/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3146996
>it says in quantum theory that an atom can disappear upon observation (shrodinger's cat)

No. You have wrong information kid.

>>3002111

The problem is that you have no concrete "definition" of consciousness to begin with. What you think of "consciousness", is completely subjective. There is no "common" definition. What you consider "conscious" in general, others may not. I would even argue that consciousness is a "spectrum", and that some people are more conscious then others. But that is just relying on what I define as consciousness, which is probably not the same definition you use.

You could correlate synapse firing and brain chemistry to something you call "consciousness", if you wanted, but then you would just be using the term "consciousness" as a place holder for the science. You wouldn't have explained consciousness at all, until you defined consciousness to begin with.

>>2712148
Antimatter doesnt have negative mass.

There are tons of partciles that are there own anti-particle. Like the photon. It is both matter and antimatter.

>>2586872
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is actually a mathematical frame work. When "applied" is creates Quantum Electrodynamics, Quantum Chromodynamics, The standard model, etc.

I know there are some mathematical predictions as to when Quantum Field Theory may break down, but as to date we have never encountered a "limit".

>>2549921
>>2549921
Sorry, havent really followed that. I know a shit ton about the black hole infomation paradox, but not extacly sure what you are refering to.

Any fundemental idea that involves entropy is usually shit teir. Entropy is not a fundmental property/idea, it is not first principle.

>>2372350
Don't trust shitty websites that make extrodinary claims. That website is not presenting peer-reviewed science. It is likely all bullshit.

The only people who are scared of peer-reviewed science are those who spout nonsense.

>>2339758
I have done this experiment a ton of times. Probably first in middle school. You can actually do it with shit you have lying around the house. It takes less then 20min to set up, and is pretty easy to do.

>Does electrolysis of water always invariably degrade the metal plates you use as cathode and anode, over time

Yes, also you don't need plates, you can use a aluminum foil, soda can tab's, or even screws/nails.

Why did you think you need metal plates? Seriosuly, all you need are two metal objects for the nodes, a pan/tub like object for the water, two jars to collect the gases, salt (optional) and a cut power cord. (A power cord with the DC converted if you want to seperate out the differnt gases, AC if you don't care; they will both give you flamible gases)

I mean I'm sure you could make it all fancy, but I dont see the point. I have never had to spend any money making one of these. It seems like you are complicating shit.

Do you have anyother questions?

>>2264605
There are hundreds of Interpretations of QM and most are equally valid. There is no more evidence for the MWI then for the CI (Copenhagen Interpretation).

In QM we have a system that works. It works remarkebly well, better then anything ever, but it is full of some abstarct unobservable ideas.

You have all these "abstract unobservable ideas", somehow leading to leading "physical observables". When people develop an interpretation of QM they are seeking to figure out the nature off all the werid unobservable shit.

But you can't measure experimentally any of it, hence you can't know if your are right or wrong. Hence you get unfalisble theories, which are not science. All you get a fancy ways to explain subtles in the math, you don't actually get physics.

Hence, Interpretations of QM are usually not covered too much in QM. In fact Philosophers of Physics often think about that shit way more then Actual Physicists.

>>2210146

>can be really thought as "something comes from nothing"?

Yes.
However, just becuase somthing can come from nothing doesn't mean we cant use physics, math, or science. There are in fact very percise ways that "somthing can come form nothing". There are very very specific rules, that must be satisifed!...etc

>>1865908
There is no "normal" kind.
There are tons of differnt polarizers.

Absorptive polarizers
Beam-splitting polarizers
Reflection polarizers
Birefringent polarizers
Thin film polarizers
polarizing filters

Just to name a few

>>1732115
Good, point. Yeah, we have more advanced physics, now, that allows us to manipulate the statstistics of certain systems, such that we can get large scale qunatum behavior. It really is all about the system and its stats. The Schrodinger cat is still considered laugable though, as it lacks the proper "stats" (like most macroscopic systems) to experience large scale qunatum behvaior.

>>1611036
>quantum theory

Ohh, you mean Quantum mech or Quantum Field theory?

>>973014
YOUR FUCKING RETARDED! I ALREADY TOLD YOU...ITS STATISTICS!

You can extrapolate classical physics "middle" scale, from statictics and QFT "smaller" scale.
Like wise a GR will eventaully be able to be extraploated from a Quantum gravity using statistics.

STATS BITCH!