[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 69 KB, 650x921, 1255956939263.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1495773 No.1495773 [Reply] [Original]

Isn't it amazing how many people that mention quantum physics to support their argument, have terribly misunderstood quantum physics?

If you're a phys major or metaphysics bachelor, what do you usually reply?

>> No.1495778

>PhD in mathematics
>any jon i want
>300k enlist

>> No.1495792

>>1495778
You reply that and then? Or that right there is the totality of your argument? The usual misconception about quantum physics is that the quantities observed are random; when the framework used to make use of them makes such an assumption.

>> No.1495829

>>1495792
You're responding to spam

Also; If you understand quantum physics, you've outgrown internet arguments.

>> No.1495840

I am a theoretical physicist.
I have a crow bar and can crawl though vents.

>> No.1495841

>>1495792
you didn't seriously suggest that quantum mechanics isn't inherently random, did you?

>> No.1496004

>>1495841
Do you have any idea why we say that quantum quantities are random? Because the methods we have for observing them (with electromagnetic waves) , have this tradeoff of position and velocity?

>> No.1496029

you're retarded, defensive puss

>> No.1496031

It took me some time to reply back to this thread I know, but this poster (>>1495841) is one of the people I wrote about in my OP.

>> No.1496032

>>1496004
Someone make him stop before somebody thinks he knows what he's talking about ........ argh

>> No.1496067

>>1496032
Why don't you stop me then? Go on and say something. I'll appreciate any light shed over my supposed ignorance. After all, it's all on-topic.

>> No.1496076

>>1496067
Don't you have schools or books in your country? There must be some other way of learning the very basic of quantum mechanics without using some esoteric TV channel even in south Namibia

>> No.1496085

what comic is this?

>> No.1496097

>>1495773
Just want to throw this out there

I read the introduction to the quantum physics book I'm going to be using next semester, and the author bluntly claimed that if you were not confused by quantum physics, you were doing something wrong.

tl;dr no one understands quantum physics.

>> No.1496112
File: 124 KB, 1300x2208, Stencil 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1496112

>metaphysics
>science

>> No.1496166

>>1496076
Coming directly from my last grades high school book.

>>1496097
Who cares what he thinks, he's wrong. Quantum steps on mathematics and with a clear mind you can always understand mathematics there's nothing obscure about them.

>> No.1496189

bump

>> No.1496330

I have to say, as someone on the sidelines, I dont see anything that makes quantum mechanics random, any more than makes it look random because we don't understand or can't see it well enough. (bump)

>> No.1496401

ITT:
>Implying there is only one interpretation of quantum mechanics.

>> No.1496508

QP thread, fuck yeah!
Let me add my tangentially related questions:
We have 3 beams of particles: A and B (entangled) and C (creates interference with B). We observe beam A at intervals/in some sort of patters. Will B stop creating interference pattern at those times when A is observed? Why doesn't it let me communicate above the speed of light?
Not trolling, just wondering why it won't work (not suggesting it should).

>> No.1496553

>>1496508
Oh, I killed a thread.
Again...

>> No.1496582

>>1496553
I know how that feels. Post something on topic, nobody replies. You needed to have it in greentext.

>> No.1496590

>>1496582
Except it happens to me all the fucking time.
I end like 1% of all threads on 4chan...
And sometimes I spend 5 minutes on a post. This is really fucking bad thing when it happens. Worse than Hitler.

>> No.1496598

>>1496590
I feel like I end half the threads on /g/. I don't even know why I post there, it's even shittier than here.

>> No.1496618 [DELETED] 
File: 118 KB, 2948x313, 1272053827827.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1496618

You are getting spammed hard /sci/

>> No.1496625

>>1496097
>>1496166
It seems to me it was actually a quote from Richard Feynman, "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

>> No.1496634

>>1496598
/g/'s shitting up time somehow synced with /sci/'s creation.
At least /g/ trolls are funnier and more creative than /sci/ trolls. Burning Fermi jokes are infinitely more funny than "GAY ENGINEERS LOL".
I remember when neckbeardy boards were good. /g/ was creative, /tg/ wasn't utter shit (/jp/ + fantasy, except diluted with some non-shit), /prog/ was absolutely glorious (curse you, FrozenVoid!), /v/ was only moderately retarded and /r9k/ had no "post your ideal partner"-style threads.
Old 4chan, where are you? Why are you dead? What's oozing out of your massacred anus?

>> No.1496651

>>1496634
you're a fucking idiot

>> No.1496653

>>1496634
I'M NOT LETTING YOU DIE YOU ABORTION OF A THREAD

>> No.1496663

>>1496651
You're wrong. I'm not you.

>> No.1498010

what's the best place to learn quantum physics without going to college?

>> No.1498011

The only thing abused more than the Incompleteness Theorems is quantum physics.

>> No.1498322

>>1496508
Quantum entanglement could never communicate information faster than light. Keyword is communicate. To understand this, let's imagine a somewhat extreme case. You have two entangled particles that are on opposite sides of the earth. One is in your lab and the other is in your colleague's lab. You perform a measurement of some quantity on your particle, thus determining the value of the corresponding quantity of the other particle. So far so good.

However, by doing this you haven't communicated any actual information. You have made an uncontrollable observation, proving nothing. It is impossible for your colleague to distinguish his result from that of a random measurement, and it is impossible for him to determine whether you have already performed your measurement or not. To confirm your results with your colleague, you are still limited by speed of light communication.

But clearly, there is SOMETHING traveling faster than the speed of light here. Let's say you and your colleague have synchronized watches, and you have agreed to perform this measurement at the same time. You will then communicate your results later. Of course, it's impossible for the measurements to be carried out precisely at the same time, but they can be close enough for our discussion. You perform the measurement, note the time, and measure A indicating that your colleague should be measuring B. When you communicate your results (using slower than light methods), you confirm that your colleague has measured B and compare his time of measurement to yours. If the results are in agreement, and they are, you can use the time difference between your measurements and the distance between your labs to determine the speed at which a supposed "quantum information" may travel. This speed has been confirmed to be orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light. However, for actual communication, lightspeed remains the limit.

>> No.1498349

Afaik, information cannot travel faster than c. Hence whatever quantum entanglement is, it doesn't rely on information travelling faster than c.

I'd be interesting to have someone define these terms precisely:
Information
particle
entangled particle
spin

But I've been told that "common sense" definitions, those which need not make a reference to math, are misleading in this case. Spin ain't spin as in spin of a tennis ball. Particle isn't a spherical thing.

You need math to make sense of these things. It's when you try to find physical, common sense interpretations that it starts getting weird and seemingly defies our intuitions.

>> No.1498507

>>1498349
I'll give you my take.

Information - The value of an observable. What you get when you perform a measurement.

Particle - In the example, let's say we have one electron and one positron which have originated from a pion decay.

Entangled particle - In order to satisfy certain conservation laws, such as conservation of charge etc, knowing the value of [some observable] for one particle in the pair is the same as knowing both. For example, if we measure one of the particles to have negative charge, we KNOW that the other one must have positive charge, because they came from the decay of a neutral particle ad charge is always conserved. In the example, the observable is probably not charge, but spin, leading to:

Spin - A property of the particles. For the sake of this example, it isn't actually necessary to know what spin is, only to know that is is a conserved quantity.

>> No.1498652

We'll probably figure out how to travel faster than light eventually, it's just a matter of time and innovation, as well as further understanding of physics. I think that it can be assumed that, over time, if it's *possible* for something to be done, some human will eventually figure out the how of it.

My guess is traversable, sustainable wormholes and/or fancy space-folding.

>> No.1498764

>>1498322
>it's impossible for the measurements to be carried out precisely at the same time, but they can be close enough for our discussion

They'd have to be carried out within the same planck instant, so no, there's no such thing as "close enuogh".

>> No.1499298

>>1498764
Elaborate, for what pupose would they "have to" be that close?

>> No.1499316
File: 98 KB, 2836x295, 1270903570704.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1499316

>my lack of face when you can't sage