/sci/ - Science & Math

oh sorry about the tripcode, I forgot what it was.

also, will be taking questions if they aren't fucking retarded

Why are the electrostatic and magnetic forces considered to be one force?

What are Nd-YAG lasers used for?

What is the soul? How does consciousness work? Are there any -good- arguments against moral realism?

What suggests the Higgs particle should have mass, if the Higgs field causes mass? It interacts with it's own field, or...

I herp pretty hard here.

How can u believe in evolution if it's just a theory, a geuss?

>>3001879

How can you believe in Peewee if he's just a loner, a rebel?

What makes melodies in minor sound sad? I refuse to believe it's purely cognitive.

>>3001891
If the associations your brain make with a sound aren't cognitive, what the hell are they supposed to be?

are there any potential ways to travel fast through the universe, except worm holes?

>>3001900

The stuff of good speculative fiction:

http://anathem.wikia.com/wiki/Hylaean_Theoric_World

how do magnets work

are force fields possible at all? how do you think one would work?

What are fields other than an abstract concept we use to explain why stuff happens? Do we know what they are/how they work physically?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

In layman's terms, how can you use math to prove quantum physics

>How can u believe in evolution if it's just a theory, a geuss?
>how do magnets work

Sure is summer in here

How is mass that enters a black hole distributed in a black hole? Does it instantly go to the singularity or is it "frozen" by time dilation at or just above the event horizon?

>>3001846
I never use a tripcode

The one fucking time that i don't include "that arent fucking retarded", I fucking find out that /sci/ has a fucking photo memory? wtf?

>>3001987
Sure is newfag in here.

What is a wave? Or rather, what is waving in non-mechanical waves?

>>3001847
Cause they are actually "observer dependent" phenomina of the same underlying physics.

Ie, one observer could see an electric field, while another could see a magnetic. They both arise from electric change, that is the "observer independent physics" (the real physics), that is happening.

A stationary charge will cause an electric field, a moving charge will cause a magnetic field. But motion is just relative, so......

Make sense?

u jelly mathematicians know more about the universe than physifucks?

Does matter move through space in plank sized cases? What about time, does it advance in plank length time frames?

>>3001851
>What is the soul?

Something from a fairytale, like Jesus, or Santa Clause.

>How does consciousness work?

This question is fucking retarded. You cannot ask a quantitative question about something that does not exist quantitatively.

I wont respond to your shitty questions any more, unless they are physics related.

why does relativity happen? I understand what happens I just don't get WHY large masses and velocities distort space time

I'd like to spend the rest of tonight learning some physics. I have a grasp of basic calculus but would likely need some guidance in doing problems: What is the best text for me to learn and for what particular kind of physics?

>>3002087
What, you can't quantify the energy exchanges between synapses and interpret those as consciousness?

>>3001938
>force fields possible at all

Yes

>how do you think one would work

It would literally be a "field", like in elementary mechanics, just manipulated to some extreme level.

I mean, we can make huge EM fields, that block all charged particles. So, it would be along those lines, just with different fields, and different properties (maybe mass, if they ever discover the higgs). Force-fields are very possible in maybe like 100yrs.

Despite the universe being in constant expansion and energy always reaching higher entropy, won't gravity take over after a long, long, long time?

>>3002120


Naw dark energy is accelerating the expansion of the universe so it'll never slow down. Shit sucks brah

>>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.

How do you feel about some sort of negative gravity force. Do you think something like this exist?


What do you think happens to matter inside of a black hole? Shouldn't it be extremely hot? If it is extremely hot would the heat radiate away from it or would it be bended back towards the black hole?


What exactly is time? If time can be affected by gravity, do you think it can be affected by heat?

Are you the rocket scientist guy?
'
If not it would be cool f both of you were around at the same time.

CERN says they trapped antihydrogen for 17 minutes or something. In light of this, do you know of any practical uses for antimatter in future experimentation or that would be useful in day to day life?

>>3002209

Destroying Vatican City.

A plane flies at constant speed of 400 km/h, in a straight line, at constant altitude. It is spotted by a laser tracking system on the ground.
When the plane flies right across the laser, the tracking device following it is turning at a speed of 0.1 rad/s. What is the altitude of the plane?

Well physics guy? Are you man enough to explain how this shit works...

>>3002227
>>3002227


I'm not OP but that looks like a simple trig problem.

how hard is it to get into theoretical physics research if maths is the only thing in the universe im good at? in UK, going to uni in 2012 gonna do physics and hopefully phd... but what then? is it hard to stay in physics community or is passion for it good enough for people to see you are capable?

Why is gravity?

>>3002193
A rocket scientist is a physicist who did a phd in rocket science, they usually work at NASA or with space agencies, as project leaders. The "rocket scientist guy" isn't actually a rocket scientist, he is just some shitty engineer (Ie the help, the grunt work).

Calling that guy an actual rocket scientist, is like calling a fast-food worker a chef.

>>3002009
>>3002009
>>3002009
Why you no answer my question??

>>3002105


Answer my goddamn question

>>3002238
>how hard is it to get into theoretical physics research....

Not hard at all.

>gonna do physics and hopefully phd... but what then

Wow, you are asking really really shitty questions. It makes it pretty obvious, that you either have your fucking head up your ass, and a completely fucked up world view, or you really aren't cut out for physics.

You should do what you have a passion for, that is what you should do with you life. If you do that, then you will always be happy. By your question, it is obvious that physics isn't your passion, or you are just very stupid. YOU DO RESEARCH WITH A PHD! THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IF YOU HAVE A PASSION FOR PHYSICS! IT IS WHAT MAKES YOU HAPPY!

The shitty mentality of getting a job, just to make money, is FUCKING RETARDED. It is the reason the economy failed, and why the world is in such a bad state.

Not OP, but
>>3002252
Physics breaks down at the event horizon, so nobody really knows what happens there. Sorry.

>>3002257
Wheeler sez, "spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve." That might not really explain _why_ it happens, but it's a consequence of Einstein's general relativity equations, and they're accurate as far as we know.

srsly wtf is this shit? You call everyone ELSE retards?

>>3002298
>>3002243
>>3002186
>>3002087

>>3002238
>how hard is it to get into theoretical physics research
Not that hard, there's stuff you can do in undergrad.

>how hard is it to get into a theoretical physics PhD program
Decently hard. Straight As, undergrad research, good letters of recommendation. Depending on the school, you may have to TA through your entire PhD program.

>how hard is it to get a job doing theoretical physics
Really damn hard. There aren't many spots, so you need to be at the top of the heap.

ever heard of athene?

>>3002105

You seek "why" for __insert random science thing__. This is basically saying you seek a "cause". Ok, but what do you want the cause in "terms of"? What level of physics do you understand already?

The problem is also that you cant dumb down a lot of things, the "cause" you seek will end up being more complicated (to the lay person), then the "effect itself".

RESTATE YOUR QUESTION SON!

UNTIL THEN YOU JUST GET THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL REASON = RELATIVITY MINIMIZES THE ACTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action

>>3002298
thats exactly why im asking, cos as far as i know phd is not a job, it finishes and then what? i would like to stay in research for the rest of my life and i dont care much about the money. and i have no idea what happens after phd, just wanted to find out how hard is it to stay in research field in phd.

I have something to confess to /sci/. I'm actually a flaming homosex engineer.

>>3002314
Are you new here?

So far most of these questions have been pretty shitty.

What do you think about Ruggero Santilli's work and Hadronic Physics in general?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruggero_Santilli
http://www.i-b-r.org/Ruggero-Maria-Santilli.htm

>>3002414
see
>>3001857

I've got a better one though, more in line with what you're seemingly able to answer:

Why does my brain think thots?

>>3001857
Apparently the Higgs boson interacts with the Higgs field to get mass. Yeah.

>>3002407
Perhaps I was being to harsh. I didn't know that you REALLY HAD NO FUCKING CLUE, how shit works.

Ok,
By the time you finishing your Phd, you should have job offers lined up for you to continue you research. You actually start doing research before you get your Phd, so you will have connections and a reputation already. Shit should be smooth sailing, if you are good at physics. Research quality is what matters.

The top employers for physics research are usually, private industry, governments or academia, and you should have at least one job offer from each, before you finish your Phd.

My best advise is really not to worry, if you like physics, then do physics. Jobs will be easy to get and basically fall into your lap (if you really have a passion for physics). If you dont have a passion for physics (people will notice that shit), and get a Phd, you will find it very very very hard to get jobs. There is no point in hiring a physicst, who really doesn't love physics.

>>3001857
> if the Higgs field causes mass? It interacts with it's own field

Yes, that is how Quantum field theory works. You have fields, they interact with shit. They also produce particles, that interact with the field itself, as well as interact with other shit.

This shit has been proven as a VERY VERY VERY Fucking accurate description for shit on the quantum level. Quantum Field theory is the most sucessful theory ever constructed, in both it explanitory and predictive power.

It may be a mind fuck to some, but it is actually how the universe works.

Where does this virtual particle "popping into existence" business come from? What do they come from?

>>3002428
>Why does my brain think thoughts?

A "though" is a concept arising from Is a consciousness. The consciousness is very ill defined, so much so, that you cannot quantitativly talk about it, until more definition is given.

Define what you are calling consciousness, and then we can try and talk.

see >>3002186

>>3002540
>Where does this virtual particle "popping into existence" business come from?

The universe and how it works.

>What do they come from?

They don't come from anything. Why do you assume that "everything needs a cause". Physics and the universe aren't confined to obey your shitty preconcieved notions.

All you experience in the "common world" are a few basic phenomina of the same general scale. You then assume that your very limited observations of the universe must apply to everything? WHY? WHY DO YOU FAIL AT LOGIC SO FUCKING BAD?

Can you give a brief rundown of what this suggests/proves, and implications of it?

>>3002581
>The universe and how it works

Nice one Physics Undergrad Guy

i had a thought yesterday that the universe could be just a fractal, there are life forms at scale billion times smaller than ours and vice versa, billion times bigger. do you think human kind will ever develop the technology to detect this?

also, will all new technology be used to kill others or will the human race finally fucking wake up?

>>3002583
That the virtual particle picture of QFT is correct.

>>3002583
There ends up being an EM field between the plates, as well as charge, because of charged particles just poping into existence and fucking shit up.

>>3002595
That is how shit works.

NOT EVERYTHING HAS AN "EASY" CLASSICAL ANALOGY DUMBFUCK.

>>3002679
Then don't give one..

>>3001930
Miracles.
Ref:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

I am planning to major in physics next year, and I have to know, how much of it is going to be understanding the material and how much of it is going to be simply memorizing shit?

Physics Guy:

if Someone made Everything, would you want to meet Him and ask Him at length how He did it?

hypothetically speaking, of course

ITT: somebody pretends to be Physics Guy

>>3002882
>memorizing shit

wtf? that is not how physics works. You are thinking of engineering.

>>3002927
>memorizing shit in engineering
Sure thing, mr. elitist.

>>3002927
you mother fucker

>>3002581
you ought to take a load off the CAPS homes
perhaps you could elaborate on the "causeless" disappearance and reemergence of particles on the quantum scale, I was under the impression that it is somewhat mysterious.

>>3002925
this

Could you help me understand why Hawking radiation occurs only at the event horizon of a black hole? Wouldn't any decently strong field have some point where the difference between the force on one particle and the force on the other is greater than the force between them?

I also would like to know more about the Casimir effect. Assuming virtual particles pop up in a uniform fashion in a standard cut of spacetime, wouldn't the altered potential energy impart or subtract some amount of energy from the system? How does this relate to heat death and the expanding universe?

I'm curious about the nuclear forces, I haven't taken any formal class involving anything more than electromag and gravity. Could you explain the difference between the weak and strong forces? I understand it deals with sub-atomic level shit but I don't know how it's formalized as a force.

>>3003055
>Could you help me understand why Hawking radiation occurs only at the event horizon of a black hole? Wouldn't any decently strong field have some point where the difference between the force on one particle and the force on the other is greater than the force between them?
Black holes aren't the only place particle-antiparticle pairs are created. There are lots of situations in which this happens.

>I also would like to know more about the Casimir effect. Assuming virtual particles pop up in a uniform fashion in a standard cut of spacetime, wouldn't the altered potential energy impart or subtract some amount of energy from the system? How does this relate to heat death and the expanding universe?
Yes, particles popping in and out of the vacuum affect its energy density, which should cause a tremendous acceleration of the expansion of the universe. But the rate at which the expansion is actually accelerating is billions of billions of billions of ... times smaller than what you'd expect if you tried to calculate it. Nobody knows why.

>I'm curious about the nuclear forces, I haven't taken any formal class involving anything more than electromag and gravity. Could you explain the difference between the weak and strong forces? I understand it deals with sub-atomic level shit but I don't know how it's formalized as a force.
The strong nuclear interaction (better word than force) holds quarks together to form protons and neutrons, and it holds the protons and neutrons together in the nucleus. The weak nuclear interaction what changes the charge of one of the quarks in a neutron, turning the neutron into a proton, and transferring the charge to an electron + anti-neutrino, in radioactive decay. This is fairly basic stuff which you should go look up on Wikipedia.

How can someone transfer energy efficiently wirelessly

>>3003164
Beamed microwave radiation
Range of several hundred kilometers through air at 85-90% efficiency of transfer

How can an object with no electrical power has a resonating frequency?

If photons are mass-less, why does gravity bend light? Also,what accounts for the varying decay of particles and antiparticles?

>>3003176
How could that be practical? Wouldn't it be a major health hazard to humans/ animals and destroy microwave sensitive equipment?

>>3003224
wave-particle duality

>>3003238
Aim it at a panel on a space elevator.

>>3002601
I think you took 1 hit of acid too many.

>>3003238
It's beamed, so don't get in the beam and you're fine. It would be more practical for orbiting solar arrays that could beam power down to earth or somewhere else.

>>3003243
I'm not sure about the wave-particle duality.

Does that mean when objects get really small, they behave like waves?

>>3003128
Thanks homeskillet

>>3003224
Gravity is what you might call an anomaly in the geometry of spacetime. It bends everything.

I'm not sure about wave-particle duality.
Does this mean that when waves get really big, they behave like particles?

Why did you marry your cousin?

>>3003007
please answer physics man your so smort

I do. Total physics noob here, though.

The "Theory of Everything" sounds like a cop-out. Far too convenient. A dream dreamt up by religious nutbags. It sounds like some poor interpretation of results that will be laughed at later for its pitiful eagerness to jump to conclusions, namely "EVERYTHING".

You sound like a huge douchebag who thinks he is special because he majored in physics.

Well guess what, pure mathematicians > the cancer known as physics.

tl;dr FUCK YOU

>>3003007
Whether something has a "cause" is a philosophical question. The important thing for science is that we can predict how often it happens, and then compare the predictions to experiment to test whether the theory works.

>>3003329
This thread is totally not the usual Physics Guy tripfag. Physics Guy is pretty fucking cool.

>>3003324
Why are little things so CRAZY different from big things? That's all "everything" really means, we have two things described right now, in one(?) universe. Something is wrong with this picture.

I need help understanding how to use the Gell-Mann matrices. How can they multiplied with themselves and other matrices to get back the original result?

I get how this works with su(2) with the Pauli matrices. like t1*t1=it3. But when I plug the Gell-Mann matrices into my TI-89, I can't make it work.

What do you think of Jocelyn Bell?

>>3003339
Yeah, was about to say he seems a bit... frustrated tonight, but if it's two different people, not sure what to make of it.

>>3003370
>t1*t1=it3
Do you mean
t1*t2=it3
?

>>3003370
oops totally meant t1*t2=it3, like:
> [0,1;1,0] * [0,-i;i,0] = i[1,0;0,-1]

>>3003399
So what exactly are you having trouble with? Could you give an example of what you can't make work?

Which experiment prooved that two electrons communicate instantly no matter how far? I wanna read about it. You should know this right?
http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html

>>3003447
Look up "Bell's theorem."

>>3003430
I look up the commutation relations on Wikipedia. Look at the first one: looks like l1*l2*3=1

so I put in like
> [0,1,0;1,0,0;0,0,0] * [0,-i,0;i,0,0;0,0,0] * [1,0,0;0,-1,0;0,0,0]
> = [i,0,0;0,i,0;0,0,0]

that doesn't match any of the generators

>>3003462
It says
<span class="math">[g_i, g_j] = i f^{ijk} g_k[/spoiler]
and the first one is
<span class="math">f^{123} = 1[/spoiler].
That means
<span class="math">[g_1, g_2] = i g_3[/spoiler]
or, written out,
<span class="math">g_1 g_2 - g_2 g_1 = i g_3[/spoiler].

>>3003462
or I try l1*l2=il3
> [0,1,0;1,0,0;0,0,0] * [0,-i,0;i,0,0;0,0,0]
> = [i,0,0;0,-i,0;0,0,0]

okay, like Pauli, but then I must be misreading the "structure constants."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTwE7xDZkPk

this guy explains physics quite well.

>>3003475
yeah, i must a group theory newfag or something because I put in:

> L1*L2 - L2*L1
> = 2iL3

what is this latex I'm reading?

>>3003513
Don't forget where it says <span class="math">g_i = \lambda_i / 2[/spoiler].

>Use TeX/jsMath with the [ m a t h ] (inline) and [ e q n ] (block) tags. Double-click equations to view the source.

>>3003530
haha :D thanks, totally missed <span class="math"> g_i = \lambda_i / 2

care to speculate or explain why the structure constants are non-unitary?[/spoiler]

>>3003574
Well, there's no reason for them to have to be all 1's. I don't have any deeper insight as to why those particular values. I would think that exactly what the values are depends on the basis you use.

if I take a shit while running. will my mother complain?

>>3003574
Don't forget to close it with an [/math] tag.

>>3003597
I get that the Gell-Mann matrices are only a representation of SU(3), and that there are others. (I hear there is a 6 dim/state representation which I'd like to see)

But amazingly the Pauli matrices are all unitary. This must be an expression of the dimensional relations. I notice that complex numbers may also be expressed in a 2x2 matrix. So the 2 dim matrix * 2 dim numbers gets the 4 dimensions of SU(2).

That's about where my imagination runs short. I don't think I fully separated all of the overlapping expressions of 2.

What the hell does SU(3) look like? My best guess is like 8 cross-beams radiating from center to the corners of a cube. So my thinking is that that is where the <span class="math">\sqrt(3)[/spoiler] and <span class="math">1/2[/spoiler] are expressed.

Anyone passionate enough to help out a femanon stuggling with atomic and nuclear physics homework? Cause that'd be real nice.

Skype; Riz.Danger.Nukem

In the Kinetic energy equation mv^2 /2 is v relative to any point? Or does Kinetic energy have meaning only to some reference point?

For example, if two cars are traveling at the same velocity, do they have zero kinetic energy relative to each other?

>>3003879
Yes, kinetic energy is frame dependent

>>3003861
I will help you out of you post here. Is it for a grad or undergrad course?

>>3003924
Thanks. Next question, Is observation the only thing that can collapse a wavefunction or can other subject-less processes accomplish this?

>>3003924
so uh, how much kinect energe does the earth had in the milkway galaxy?

>>3003657
I had homework on this stuff last semester, but I forgot everything already. Feels bad man.

>>3003952
Just an AP course in high school.

Erm, let's see. An electron and positron collide, creating two photons. Determine, in eV, the energy each emitted photon must have. (Kinetic energy of electron-positron pair is negligible compared to the energy of the photons created.)

>>3003963
Any kind of relevant "interaction" will collapses a wave function. It does not have to be from human observation. A rock collapses a wave function, just as much as human observation does.

>>3004003
It should be equivelent to 2 times the mass of an electron in eV

>>3004014
Does that mean that any time two particles interact, both of their respective wave functions collapse during the interaction?

>>3004016
scratch that, the energy of both photons should equal 2 electron masses in eV

>>3003975
Fuck if I know, I'm sure there is some approximate value somewhere, but it is really not needed for anything but very advanced cosmological models.

>>3004042
How do you figure?

>>3004052
Well, the electron positron pair should completely annihilate each other. Conservation of energy says that the resulting photons should have the same amount of energy as the two particles.

And since the mass of a positron equals the mass of an electron, the total energy in the system is 2 electron mass.

>>3004048
you'll never be an engineer

>can't approximate truth

Each photon is going to get energy equal to an electron mass. Since the electron and positron start out basically at rest, the initial net momentum is zero. In order to conserve momentum, the resulting photons must have equal and opposite momentum.

initial E = 2mc^2

final E = 2p/c

>>3004057
But with two photons created how isn't the energy equal to the mass of just one electron?

>>3004071
I said both photons have a combined total energy of both of the particles. I think it's possible for two photons to have different energies based on their wavelength.

>>3004066
hart. That made sense :3 Thank you.

>>3004074
I suppose I should have specified. The photons have equal energy moving in opposite directions. Thank you though, you helped me understand.

>>3004022
A object actually can be said to have many different wave functions. The "collapse" is just a collapse to a given value of some parameter. Ie, a wave function collapsed, s.t. I get an exact value of position . If a system can be described with basic quantum mechanics, then this is fine, and yes, all interactions will collapse some wave functions, and produce new ones. The collapse will occur, s.t. some parts of the interaction take actual values.

If the system cannot be described by basic quantum mechanics, then you need full quantum field theory. In this case, assume that collapse occurs at every possible chance (you are summing over all universes/possibilities). The original (single component wave functions will still have had to collapse though).

Highschool fag here, just started learning about wave particle duality-ish.

What was the significance of this discovery?, how did it change the science community/

>>3004103
YOU'RE A GODDAM WAVE THAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE

>>3004074
The momenta have to be equal and opposite to conserve momentum in this case.

A typical problem where the energies can be different is where the two photons are created in a frame moving with respect to the observer. In the perspective of the moving frame, the photon energies are equal, but the observer sees something different thanks to relativity.

>>3004014
The double-slit experiment disagrees with you.

>>3004075
Is that what AP physics is like?
God, I'm fucking disappoint.

Physics guy,

can you please explain Schrodinger's cat in laymans terms?

>>3004166
Was just part of one question. Also depends on your school and such, and I'm not taking calculus based either.

>>3004128
I think you need to read more about the Double-Slit experiment. You are talking out of your ass son.

Human observation can cause wave function collapse, so can a fucking rock. Nothing I have said, in any way, contradicts the double-slit experiment.

>>3004185
Put cat in box.
Put poison vial in corner of box.
Smash 2 corners. Cat is dead and alive.
Open box.
Cat is either dead, or alive.

>>3004185
The experiment is a thought experiment, to show that Quantum Mechanical effects are insignfigant on the macro-level, as they "smooth out"/"approximate" to classical mechanics anyway.

Basically, If you put a "cat", and some "random cat killer", in a box. Incorrect use of Quantum Mechanics would tell you that until you observe the system, the cat should be thought of as "dead and alive". However, that is fucking retarded., it is the "incorrrect use" as demonstrated by the experiment.

The cat and the random cat killer are on the macro-level, meaning that all the billions of billions of quantum mechanical wave functions have interacted fucking countless times already. There is already all sorts of fucking wave function collapse, and "fixing of quantities". The cat will either be dead or alive, NOT BOTH, NOT A SUPERPOSITION OF BOTH, AND SHOULD NOT BE THOUGH OF AS "DEAD AND ALIVE". It doens't fucking matter if you "observe the cat it or not", it's dead doesn't depend on observation.

The only thing observation will accomplish, is to convey the information to you, it doens't actually create the information (like a real quantum system).

>>3004292
I thought the whole point of the experiment was to magnify a single quantum mechanical process, the decay of an atom, into the macroscopic realm, the activation of the cat killer machine.

Parker, I need pictures! Pictures of Science!

>>3004312
The "magnification" doesn't really prove anything.

The thought experiment was used by schodinger, to show how Quantum Mechanics cannot be directly applied to large scale system. It was your basic proof by contradiction.

>>3004368
I don't see the contradiction of a macroscopic superposition. It's absurd and counterintutive, but not necessarily a contraction.

>>3004312
He's confused.

>wtf, WHY WONT THIS ATOM JUST DECAY ALREADY

>theres no half-life when you only got one life to live

>>3004373
>it's absurd

The absurdity is indicative of proof by contradiction. The cat will not be both dead and alive, that is fucking retarded, and can actually be proven as fucking retarded if you take the time to do the math/physics.

>>3004392

>mfw this physics guy is only explaining questions that any grade 10 student could use wiki on for the same level of understandin
>mfw he spends half his post bashing other people
>mfw he ignores decent questions
nonetheless, least there isnt a religion guy

>>3004423
>metaphysics

>>3004448
Good luck doing Quantum Physics without it.

>>3004199
I'm gonna go cut two slits in a rock, then.

I have a question - is really worth pretending you know these stuff?

>>3004373
Quantum states are only relevant at small length/energy scales. What is the de Broiglie wavelength of a baseball?

>>3004423
If you actually take the time to do that shit, you see the probability "associated" with the cat still not having a precise value of "life or death" (cat being dead and alive) is so fucking small (it would take multiple times over the age of the universe), that for all practical purposes we say it wont happen. This is physics, not mathematics.

>>3004491
Like I said before, I thought the purpose of the experiment was to make the probability of the cat's death equal to the probability of the state of the decaying atom.

Therefore, if the atom is in superposition, the cat is too.

>>3004448
You don't know what metaphysics is do you?

I am not talking about metaphysics. I am talking about actual physics, that actual works very very very very very very very very well. Quantum field theory is the most sucessful scientific theory ever made. It has unsurpassed predictive and explanitory power.

You can actually use it, and apply it to the cat in the box. You will find that the idea of the Cat being dead and alive, ends up becoming fucking laughable.

When will you finish high school?

>>3004505
That wasn't the purpose, that was the set-up kid.

The purpose was to demonstrate how laughable the incorrect use of quantum mechanics becomes (without having to actually do the math).

It was a very good argument, and convinced most people in the community. The ones that weren't convinced, actually did the math/physics (or verified it). In either case, the argumnet has been settled for decades. The cat is not "dead and alive".

It is sad how bad pop-science writes about this subject. They usually fuck up the whole thing, and have you thinking that scientist believe the cat is "dead and alive", when in reality they don't.

U trollin? Or just ill-informed?

>>3004535
Ok, No. I was with you up until this point, but let's not pretend that Quantum Mechanics isn't basically forcing us to address metaphysical questions. I know Logical Positivism made it a dirty word, but it's not scary as long as you avoid solipsism and nihilism.

Your interpretation of the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment is absolutely correct though, as is your explanation of Schrödinger's original rationale for making it. He was bringing the metaphysical consequences of the Copenhagen Interpretation up to the empirical level so their absurdity was clear.

>>3004575
Ill-informed. Quantum Mechanics is not my forte