I didn't answer before, becase I didn't see this thread before. So here's my response.
Okay, the first thing you should know is this clip is from the movie "What The Bleep Do We Know? (with Greek letters replacing some of the English-alphabet letters). Website for the movie is here (at just a glance, it's hugely self-congratulatory)
http://www.whatthebleep.com/
The Wikipedia entry explains most of what I'd want to say about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F
And just so you get it, the movie features the Robert Palmer song "Addicted To Love" choreographed to some characters in it, you should watch this video (or at least a few seconds of it, enough to see that the women dance and "play" the instruments):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0U5JfGYx4c
Okay, the start of this clip is the part of the film I found so highly amusing (caution, this first part has sort of a PG rating):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuRfno4eAz0
If you keep watching that clip, you'll see that the film is also partly a "documentary." The woman who talks at 5:30 is J.Z. Knight, a new-age author, head of the Ramta new-age religion/cult/whatever, and the apparent driving force behind this movie.
This was a bit of a controversial movie, and here's just one review of it that rips it to shreds, from Scientific American, where several scientists who were interviewed for the movie say they were wildly misquoted and their words edited out of context):
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/hackery.htm
The review there is the first part of a larger conversation with this other guy, Stuart Hameroff, who was interviewed in the movie and did some work with Roger Penrose. I read Penrose's book "
The Emperor's New Mind" many years ago when it came out and which I think is an excellent introduction to quantum physics, but his conclusion near the end of the book concludes that quantum effects on neurons in the brain are an essential part of human consciousness, and thus he claims it is
theoretically impossible to create a huiman-like intelligence using traditional computer approaches to artificial intelligence (no matter how much faster or how much more memory the computer has than current ones). I''ve always been doubtful of that, and thought he made a weak argument out of it. I'm not neccesarily claiming that ("traditional" Von-Neuman architecture) computers
will someday have computer-like intelligence, but that Penrose's reasoning for claiming they won't is weak.
But other than that, he's a very well respected scientist...
Brian Greene is also very good, though in the book "The Elegant Universe" (I saw the Nova specal that whats-his-name mentioned, it's also very good, but the book goes more in depth) he not only covers quantum physics (which was pretty much worked out in the first half of the 20th century), he also goes into Superstring Theory (often abbreviated to String Theory), an even more bizarre idea than this quantum stuff, and it's only about 30 years old, and only become to be widely discussed in the last 20 years.
I saw the movie (after reading that review), and found the "Addicted to love" part highly amusing. and ironically, the animated parts seemed to be the more accurate parts of it. There's another part that spends just a couple of minutes listing the six findings of quantum physics that I thought was an interesting summary. But PLEASE don't go solely by this movie for your info on quantum physics.
Another book on quantum physics I enjoyed reading about 25-30 years ago is "
In Search of Shrodinger's Cat."