SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: WEEK 114: Coherence

Really appreciate the originality here. There are some genuinely thrilling moments to be found, and considering this is a directorial debut, there is potential here. Unfortunately, other than some occasionally great film making (appreciate the camerawork in particular, as the film is really well shot & well lit at times) and a fairly memorable third act, nothing about Coherence was exceptional or really stood out to me (whether it be the acting, writing or film making). Not only that, but all of the characters were some extremely forgettable donks. Not saying that I always expect well defined, three-dimensional characters in these kinds of films, but these characters in particular were not only extremely dull, but all were written like they were in a Blumhouse horror film. Because of this, the film was pretty unspectacular at times.

That said, for a directorial debut, it’s pretty solid. As mentioned above, I appreciate the originality here and there are moments with pretty great film making. The performances are solid enough albeit not great. The dialogue is serviceable enough for this kind of a film. Narrative-wise, it manages to be fairly engaging for the most part, even if I only found the third act to be remotely memorable. James Ward Byrkit clearly had a vision and shows a ton of potential here, and I am mildly curious where he will go in his career.

Overall, nothing great, but worthwhile.

<Fedor23>
 
Yep. I don't see how you can explain it without the science, it's woven into the plot and it is the basis for everything that happens. Hell, Hugh is probably named after Hugh Everett, the guy who came up with the many worlds theory.

That is awesome, I had no idea. You've just added something more to a film I thought I wrung dry.

hugh-everett-biography_1.jpg

Ah, I see you guys have already brought up Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation. Well, I guess my reality is now catching up to yours.
 
Really appreciate the originality here. There are some genuinely thrilling moments to be found, and considering this is a directorial debut, there is potential here. Unfortunately, other than some occasionally great film making (appreciate the camerawork in particular, as the film is really well shot & well lit at times) and a fairly memorable third act, nothing about Coherence was exceptional or really stood out to me (whether it be the acting, writing or film making). Not only that, but all of the characters were some extremely forgettable donks. Not saying that I always expect well defined, three-dimensional characters in these kinds of films, but these characters in particular were not only extremely dull, but all were written like they were in a Blumhouse horror film. Because of this, the film was pretty unspectacular at times.

That said, for a directorial debut, it’s pretty solid. As mentioned above, I appreciate the originality here and there are moments with pretty great film making. The performances are solid enough albeit not great. The dialogue is serviceable enough for this kind of a film. Narrative-wise, it manages to be fairly engaging for the most part, even if I only found the third act to be remotely memorable. James Ward Byrkit clearly had a vision and shows a ton of potential here, and I am mildly curious where he will go in his career.

Overall, nothing great, but worthwhile.

<Fedor23>

I disagree with you and @europe1 on this film pretty much by 100%. I honestly feel like its borderline genius. You complain about the character building but its not really that type of film. I prefer to look at it as a study in quantum mechanics. Would it change your view at all to know that the majority of what the characters said was improvised. There was no script. They made it up as they went. They were given plot points on each day and then they improvised a script as they went. There was almost no crew and the film was made for less than 50,000 dollars.

Considering how heavy the material is, how low the budget was, and how there wasn't even a script, I find it to be a special film and even after multiple viewings I'm still picking up new stuff about it I didn't notice before.
 
Now we're talkin' some fuckin' movie.


tumblr_lfpok0BPd71qd1fjko1_500.gif



Kevin was the hot blonde's dude? Yeah, he should have been out roulette'ing those options. In the outtakes would be the shot of him stealing Hugh's dick pills.

Had a theme in mind that could include this film. I'm pegging you as a supporter. :D

giphy.gif



Or is that a bit too much?
Ken-Jeong-I%E2%80%99ll-allow-it.gif



I did not even think of the box symbolizing Schrodinger's box.

<TheWire1>

Primer is an excellent film, tough to get a timeline nailed down on as well. The interesting thing is its also low budget like Coherence. Another weird one that, as it turns out, provided a ton of good club discussion is the movie Pi (1998). That one is much deeper that you might expect and our discussion was off the chain on that movie. Now that I think about it, there are some damn good low budget films. Its hard to do but when done right that can be as good as a large Hollywood production with millions.

I can tell you I have probably had more enjoyment out of Coherence ($50,000 budget), Primer (made for a mind boggling $7,000), and Pi ($60,000) than all sorts of big budget films that cost millions to make. In fact if you watch Primer or Pi, you really should check out our discussions on those movies, especially Pi (1998) but I can't remember which week where were off the top of my head.

My trusty Sherdog IMDb will tell me though. I can't remember who keeps this up to date but great job on that whoever.
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls060610430/

Primer was week 8 and Pi was week 16. I'm not even sure if those discussions are part of the archive yet, they may not even still be around.
Now I'm thinking low budget movies will be my next theme.

I never watched PI either, I will check it out.

@sickc0d3r and @Cubo de Sangre while getting this clip for Europe1 I noticed something in the dinner scene that never occurred to be me before. Starting at 0:58 Emily tells the story of how a woman calls the police and says this is not my husband and the police say how do you know, he's standing right there, and she says, "because I killed him yesterday." Maybe this explains why Emily1 tried to kill Emily2 and it didn't work.
Hmm, interesting. I assumed the story meant she killed a copy of her husband, but it could have been meant to foreshadow the ending.

Strange thing about time dilation is we may have seen that in Coherence as well when Kevin asked Mike where have you been and Mike says I went to leave the note. Kevin says you were only gone 5 minutes and Mike says no, I was gone 45 minutes. That is time dilation as Mike was passing through the dark zone.
I took this one to mean it was a Mike copy who'd set out to do the same thing, and he really was gone for 45 minutes. But I did wonder throughout the movie if there was some time warping going on, considering the anomaly was based on gravity.
 
Had the "possibilities" only started branching out after the Meteor hits, then relative consistency would have been expected. But since the "sea of possibilities" extends to before the event occurred as well, (like the woman not recognizing the actor in one TV-show, because in that possibility he was never on the TV-show at all, which happened before the Dinner Party), we would expect very drastic differences between the possibilities.
I still hold that the possibilities began emerging from the current reality, so copies would not stray too far from the originals in the span of a few hours. Some minor details of their lives, like Mike deciding to take a role in a different tv show for example, would seem still very much in character. But becoming a priest or something wouldn't.

However, entertaining your hypothesis, my guess is they would never run into those extremely divergent possibilities. Only the similar versions would be performing similar actions, running in and out of the same house trying to figure out what's going on in the other house. So maybe it's a moot point.
 
We know a proton can remain motionless, and be in motion, simultaneously. Can you even attempt to explain that?

The smart people have made a mistake? :D


@sickc0d3r and @Cubo de Sangre while getting this clip for Europe1 I noticed something in the dinner scene that never occurred to be me before. Starting at 0:58 Emily tells the story of how a woman calls the police and says this is not my husband and the police say how do you know, he's standing right there, and she says, "because I killed him yesterday." Maybe this explains why Emily1 tried to kill Emily2 and it didn't work.

At first I thought it was one of the weird memory things that was mentioned. Then I figured she did kill him and went to a new reality where he was alive or a new husband from a different reality showed up in hers after she'd done the deed.
 
Ummm, yes in some way I'm sure that is a good comparison. Its the same as you sitting on your chair. You aren't actually touching the chair. You are extremely close to touching the chair but you are hovering due to the electric field of the chair coming into proximity with the electric field of your body.

In the world of "Atoms". When you sit in a chair, you are not actually sitting on it, but levitating above it at the height of one angstrom, your electrons and its electrons oppose any closer contact. The negatively charged fields of you and of the chair repel each other.

An angtrom is 10 the the WTF power.

The ångström or angstrom is a unit of length equal to 10⁻¹⁰ m (one ten-billionth of a metre) or 0.1 nm. Its symbol is Å, a letter in the Swedish alphabet.

So you get close to the chair but you can never actually sit on it. We live in a weird weird place. If not for the electrical fields of the atoms in the chair and the atoms in your body you would pass right through the chair. Makes you wonder, its almost as if nothing is there.

I was thinking more as in the term of the Limit has to exist between the spaces 0 and 1. So it cannot be 2. However, there is an infinite amount of space between 0 and 1, so even though the Limit is delimited to that area, it still contains infinite possibilities.

Likewise, the sea of possibilities in the film contains infinite possibilities, but is still delimited to the lives of the characters who were at the dinner party. So the possibility of events is at once infinite in their possibilities -- but also delimited to the characters.

This of course births the fallacy that the limit between 0 and 1 is infinite. However, the limit between 0 and 2 is infinite yet still greater than that of 0 and 1, since the area between 0 and 2 contain more possibilities than 0 and 1. So we have a situation where something is infinite, yet still smaller than something else that is infinite. So a Sea of Possibilities that would have ranged outside the main characters lives, would likewise have been infinite, but still somehow greater than what we see on the film. How the hell that works is something for the mathematicians have migraines about.

Its symbol is Å, a letter in the Swedish alphabet.

Usually, we keep some distance between the dot and the A...

They are not literally entangled like two protons at the subatomic level. Its just a way to explain the fundamentals of this really freaky science. Entanglement at the subatomic level almost like the two become a mirror image but in the film its a way to say that Emily1 and Emily2 ended up in the same place when they shouldn't have.

Yeah, that was what I was asking. We see a physical effect on Emy with her lethargicness when she becomes Entangled (if that is indeed what happens). While in the end scene, she just looks forlorn that her scheme didn't work out.

But as you mentioned -- the movie is probably playing fast-and-loose with the rules of Entanglement. Is not about observability (as it would be with "hard" science), more a symbolic play, using the rings to communicate this. So even though Emy "should" have become Entangled with Phone Emy when they both become observable, she didn't becuase the directed was ignoring that anyways.

I wouldn't expect things to be drastically different because most people are going to be basically the same. Meaning the odds of you encountering the one that became Adolf Hitler is slim, there was only one Adolf. Some of the difference in possibility was pretty extreme though.

I still hold that the possibilities began emerging from the current reality, so copies would not stray too far from the originals in the span of a few hours. Some minor details of their lives, like Mike deciding to take a role in a different tv show for example, would seem still very much in character. But becoming a priest or something wouldn't.

I think this claim is hard to quantify. How do we *know* that when we're talking about possibilities? Every possibility has to be accounted for, has it not? There is 0.0000000001 chance that I start killing people randomly tomorrow. But it's still a possibility. Or get involved in politics. To win the lottery. Or start liking Transformers movies. And so on, literally billions of outrageous possibilities.

To quantify such a claim, we would have to "prove" what the possibility is of you doing something -- or even if you doing something is possible to being with (needless to say, an impossible task). How can we even expect a thing as fleeting as personality to remain solid when we're exposed to the sea of possibilities that you've gone through? I mean, that's billions upon billions of possibilities that you've gone through in your life. If a billions upon billions of variables about you were randomized, what comes out on the other end would be a completely diffrent person, with a new life/personality/and all. On a pure mathematical scale, it seems very unlikely to me that we see such consistency.

Really appreciate the originality here. There are some genuinely thrilling moments to be found, and considering this is a directorial debut, there is potential here. Unfortunately, other than some occasionally great film making (appreciate the camerawork in particular, as the film is really well shot & well lit at times) and a fairly memorable third act, nothing about Coherence was exceptional or really stood out to me (whether it be the acting, writing or film making).

I guess that what happens when you get a guy who used to draw storyboards for Disney movies to direct a feuture.:D
 
I think this claim is hard to quantify. How do we *know* that when we're talking about possibilities? Every possibility has to be accounted for, has it not? There is 0.0000000001 chance that I start killing people randomly tomorrow. But it's still a possibility. Or get involved in politics. To win the lottery. Or start liking Transformers movies. And so on, literally billions of outrageous possibilities.

To quantify such a claim, we would have to "prove" what the possibility is of you doing something -- or even if you doing something is possible to being with (needless to say, an impossible task). How can we even expect a thing as fleeting as personality to remain solid when we're exposed to the sea of possibilities that you've gone through? I mean, that's billions upon billions of possibilities that you've gone through in your life. If a billions upon billions of variables about you were randomized, what comes out on the other end would be a completely diffrent person, with a new life/personality/and all. On a pure mathematical scale, it seems very unlikely to me that we see such consistency.
My interpretation of the event was that the characters' decisions attracted related possibilities. And so did their indecision. For example, Em not making up her mind about going with Kevin attracted two alternate realities, one in which she chose not to go, and one in which she chose to go. Notice that in the end she found both examples, one where Kevin and Laurie were a couple, and one where she and Kevin were happy together.

So, within the system that the comet created, the characters did not have access to infinite possible outcomes, it was only the outcomes that fit their choices that were attracted from the infinite pool.

This is the important part, now... those outcomes might have included past differences, but they would have had to have included that choice. Meaning the characters had to have more or less followed similar paths to get there. Can you dig it?
 
I never watched PI either, I will check it out.

Let me know if you watch it. Like I said, the SMC discussion for that film went pretty deep.

Hmm, interesting. I assumed the story meant she killed a copy of her husband, but it could have been meant to foreshadow the ending.

Yea it never occurred to me until now that the dinner party discussion about the woman who killed her husband might foreshadow the end of the film.

I took this one to mean it was a Mike copy who'd set out to do the same thing, and he really was gone for 45 minutes. But I did wonder throughout the movie if there was some time warping going on, considering the anomaly was based on gravity.

The book they found was a study on gravity. Now look at the highlighted red below concerning time dilation.

According to the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers, either due to a velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field. As a result of the nature of spacetime,[2] a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference. A clock that is under the influence of a stronger gravitational field than an observer's will also be measured to tick slower than the observer's own clock.

That idea of gravity keeps popping up. I don't know if it was a separate Mike or if there was time dilation while the comet was passing over. Either works for me.
 
At first I thought it was one of the weird memory things that was mentioned. Then I figured she did kill him and went to a new reality where he was alive or a new husband from a different reality showed up in hers after she'd done the deed.

giphy.gif


I didn't even consider that she switched into a new reality where her husband was alive, but how would that happen? When Emily switched realities she was trapped with a 2nd Emily. It seems for the sake of continuity she killed him and then he woke up the next day. The film has enough ambiguity to keep us guessing though and its not clear exactly what happened.
 
My interpretation of the event was that the characters' decisions attracted related possibilities. And so did their indecision. For example, Em not making up her mind about going with Kevin attracted two alternate realities, one in which she chose not to go, and one in which she chose to go. Notice that in the end she found both examples, one where Kevin and Laurie were a couple, and one where she and Kevin were happy together.

So, within the system that the comet created, the characters did not have access to infinite possible outcomes, it was only the outcomes that fit their choices that were attracted from the infinite pool.

This is the important part, now... those outcomes might have included past differences, but they would have had to have included that choice. Meaning the characters had to have more or less followed similar paths to get there. Can you dig it?

<mma4>

Illuminating thought. Only the possibilities that made them attend that dinner being accounted for. Using in-movie logic, that obviously has to be the case (seeing as they are always present). I wonder how this jives with actual Decoherence theory though. Is it just an instance of storytelling trumping the science behind it (though I suppose applying quantum physics stuff like Schölinger's Cat and Decoherence theory -- stuff made for particles -- to human individuals is a wonky enterprise to being with).
 
I didn't even consider that she switched into a new reality where her husband was alive, but how would that happen? When Emily switched realities she was trapped with a 2nd Emily.

It's reality roulette. Endless possibilities. :cool:

Yeah, I don't know. But somebody in the house didn't stay home like they should have or there wouldn't be two husbands and the murderous wife's confusion.
 
This was my second time watching the movie so it obviously didn't have the same effect as the first. Still it was pretty decent and thought provoking. The dialogue was mainly solid and seemed real although a few times I didn't think the characters were acting like what was happening was a big deal which it clearly was a big deal lol. Anyways I didn't fully remember the movie so it was fun to try to see the things happen before they did because I at least knew about the alternate reality. I forgot it was infinite realities which is a pretty big deal lol. Still all those positives said I still don't think it's the most entertaining movie in the world. If I was rating it I'd go 6/10. Not bad and pretty damn good for a 50,000 dollar budget but it wasn't something I ever would have re-watched before joining this club.
 
This is going to be a long explain, not this post, but this thread. Lets start with the red above because its a difficult question to answer.

Coherence, Decoherence, and Schrodinger's cat have to do with quantum mechanics, which is how this film goes down.

Coherence, the name of the film is...
  1. the quality of being logical and consistent.
    "this raises further questions on the coherence of state policy"
    synonyms: consistency · logicality · good sense · soundness · organization ·
    [more]
  2. the quality of forming a unified whole.
    "the group began to lose coherence and the artists took separate directions"

Or, in physics, Coherence would be, two wave sources are perfectly coherent if they have a constant phase difference and the same frequency.

Decoherence, which they talked about in the film is the loss of quantum coherence. Hugh gets his brothers book out of the car which is called "Gravitation, An Introduction to Current Research." In the book are his brothers research notes which contain two theories about how this might happen, Decoherence and Schrodinger's Cat.

Schrodinger’s cat is named after Erwin Schrödinger, a physicist from Austria who made substantial contributions to the development of quantum mechanics in the 1930s. The idea is this.

Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935.[1] It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that may be simultaneously both alive and dead,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] a state known as a quantum superposition, as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement) in the course of developing the thought experiment.

So, Schrodinger said that in the quantum world, particles, can be in two states simultaneously, like both spinning and still at the same time. This is known as Superposition. So he constructed this idea of a cat in a box along with some poison and it goes like this.....

330px-Schrodingers_cat.svg.png

Schrödinger's cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor (e.g. Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

So basically the cat, because of quantum Superposition, is in two states simultaneously, both alive and dead. It is only when you open the box and look inside that reality collapses into one single reality, or Coherence and you see that the cat is either alive, or he is dead.

The other theory that his brother writes about is that the two realities continue to both exists in a state of Decoherence, independent of each other, each creating a new branch of reality. Quantum Decoherence ensures that the two outcomes have no interaction with one another.

This is where your question comes in bro. Emily thought she could get away with it by killing the other Emily because when the comet passed, Schrodinger's box would be opened and reality would collapse into a single event or reality, meaning the Emily she killed would cease to exist and she would take her place in the new timeline. In other words, the cat would no longer be both alive and dead simultaneously, it would be either alive or it would be dead, collapse into a single reality.

This is the conclusion I came to as well but way less smart sounding.
 
I was thinking more as in the term of the Limit has to exist between the spaces 0 and 1. So it cannot be 2. However, there is an infinite amount of space between 0 and 1, so even though the Limit is delimited to that area, it still contains infinite possibilities.

Yes, I get it. You can approach zero to infinity but never get there. Not only that, some infinities are larger than other infinities. Georg Cantor created set theory and devoted his life to the understanding of infinity.

th


Cantor is one of the most famous mathematicians of all time but he was eventually driven insane. He thought only his wife could feed him because he was paranoid about being poisioned or something so he ended up like a skeleton in a sanatorium and eventually died of a heart attack.

Likewise, the sea of possibilities in the film contains infinite possibilities, but is still delimited to the lives of the characters who were at the dinner party. So the possibility of events is at once infinite in their possibilities -- but also delimited to the characters.

I would characterize that as accurate. My only argument is the delimited area of effect, is it all of Earth, or is there multiple sets, meaning there were millions of these little bubbles of effect but they were all unaware of the others and what we viewed was just one such bubble. Otherwise I agree with you. They were in an infinite set of possibilities and although the set was infinite, the players were limited, at least in our scope of viewing.

Usually, we keep some distance between the dot and the A...

th


I broke out the Swedish angstrom and that is what you say? Its one ten-billionth of a meter! oh sorry, metre!

Yeah, that was what I was asking. We see a physical effect on Emy with her lethargicness when she becomes Entangled (if that is indeed what happens). While in the end scene, she just looks forlorn that her scheme didn't work out.

But as you mentioned -- the movie is probably playing fast-and-loose with the rules of Entanglement. Is not about observability (as it would be with "hard" science), more a symbolic play, using the rings to communicate this. So even though Emy "should" have become Entangled with Phone Emy when they both become observable, she didn't becuase the directed was ignoring that anyways.

Entanglement is so complicated even people that understand it don't really want to explain it. Check out this example. Its short and really illustrates what I'm talking about. Its from....


Allan Steinhardt
, PhD, Author "Radar in the Quantum Limit",Formerly DARPA's Chief Scientist,Fellow

I am a Quantum Engineer not a Physicist so I will discuss "become" as it pertains to engineering design. At present we can entangle only photons and electrons in practical Quantum Systems. Photons are "born" that way. They can't earn the entanglement moniker after birth. We can however "train" Electrons to entangle. So how do we birth photons with a silver spoon in their mouth so to speak? How do we "educate" electrons to display entanglement? It all comes down to Schrodinger's equation:

id&#x2202;&#x03C8;(r&#x2192;,t)&#x2202;t=&#x2212;d2&#x25BD;2&#x03C8;(r&#x2192;,t)/(2&#x03BC;)+V(r&#x2192;,t)&#x03C8;(r&#x2192;,t)" role="presentation">id∂ψ(r⃗ ,t)∂t=−d2▽2ψ(r⃗ ,t)/(2μ)+V(r⃗ ,t)ψ(r⃗ ,t)
You would have to click the link to see the equation, it doesn't translate so well here.

The equations will give different answers for different input materials and different environmental conditions. So you combine math and engineering to get the right conditions to grow (photon) or train (electron) entanglement.


I can't explain any more than that. As Feynman, the greatest homegrown American Physicist ever, said:

"Where did we get that (equation) from? Nowhere. It is not possible to derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrodinger."
https://www.quora.com/How-do-particles-become-entangled
 
First of all, I'm going to give my review of the film, without touching on the whole multiple-dimensions, Schrödinger's Cat flim-flam, which I'll get into at a later date. And by a later date, I of course mean that I'll wait until other posters have broken everything down and then jumpy in saying "I was just going to say that, I'm very smart you see.":cool:

I taught it was a pretty mediocre film

I've always disliked the whole hand-held camera aesthetic, but it wasn't too bad here. The dim lighting was rather atmospheric, it brought mood to a very low-budget film with a modicum of success.

One of the big problems I thought was that the whole venture started feeling preposterous and silly at times. Like when they retrieve the book and start talking about Schrödinger's Cat and Decoherence (bad exposition, basically). So here we have about ten or so people talking about multi-dimensional theory while dressed for an evening party. Then they are charged by duplicates of themselves with menacingly crimson nightlights. Then there is even a mini-brawl when one guy explains that he's banged the others dude wife through multiple-dimensions. It all starts feeling a tad incongruous and preposterous at one point, undermining the seriousness that the film is striving for. Instead of being invested in the flow-of-events you just cock one eyebrow and say "yeah that's alternative-dimensions for you, all right!"

Best moment in the film was probably when Emily meets her "boyfriend" by the car and its not him, eery.

Triangle told a story fairly similar to this in a much more interesting, driven, and evocative manner.

Absolutely right. His face was perfect there.
 
although a few times I didn't think the characters were acting like what was happening was a big deal which it clearly was a big deal lol.

Yeah, that's almost like a cliche within the genre. World-shattering stuff is going on? This is a perfect time to discuss out relationship issues!:D

Absolutely right. His face was perfect there.

Yup, real spooky. The movie needed more evocative moments like that. Moments that really capture the unreality of what they're going through.

Yes, I get it. You can approach zero to infinity but never get there. Not only that, some infinities are larger than other infinities. Georg Cantor created set theory and devoted his life to the understanding of infinity.

Yeah, as I mentioned, the number of infinities between 0 and 1 are greater than the number of infinities between 0 and 2.

I broke out the Swedish angstrom and that is what you say? Its one ten-billionth of a meter! oh sorry, metre!

Now I'm mostly just angry that on a Å the dot and the A is connected but on an Ä you can scarcely see a distance between dots and the A, as it is supposed to be!!! Why the disrespect, bro? Why the favoritism of Ä's over Å'ns on internet letterings!? One gets it correctly and one doesn't? My own family-name starts with a Å! This is an direct attack on the honor of my---oh shit right, sweet swede-reference, bro! Us Swedes value Ångstrom (Ångström?) references just bellow ABBA and Meatball ones.;)

anigif_enhanced-buzz-28947-1369077196-19.gif


Entanglement is so complicated even people that understand it don't really want to explain it. Check out this example. Its short and really illustrates what I'm talking about. Its from....

Frankly, the theory of Entanglement seems so complex and perpendicular to the nature of electrons and protons that trying to discuss how they would relate to an individual seems... well... you know.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with you and @europe1 on this film pretty much by 100%. I honestly feel like its borderline genius. You complain about the character building but its not really that type of film. I prefer to look at it as a study in quantum mechanics. Would it change your view at all to know that the majority of what the characters said was improvised. There was no script. They made it up as they went. They were given plot points on each day and then they improvised a script as they went. There was almost no crew and the film was made for less than 50,000 dollars.

Considering how heavy the material is, how low the budget was, and how there wasn't even a script, I find it to be a special film and even after multiple viewings I'm still picking up new stuff about it I didn't notice before.

<mma4>

Interesting........
 
<mma4>

I wonder how this jives with actual Decoherence theory though. Is it just an instance of storytelling trumping the science behind it
In my simple mind, sure, why not? Superposition means the particle is in every possible state at once. In this closed system the only possible results include the choices made by the participants at the party, which I guess include being at the party.

Or, in terms of the double slit experiment, the light particles pass through both slits at the same time, thus both results exist at once. In the movie the slits are the character's choices.
 
So this was my first week with yall and it was dope but i hope there's like way less science next week lol
 
Back
Top