicists and mathematicians have developed the art of origami into something with many interesting and varied applications. In many ways I believe physics and maths can only add to artistic appreciation, and never deter from it.


This gives some of the scientific applications of origami
[blog.wired.com]

This includes some of his origami artwork
[www.gizmag.com]

Here is his audiovisual presentation at TED
[www.ted.com]

Cheers,
J





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2008 06:19PM by Jose.

I am blown away Jose... thats awesome !

Jose!

Thanks so much for posting this stuff--AWESOME! Also, I think everything in physics will eventually boil down to fractals. Which will then boil down to fractals. Which will then boil down to fractals. [repeat]

Hey lightform,


Jose, to me this phenomenon illustrates our connectedness with the whole universe. It appears to demonstrate that our material world only exists as an aspect of the consciousness percieving it.. i.e you and I. To me, this is the same as saying "that I am what is everywhere", and that the concept of being this individual human body is just an idea. To me, this also suggests that I am indeed eternal. What do you think ?

That's a very tough question indeed, and one which I don't really know the answer too. I think there is a slight inaccuracy, if I've understood your statement properly, in that although measurement in quantum scales seems to be observer dependent, this does not mean the universe is observer dependent. It would very well carry on regardless whether or not someone is observing it or not. I would agree that quantum theory does seem to indicate *some* level of *connectedness* of everything in the Universe, but there are caveats to that too. For example, according to general relativity there are parts of the Universe which are not causally connected, ie which can't communicate with each other, since they are too far apart in space-time. So we are formally disconnected from these parts, for example. But these two theories are just parts of the picture, and incompatible parts at that in their different regimes, and my feeling is that until we come up with a quantum theory of gravity, we won't have the framework in place to think about these issues in a deeper way. So I would say patience my friend, as in my opinion it is better to have a neutral opinion than a wrong one based on incomplete evidence and maybe we won't live to see it (quite probably), but that's ok.

I would like to expand a little on this remark

and that the concept of being this individual human body is just an idea.

I think I may have a slightly different perception of what the "human body" is than you, but which actually does tie in a little bit with what you describe above. If I think of the "human body" in different scales, going from subatomic scales to molecules and inches and feet and then miles and light years and so on, I have this picture of the various representations of the human body at these different scales. To me, the human body is a bundle of energy, if you will, very well localized in certain scales, and with vanishingly small filaments spinning out in every direction if are to go further and further away. So think of it as having vast empty spaces at incredibly small scales, concentrated energy at the scales of, say, millimeters, and then again vast empty spaces at larger scales than a few feet. So the "human body" in reality is very very different to what most people perceive, since they can't see this other scales very easily, but I'm not quite sure it is "just an idea". Perhaps you might expand on that thought a little.

Hey Tamukha,

Glad you liked it. I'm not sure if you're right about the fractal theory as a physical theory of Nature, since there does seem to be a fundamental scale in Nature called the Planck scale, but they certainly are pretty amazing mathematical constructs.

Cheers,
J