Free Falling Objects Physics Lesson (5)
This video discusses free falling objects in physics. The kinematic equations for particles under constant acceleration are used for objects falling freely. …
Video Rating: 4 / 5
No cats were harmed in the making of this video. Tweet it – http://bit.ly/qJZry7 Facebook it – http://on.fb.me/rfgo9J minutephysics is now on Google+ – http:…
Video Rating: 4 / 5
lol so i was watching his videos and looked at the name. didnt realize when
i said this guy is pretty good that that was his name also hahaha
i dont understand shxt!!
FML
I didnt understand the part when he said a=9.80 ms-1.
8==D
your video is really helpful! thank you so much ;)
Nice! It really helped!
It’s height not heigth
Love your background music haha
heigth…
this video is really usefull for me…thanks..
The way you say height and the background music easily stole my attention.
Gotta watch it again haha. Also since unit for velocity is meters per one
second… why can we not just plug in time in V0 to get the height. (why
not just height= V0(t)?)
Not only does he spell height wrong, he pronounces it wrong. Good effort
though.
actually.. judging from the physics we have here at our university.. i
think he considered the starting point to be 0. while the bottom part of
the building is -50m. so simply saying.. he didnt get it wrong.. he just
failed to explain that part.
promising–but the music drove me away
you have no idea what u missed man, this video is great!
i prefer clips of stuff in 1999 uploaded in 2006 and 2008 and stuff in 2000
uploaded in 2009 and 2011
He didn’t fail to explain, he decided to not explain it.
ok
hi what about if we are looking for initial velocity and the max height we
have only time and the height from the ground. plz help me with this if you
have any idea. thx
I signed in to tell you that you spelled ‘height’ wrong.
Your maximum height is wrong. How can 20.4m be maximum height if he is
throwing it off at 50m ?! The Y initial should be 50m. so the maximum
height would be 70.4m.
I don’t get it. Just because you didn’t see something happen doesn’t mean
it didn’t happen. The cat is either alive or dead, one or the other,
regardless of whether you look or not. The universe doesn’t wait for you to
look before deciding the outcome for you to see. The outcome already
happened before you looked. There are two possible outcomes that could have
occured before you looked, and one of them happened. It’s simple.
I may be stating the obvious here or be totally out of bounds, but to me
the cat is alive or dead no matter what we do. It doesn’t matter if we see
it or not. The nature doesn’t collapse onto itself (or whatever terminology
he used) when we lay eyes on the cat, we just observe the outcome of
something that happened regardless of our observance. If a rock exists,
that rock will exists regardless if there’s a human mind there to
acknowledge it. This seems like another case of human hubris – I wasn’t
there when the tree fell, so I don’t even know if it made a sound.
I really don’t like the Schrödinger’s Cat experiment because of how it
assumes that human perception is somehow pivotal in the functions of the
universe. It is like saying that there could or couldn’t be dinosaurs until
we discovered the first fossil that confirmed that there were. This, of
course, is nonsensical if you take into account that the dinosaurs had
already lived for millions of years before humanity even emerged, but for
some reason the all-important human brain is needed to validate their
existence.
An even better experiment is watching how people will reject science and
think they know better than famous scientists like Einstein and Schrodinger
just because they can’t grasp the concept of how quantum mechanics work.
Just read all the ignorant the comments on this video.
For those of you that don’t get it, although the cat may or may not be
dead, we as a person would never know if it was alive or dead so therefore
there are two outcomes in OUR mind. This means until we actually physically
see that cat there are two alternate universes in OUR mind. It’s 50/50 so
either its dead or alive until we see it, so if we opened the bunker and
saw the cat dead, one universe collapses we had in our mind and visa versa
if the cat was alive. That’s basically the simplest way to explain it.
This is more philosophy than science. I don’t get it. The cat is either
alive or dead, one or the other, regardless of whether you look or not.
Isn’t it as simple as that?
Are you telling me, reality is now based on our perception of it. Gah, over
thinking. -_-
This theory proves God’s existance
The quantum superposition theory is one of the fundamental principles of
quantum physics. There have been many experiments and applications in
regard to these oversimplified videos ; A beryllium ion has been trapped in
a superposed state, a “cat state” has been achieved with photons and an
experiment involving a superconducting quantum interference device
(“SQUID”) has been linked to theme of the “cat state” thought experiment,
so i dont believe any ordinary person ignorant of quantum mechanics can
claim this principle as to be wrong and refute it. Until you have a better
theory to shake the very foundations of quantum physics you have to accept
it
The many worlds interpretation (MWI) is quite elegant is explaining the
wavefunction collapse. In fact, it says it doesn’t collapse at all. The
probability density is continuous before and after observation if it spans
the many worlds (in half the worlds, the cat dies, in the other half, it
lives). Therefore, the probability density doesn’t collapse to a sharp
spike around (cat lives) or (cat dies) after observation, because the cat
DID live in 50% of the cases (of the worlds) and DID die in 50% of the
other cases (the other worlds).
What’s inelegant about it is that it substitute an unapproachable problem
(wavefunction collapse) with another (can’t interact with the other
worlds). Therefore, MWI is more mathematically satisfying, but physically
it’s the same dead-end
this called Luck!!
Guten Morgen! Heute wäre der österreichische Physiker Erwin Schrödinger 127
Jahre alt geworden. Berühmt geworden ist er auch unter Nicht-Physikern
durch sein Gedankenexperiment “Schrödingers Katze”, welches die knuffigen
Vierbeiner als makroskopisches System durch die Regeln der Quantenmechanik
in einen Zustand versetzt, der gleichzeitig als lebendig und tot betrachtet
werden kann. Zombie-Katzen? Nein. Aber vielleicht hilft diese Animation das
Experiment anschaulicher darzustellen:
There is nothing scientific about this. It’s a 50/50 chance. It’s a
lottery. What they called quantum superimposition, I call lack of
information. Make the container transparent and you will know if cat is
dead or alive at all times. It is eventually going to die one way or
another, but that’s beside the point.
what if we put a camera in the bunker?
no it is a statement to say unless you put yourself to find out something
you will never no it will happen or it wont happen. its like when you are
afraid to ask someone something with a resulting answer of yes or no unless
you ask the actual answer will never be signifigant
what if you didn’t open the bunker for like a year? you’re basically
dooming the cat to either explode or die or suffocation.. so doe’s
introducing that inevitability disrupt the experiments? doe’s it have to be
a 50/50 outcome?
The cat is neither dead or alive because it has not been confirmed. Before
anyone looks no one knows if the cat is alive or dead, it only becomes
alive or dead after we look because we say it is. it is neither alive or
dead because we don’t know the answer yet. but as soon as we look we we can
clearly see that the cat is either alive or dead, but until we look it is
neither because we don’t know the answer yet. the event has taken place
without observation but it is when we look that the cat becomes dead or
alive because we know it is
what you’re stating here just isn’t very good science. it’s human
misconception. sorry, but “reality” is not a “Weeping angel” (doctor who
reference). What happens to the cat, whether the gun powder or gas kills
it—–is not dependent AT ALL on our, or other particles OBSERVANCE of the
result of said experiment. It happens, or it doesn’t. There is no
super-position where it is both dead & alive until it is observed to be
only one instance or the other. We don’t KNOW which it is, and we know it
can only be one, but our observance of it doesn’t CAUSE or NEGATE either of
the possibilities…or CAUSE it to occur—–unless you state that our
scientific experiment is what killed the cat, rather than our curiosity of
the result of said experiment. It was the act of putting the cat in the
position to possibly die that killed it. whether we look or not, doesn’t
change the resulting outcome, or force it to occur from an otherwise
superposition or multi-state.
We know that super positioning exists and we have proof that it does
(quantum computers) but I didn’t know this was possible in situations like
this: but if it is, it will be impossible for us to ever find out! This is
just a theory though, right?
NOOOO KITTY DON’T GO BYE BYE!!!!!!!!!!!
Its like saying a falling tree in a forest makes no sound, since to one is
there to observe it…
And that is obviously completely illogical.
Maybe instead of putting the cat in a bunker with explosives and poison gas
we should just pet the kitty and tell him he is a good kitty and cuddle him
“Probability” is necessary for us because our limits, but Universe
(1-infinite) doesn’t need probability. IT knows every moment how it IS. All
time is Both but all time (infinite times) is One. My view is not your
view, but we can combine our views in infinite ways, and the Universe knows
it. Big numbers for us… only that. (For my “books”… if we are
combinated, the cat is in the same state for me and for you… or not?)…
more numbers…
this reminds me of steins gate.
The answer is obvious in my opinion, though I may be wrong. I believe that
whether you see the cat dead/alive or not, the bomb still did or did not
explode, whether you saw it or not.
Schrödinger’s cat walks into a bar and doesn’t.