/sci/ - Science & Math

What is time without a clock?

What is?

What is at the bottom of a black hole?

WHAT?

>>8238081
Time unwinds

>>8237999
Why didn't evolution only yield extremely rapidly replicating organisms?

>>8238098
Nature was always confused about this prospect. From single cell to lumbering dinosaurs, at some point consciousness was derived namely from a numerical equation. How many is too many. In essence, there is neither too little or too many humans. Well, that is what is natural.

If a fly didn't have wings, would it be called 'walk?'

>>8238109
+1 to you

>>8237999
What's the implication of quantum computers actually working? ( they do work actually )


I've checked what some of the greatest physicists today said about it - ones that mathematically predicted decades ago accurately the results of precise measurements today.

And they said something like - if quantum computers work we have to seriously consider many worlds.

>>8237999
Why is OP such a faggot?

>>8237999
In which orifice does OP prefer big blac

>>8238002
time is arbitrary ya dingus

>>8238081
"bottom" doesnt make sense as such, but either way we still dont know. could be as simple as information is just converted and radiated out maybe?

>>8238098
surely it would depend on the environment? Only organisms living in ecosystems that could support a large number of offspring would take advantage of it, since the more offspring the more energy required to grow/birth/whatever.

>>8238122
what do you mean by implications? In a technological aspect?

A farmer has 20 pigs, 40 cows, 60 horses. How many horses does he have if you call the cows horses?

>>8238216
>what do you mean by implications? In a technological aspect?

No, not that because - the theoretical experiments - such as quantum computers were deduced from calculations long time ago.

They were purely theoretical and in theory if that worked it would imply the existence of many worlds parallel to our.

Turns out that quantum computers actually work and the theoretical experiment is validated.

Now what's the next step - how the many world interpretation is going to be approached and what new theories will arise, or are there any hypothesis that attempt to describe the many worlds which you know about?

>>8238240
I think you're giving the jump between "Oh, our QM theories work!" and "Well there must be an infinite number of possibilities and therefore an infinite number of worlds" too much credence.

IMO, the many worlds theory is just an unfalsifiable idea. It's pretty much just a cop out to explain the weird nature of QM. It's likely someone sooner or later will come up with a more complete theory of QM that helps describe the nature of it but that shit's pretty damn difficult.

>>8238253
>attempts at intuitive interpretations are the same as the rigorous theory
how to know someone knows QM from wikipedia reading

>>8238255
>mfw I'm actually on a Cosmology MSc course
>"Further Quantum Mechanics" and "Quantum Field Theory" modules

I never described them as the same thing, I merely stated because its a massive cluster fuck of ideas it's much more difficult to actually understand and come up with theories.

>>8238109
>>8238115
samefag

>>8238218
[math] \pi [\math}

Well, you see, if mass reaches infinite the faster it travels to the speed of light, why doesn't the light from our sun or from our light globes cause a black hole in our solar system or houses?

>>8238541
Do you need help there bud ? Cmon let's find your mommy.

why did she leave me?

>>8238541
Mass increases as matter -accelerates- toward the speed of light. Photons already exist at the speed of light from the instant they're created, they don't undergo acceleration.

>>8237999
What is your answer to the problem of induction?

>>8238218
60. The cows don't care how you call them.

>>8238218
100

trick question, sage

would it be possible - not with current technology - to analyse the atomic structure of an object throughout and recreate it?

why is op so gay

>>8238278
Don't worry guys, he's taking a class that mentions QM, he's legit.

If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two, and that cannot be. How can it equal one?