Oct 21 2012: GREAT! I am happy to see that there are people with this spirit in scientific research. I am young (25yo) but already struggling with writing and publishing. I think it's a shame that it took 2 years to get the results published. What is really great in the work they have done is the WHAT IF...approach, they don't want to find anithing particular, they just ask with experiments and "harvest" the answers, without pushing. With all the foundings and politics involved in research nowadays we don't have the possibility to just be wondering wanderer in the awesome field of science as we ought to find things because "we" don't want to "waste" time and money. There is no thing as waste in science, because an experiment can only fail if we hardly want to have one answer, but if we are just observers we can only be amazed by the world around us, from the tiniest particle to the vastitude of the universe. Thanks to the Blackawton kids to remind this to us!
Jul 27 2012: I always have problem with quanum mechanics because of this superposition state. I always wonder what we can truly say about reality from quantum physics experiments. As Aroon O'Connel explains well, to see this quantum superposition state you have to take off all the quantum interactions that can occurr (take out air (molecules) and turn off the light). ONLY in this conditions you are able to see this quantum superposition state. BUT in reality we are all interacting all the time from our tiniest particle until our entire body therefor there is no such quantum indeterminacy in the "macro" reality because we are not living in experimental conditions, that's my logical reasoning.(Daniel Dennet shows how determination can arise from indetermination, He shows it using Life32 which a very simplified universe with simple rules but the reasoning is useful).
Also I don't see why you need to show that we can behave as quantum objects. For sure it's interesting because we can see the connection with the matter that we have but still it is more intuitive to see that everything around us feels to follow causality rules rather than random behaviors and the reason is because of the interaction that every time reduces the quantum superposition not the other way around (counterintuitive to me). Now we still might be able to use quantum mechanics rules to build supercomputers or other applications such as quantum locking and so on which are great and exciting things but I don't think it will change the way our brains compute reality.
A second thing is about this vibrating/not vibrating state. Vibration feels to me like an oscillating phenomenon. Oscillation is also characteristic of waves. So my QUESTION: could this vibration be the manifestation of the wave-like behavior of the quantum object and the non vibration be the particle? and I would also be very intersted to know how he measured the object. Is it radiating?What energy is measured? GLAD TO HAVE ANSWERS.
Jul 17 2012: I was just wondering. When invesigating new topics control experiments are of a great importance and I think some sceitntist do controls just at the end depending on the kind of experiments they are running. I think a good thing could be that scientist working on similar topics have a platform to open discuss the kind of controls to run with an open mind and as I already said without the fear of having idea being stolen.
Jul 16 2012: I speak as a young scientist that is starting right now to enter into the magnificent world of scientific knowledge. What I feel today is that the most important of all is to publish. A scientist is judged on the number of paper he has, on the number of citation. But I see nowhere the aknowledgement of the contribution. Mina Bissell (and the TED platform) gives us the opportunity to see something that I think is hard to find in the scientific wolrd today. That would be a scientist who pursue an idea and want to test it no matter what it takes. Nowadays there is too much economics issues invovled in science that is putting pressure to be productive but I doubt that this approach is useful for meaningful research, most of all for fundamental research (and this is even more difficult in biology where you are asked all the time for medical applications). If one has to be productive he would less likely try to walk the path of the hazard and originality but also he will be pushed to publish maybe just a part of a work giving us all the fragmented knowledge we have today. Concerning the actual quality of the knowledge I think peer review is still needed but with the technology we have today we might start thinking about a way to keep all the knowledge organized in a huge database in order to better find the information needed to validate specific works. As a sprouting scientist I think that all future scientist should take example from all the scientist in the past that were doing science just to investigate the beauty of the world we are in and to describe it without having as a primary need the urge to become famous or to become the reference in the filed. Just do what you like the best you can. But one thing that should change (and for it we should not have competition) is the possibility to have open discussion without the fear to have our idea stolen. I think i said enough and maybe not too oganized but I hope some ideas worth sharing are in there.
Jul 15 2012: Hi Enrico, there already exists a program that uses cell phone camera to visualize the world and then transduce shape pattern into sound. If you are interested i'll try to find out the documentary in which I saw it. Basically there was a blind person who was able to identify the different buildings from a moving cab just by recognizing the sounds, she had to learn how to associate the different sound to the shapes but she was able to "seear" (see-ear).
Jul 14 2012: Great eye on the world! It's always amazing to see how creative people can be. Jared Ficklin rebuild and increase the auditory perception experience, placing ourselves in the condition to see the beauty in sounds with the eye of logic. It would be great to see the "visual footprint" of some of the greatest musician we had, like Glenn Gould, Sviatoslav Richter and many others. I loved the recording of the skate park, it could be a great system to study how people interacts and could be useful to study how a crowd can coordinate and move. Hawking's universe has the same beauty as a Hubble's telescope image. Thank's for sharing this!
Jul 13 2012: I agree that alternative reality games or RPG can be helpful as you are allowed to make all the possible mistakes and learn by trial and error without facing any consequence in real life (unless you spend a lot of real money to buy credits). But still after learning things in games you need to link the acquired reasoning into your real life.
Jul 13 2012: I totally agree about the power of games in order to become aware of ourselves and our true potential.Although personally I've found my games in scientific research and puzzles/enigmas. We do not need all this graphics stuff that makes our imagination lazy (look at the graphics of all the games on facebook, it's all the same). We have to train our imagination, which uses the most powerful processor that nature has built, the brain.
Jul 11 2012: It's a great technology! but I wouldn't like to listen to performances that had never been performed by the living artist (as John Wlaker was suggesting about Horowitz). This simply because the musician's personality is frozen and will not evolve. We would not have had the with and without pedal versions of the Goldberg variations by Glenn Gould.
TEDCred score: +0.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Talk: Beau Lotto + Amy O’Toole: Science is for everyone, kids included
A comment on Talk: Aaron O'Connell: Making sense of a visible quantum object
Also I don't see why you need to show that we can behave as quantum objects. For sure it's interesting because we can see the connection with the matter that we have but still it is more intuitive to see that everything around us feels to follow causality rules rather than random behaviors and the reason is because of the interaction that every time reduces the quantum superposition not the other way around (counterintuitive to me). Now we still might be able to use quantum mechanics rules to build supercomputers or other applications such as quantum locking and so on which are great and exciting things but I don't think it will change the way our brains compute reality.
A second thing is about this vibrating/not vibrating state. Vibration feels to me like an oscillating phenomenon. Oscillation is also characteristic of waves. So my QUESTION: could this vibration be the manifestation of the wave-like behavior of the quantum object and the non vibration be the particle? and I would also be very intersted to know how he measured the object. Is it radiating?What energy is measured? GLAD TO HAVE ANSWERS.
A reply on Conversation: When confronted with new ideas like the ones presented by Mina Bissell, how do we change our views in today's scientific establishment?
A comment on Conversation: When confronted with new ideas like the ones presented by Mina Bissell, how do we change our views in today's scientific establishment?
A reply on Talk: Jared Ficklin: New ways to see music (with color! and fire!)
A comment on Talk: Jared Ficklin: New ways to see music (with color! and fire!)
A reply on Talk: Jane McGonigal: The game that can give you 10 extra years of life
A comment on Talk: Jane McGonigal: The game that can give you 10 extra years of life
A comment on Talk: John Walker re-creates great performances