/sci/ - Science & Math

whether or not this picture becomes a meme depends on the frequency of appearance of it in various places of the internet. the more particles (people) we have posting it, the better the control over the situation happening.

>Proven

I don't know which I hate more: journalists or modern society

>>7316306
what do you mean? How many times does it need to be "shown" before it's "proven"?

Isn't this like the first rule of determinism?

Article title is sensationalist and implies our futures can change our pasts or whatever. On our scale, does this kink actually affect anything of significance or imply anything about existence on a larger scale?

I mean apart from being spooky.

>>7316310
Wouldn't that be "the past decides the future"?

>Australian scientists

Stopped reading

>>7316312

The experiment was published in Nature, it is not sensationalist it proves exactly what it states. Some will argue that quantum effects have no bearing on our scale but considering that we are nothing but a pile of atoms, I posit that there's some merit to the idea.

I am having a hard time understanding this.

>>7316312
>Sensationalist
Yes, but they're not wrong about certain (apparently testable) strong interpretations of QM

>>7316315
These are the same physicists who claim that a superluminal particle travels backwards in time.

In other words they are retards who believe that ambiguous parts of their equations are reality.

>>7316416

Fuck off dickhead.

>>7316290
Just determinism in action

How would you measure something in the future?

>>7316349
>The experiment was published in Nature

>Nature

WELL THEN WE HAD BETTER BELIEVE IT

>>7316424
isn't determinism killed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

>No decent explanations in the thread
So, how is "the past" even explained as edited by "the future", if the past isn't measured?

>>7316431

What are you implying? That they're lying?

>>7316434
No, but it is by quantum entanglement. Unless the experiments concerning quantum entanglement were flawed somehow.

>>7316438
Think of the particle as a string vibrating through time. If you grab (measure) the string from one end (now), it will stop vibrating from the other end (past) as well.

OP here

this is what I gather from the article: they're testing a stream of helium atoms with the double slit experiment, only the slit isn't solid but created by lasers to allow for very rapid turning "on" and "off" of one of the gates

they're randomly turning the second one on and off

they're testing the atoms after they pass through the permanent gate and it turns out that if the second one is never "opened", they behave normally as a particle

but if the second gate is added AFTER the atom has "only" passed through the one gate, it then behaves as a wave, as if the second wave was there all along

THIS FUCKS ME UP I DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT PHYSICS BUT THIS IS TIME TRAVEL MAGIC SHIT

>>7316438

You seem to misunderstand the experiment. Why not go and read up on it. If you want to be spoonfed what is actually occuring on a quantum level, I'll do that after I collect my Nobel.

>>7316450
>as if the second wave was there all along
*as if the second gate

>>7316450

Fucked up shit that's for sure, but even more fucked up is that it implies that the atom doesn't even exist until it's measured.

Block universe

pretty simple

>>7316445
I'm referring to Nature's track record of publishing research that turns out to be fake.

The kind of false research that such a "prestigious" journal should be able to identify before sensationalizing made up papers.

All the while excluding research from less known researchers because they don't have enough citations to their name and don't fit into the steaming shit pile of academia.

I'm not saying Nature is lying, but being published in Nature is about as meaningful as getting a blurb in National Geographic.

>>7316457

Oh fuck off.

>>7316446
At best it shows that future events could never be determined by humans, because the information that would require is inaccessible to us. But that still doesn't negate determinism.

>>7316290
I think people should just ignore literally every pop-sci quantum mechanics article. They're all so bad. Just open a textbook and learn about QM, these articles are actively making you dumber by reading them.

>>7316474
problem is I have absolutely no reference point for QM and I only know shit from Wikipedia and pop sci

everything I've read about QM boils down to "lol we don't know", like "why is it not possible to observe a system without changing it"

>the future is determined by the past
And in other news, water is wet.

So it's literally the double slit experiment but particles moving through time instead of space.

>>7316482
You could always try the Theoretical Minimum series or Shankar. You only need to know basic differential equations and linear algebra.

>>7316482

Are you bothered by this finding? This was postulated to be true decades ago, the experiment just confirms it. Prove it's false.

>>7316482

Lol we don't know is a valid observation. We don't know, nobody does and if you do, enjoy your immortal fame.

>determinism is true
>some dumbass idiot religionfag patriot will argue that it's false because muhh we're all free because the founding fathers

>>7316496
yeah but the thing is, 17th century physicists could say "lol we don't know, we need more observations and better technology"

the QM "we don't know" seems to be a threat of "we don't know and we CAN'T know"

>>7316498
Determinism is still true even in Christianity, and is horrifying because the vast majority of people are destined to go to Hell.

They just try to equivocate their way out of determinism by redefining "free will", "predestination", etc..

>>7316498
I never understood the hypocrisy there. They also believe that god preordained everything that happens. They simultaneously believe in predestination/fate and freedom.

Predestination is cool, because it's their word for determinism. But god forbid if someone calls it determinism.

>>7316500

That's QM for ya. Enjoy!

>>7316500
what we are at last discovering here are the final limits to our knowledge

>>7316467
In order for QE to be deterministic you would have to have information between individual particles travel at over light speed. So if you claim that QE can ever be deterministic, you must also say, that for something to travel beyond light speed is possible.

>>7316518
>tfw we'll need Hyperion-style super AIs in order to progress further and we'll basically have to relinquish our hold on research because we're limited by our mushy brains

>>7316522
Unless, as i previously mentioned; the experiments concerning QE were/are flawed, which I personally believe.

>>7316526

How so? The experiments are based on what the model predicts, and for all of it's lolwat, QM never fails to predict.

>>7316543
not him but flawed models can easily give correct predictions

>>7316562

Go ahead and disprove it then. This is science after all, and when your model is backed up by experiment, you can enjoy your nobel prize.

>>7316583
I'm not saying the SM is wrong I'm saying it's perfectly reasonable to assume it might have major undiscovered flaws

>>7316447
For conversation --

except, that doesn't explain it, as an experiment that's actually about particles.

>>7316452
"Not reading the experiment" /= "not understanding it". Which is why the post was deleted, because it's not a fair criticism -- even if the meta discussion is pretty awful in the first posts. It's non-scientific, posts on about journalism and accuracy; whereas the experiment is actually nice and simple.

>>7316454
That was implied before this experiment, in the double-slit experiment at least -- but just existing as a probability distribution.

>>7316484
Seemingly. A proper question -- as it seems the most information that's provided is a summary by the college -- is for an explanation of how "after-gating", literally some helium atoms, is even measured (and evidenced that the particles *only* behave after the gating).

>>7316498
>Determinism is true
Except >>7316522

>>7316503
Except "that's between them and God" (how they're judged) -- and that if "every knee shall bow", there's no logical punishment inferenced.

>>7316522
Your mistake is in thinking that that information is "traveling". It isn't.

>>7316605
hidden variable theory?

>>7316290
Just based on reading this article, isn't this just a variation on the double slit experiment?

And I doubt the experiment actually physically moved a slit into and out of the beam path while an individual atom was in flight; that's probably a simplification that this pop sci article used to make an analogy with how they randomly selected between slit and no slit mid-flight. It's spooky, but the double slit experiment has always been spooky.

>>7316585

Well then, enjoy your gut feeling. Dumbass.

>>7316630
what the fuck do you even mean? I have to blindly trust a theory just because it's been correct for 40-50 years (which is nothing by the way) or else pursue a career in physics in order to disprove it? Everyone is free to use what works now while still thinking there might be more to it

>>7316628

Fuck man you dumb cunt what the fuck is wrong with you?

http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/experiment-confirms-quantum-theory-weirdness

>>7316635

I mean get fucked you stupid cunt nobody cares what you think because it's bullshit.

>>7316637
>>>/b/

>>7316635

QM has been correct for longer than that and by correct I mean perfect. Just because it rustles your jimmies doesn't mean it's not true. It rustled Einstein's jimmies but he got served by it and you sir, are no Einstein.

>>7316628
Well, that rocks the single-atom/measurement-accuracy criticisms.

I guarantee one deterministic outcome of quantum mechanics is that any discussion will have a ton of dumbshits fagging it up.

>>7316290
future dependent on past
past dependent on future
whats so hard to understand

>>7316779
well that second bit seems to be a bit unconventional

>>7316783
it is because neither are really there

>>7316813
>>>/x/

>>7316813
it's more that our intuition that time goes in one direction is just an intuition

it appears that way from our perspective because memory formation depends on chemical reactions

but in a block universe time is directionless and the present moment is simply the perception of memory formation