/sci/ - Science & Math

[Physics Guy No.1731802]

Phyics guy is back, and willing to answer problems relating to physics "concepts" (no number crunching)

[Jennie !NSPcQQMvS. No.1731811]

>>1731802
>mfw when irony because Einstein sucked at math for someone his level.

Too lazy for pic.

[Anonymous No.1731819]

answer this: to start with >>1731572

some faggots are claiming that somehow they have the same energy, because the charge in the battery cancels out mass or some shit.

[Anonymous No.1731834]

>>1731811
>mfw people still believe that Einstein sucked at math
Still believe in the tooth fairy, Jennie?

[Physics Guy No.1731848]

>>1731819
Wtf? that really is too stupid to get a response. I thought that was just a troll.

Anyway, since you really seem to care. E=m*c^2, is not the complete equation you would use. That is just the engergy given by a "mass", you would also need to take into account the kinetic enegery (engery from mometum), as well as the stored chemical energy in the batttery.

That question is really fucking stupid and sounds like an obvious troll or a 12 year old girl with down syndrome wrote it.

[Nona No.1731858]

Your thought on Max Planck? He's my favorite physicist.

[Jennie !NSPcQQMvS. No.1731865]

>>1731834
see:
>for someone his level.
The myth is that he failed math. He was a decent mathematician, but for a physicist of his caliber, he could've done better.

[Physics Guy No.1731875]

>>1731858
Uhh.....cool guy. I really dont study "physicist" too much, I would rather study "physics".

[Anonymous No.1731876]

>>1731865
That is, of course, a myth. He didn't actually fail math in school.

I have to be honest, saying "[Einstein] could have done better" seems a little... arrogant? Dismissive? Something like that.

[Anonymous No.1731881]

Satyendra Nath Bose was here

Einstein, you're small time

[Anonymous No.1731883]

Can a vaccum cool something quickly?

The transfer of kinetic energy from the hot object to air molecules is one way to cool something, but is there another way to cool off? In the vaccum of space or in some vaccum chamber, will the kinetic energy of the molecules dissipate faster due to less friction? What are the mechanisms of heat loss/cooling?

Finally, if you had a very hot object in space, would it cool down faster or stay hot longer than if it were on earth?

[Jennie !NSPcQQMvS. No.1731885]

>>1731876
also subjective.

[Anonymous No.1731887]

>>1731883
A vacuum is an ideal insulator. That's why they use them in thermoses. In a vacuum the only way an object loses heat is black body radiation

[Anonymous No.1731895]

If a mechanical wave's speed is influenced by the density of the medium it's travelling through, how fast would a sound wave move through a singularity?

[Anonymous No.1731913]

>>1731887
So, in space, you can have ice that is hot, but is solid because the low pressure allows the water molecules to form lattice structures?

Can you explain black body radiation a bit more? I am on the wiki site but I can't think of an example of it.

[Physics Guy No.1731918]

>>1731883

>Can a vaccum cool something quickly?

Not really

>The transfer of kinetic energy from the hot object to air molecules is one way to cool something, but is there another way to cool off?

The temperture is a measure of the mean amount of kinetic energy asssocited with degrees of freedome within an enclosed volume. To make somthign colder, I need to carry off the kinetic energy or reduce degrees of freedom.

There really isnt too much in a vacumm, as to absorb that energy. I guess you could try some fancy shit with degrees of freedom.

>In the vaccum of space or in some vaccum chamber, will the kinetic energy of the molecules dissipate faster due to less friction?

I think you have that backwards, wouldnt it dissipate faster if there were more friction?

>What are the mechanisms of heat loss/cooling?

Thermodyanmics and tempretrue shit si all esnetailly related to degress of freedom and the kinetic like engies associted with those degress of freeedom. I believe you could derive the Therodynamics equations from first principles (least actions) with a heavy amount of stats.

>Finally, if you had a very hot object in space, would it cool down faster or stay hot longer than if it were on earth?

Probably stay hot longer

[Anonymous No.1731922]

>>1731802

Please explain how observations physically affect the trajectory or speed of subatomic particles. I don't get the whole uncertainty principle thing.

[Physics Guy No.1731945]

>>1731922
>Please explain how observations physically affect the trajectory or speed of subatomic particles. I don't get the whole uncertainty principle thing.

The uncertianity princple all just boils down to commutivity. If two types of "observations" commmute then there is no uncertainity. If two types of observations dont commmute there is uncertainity. Commute pretty much just means that order matters. You will be able to tell if observations "commute" or not through basic linear algebra. It really is just all math.

[Anonymous No.1731958]

>>1731913
If you heat up a piece of metal so it is glowing red (or yellow or white, etc), that is an example of black-body radiation. The color of the light depends on the temperature. This is how the filament inside an incandescent light bulb works. Basically the heat in something is converted into electromagnetic radiation (light, etc) and radiated away.

In general, this is a much slower way to get rid of heat compared to conduction or convection, which is why a vacuum is a good insulator.

[Anonymous No.1731959]

>>1731922
The uncertainty principle has nothing to do with that. You are talking about the collapse of the wavefunction. When you observe something, you force it's wavefunction to change because the object has to be in the state you observed it, not in a superposition of states like it was before.

The uncertainty principle only comes in on the side, since if you observe something's position (for example), you cause it to have a wavefunction that is highly peaked in position space, therefore very flat in momentum space (hence you don't know it's momentum).

[Anonymous No.1731978]

>>1731958
>>1731918
>>1731887
Thanks bro(s)

[Anonymous No.1732004]

>>1731922
It's a problem with language. "Observe" in this sense doesn't mean "be observed by a sentient being", it just means that another particle interferes with the trajectory. I really wish physicists invented better language to describe what is going on.

[Anonymous No.1732010]

Does particle wave duality imply that broadcasting antennas emit particles and if so what, electrons?

[Physics Guy No.1732017]

>>1732004
I think the lanuage is fine. Physicts know what they mean when they say "observe". Physicts never have a problem understanding it meaning.

[Anonymous No.1732020]

Have you read the comic where Scrooge was offered a "gun" by one of his employee scientists that removed all the inertia of an object it fired its beam at?

How would this work in real life assuming it would be even slightly possible?

[Anonymous No.1732024]

>>1732004
>"Observe" in this sense doesn't mean "be observed by a sentient being"

False. If it just interacts with another particle, and you don't observe the result, the entire system is in a superposition of states. That's the whole deal with Schrödinger's cat.

[Anonymous No.1732034]

>>1732010
photons.

[Anonymous No.1732036]

>>1732024
Physics Guy, is this true?

[Anonymous No.1732040]

>>1731945
>>1732004
>>1731959

Thanks gents. Much obliged.

[Physics Guy No.1732041]

>>1732010
>Does particle wave duality imply that broadcasting antennas emit particles and if so what, electrons?

I am pretty sure they just emit photons. I guess somtimes electons could be emmited to. Electrons are kinda everywhere and always leaving and clinging on to shit. But they arent really "created" in the antenna. Photons would be "created".

[Anonymous No.1732046]

>>1732024
False. Human interaction has nothing to do with it. The superposition collapses with particles it interferes with. It's just a way of saying "there is no experiment you can make to figure out which hole the electron is going through in the double-slit experiment because any attempt to observe which hole it goes through will cause the wave function to collapse."

[Anonymous No.1732048]

>>1732024
No. Consciousness has no special place in physics. If you locked the scientist opening the box containing schrodinger's cat in a completely isolated room, that room would also be in a superimposed state to anyone outside the room. And when you open the door of that room, the universe is in a superimposed state to anyone outside the universe. Hence the many worlds interpretation.

[Anonymous No.1732050]

>>1732036
And I'll tell you more. It doesn't have to be just anyone to do the observation. It has to be you. Read up on Wigner's friend.

[Anonymous No.1732052]

>>1732024
*and btw Schrödinger regretted his "cat" metaphor because so many people get the impression that a sentient mind is something other than a lump of matter which it is NOT

[Anonymous No.1732054]

>>1732048
The many worlds interpretation is bullshit. According to Copenhagen the wavefunction collapses when, and only when, you observe it.

[Anonymous No.1732055]

>>1732046
>>1732048

That's what I thought. I hate it when faggots who don't know what the fuck they are talking about start answering.

[Anonymous No.1732057]

>>1732050
>implying philosophy is physics

[Anonymous No.1732058]

>>1732017
I'm not so sure. If memory serves, I've read talks or papers by physics phd's who have thought consciousness has something to do with it.

[Anonymous No.1732065]

>>1732058
You read bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1732066]

How can a field be quantized? I mean understand the math behind QM, but trying to get into QFT and QED has kind of left me confussled.

[Anonymous No.1732068]

>>1732057
>implying there aren't loads of philosophy in QM

[Anonymous No.1732074]

>>1732024

Your an idiot.

[Anonymous No.1732083]

>>1732074
>>1732046
>>1732048
Good, then explain this. The photon in the double slit experiment interacts with the slits when it crosses them. But the result of the experiments need a description in terms of superposition of states. Why doesn't the interaction with the slit cause a collapse of the wavefunction?

[Anonymous No.1732084]

>>1732066

Are you still here :(

I would really like some help with this.

[Anonymous No.1732087]

>>1732057
>implying you can separate physics from philosophy

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

[Anonymous No.1732096]

>>1732083
Because it transfers no energy, and so has no need to localize.

[Anonymous No.1732104]

>>1732083 Why doesn't the interaction with the slit cause a collapse of the wavefunction?

The last 1/6 of this book has the most complete and understandable description of this I have ever found. Vital read. Basically the slit is a place the electrons CAN go through. If you've got two slits the electrons can go through either but you don't know which an individual one is going through. So you shoot photons at the slits so that if an electron is going through a slit you'll see which one it's going through, but because of the interference the wave function will collapse and the electron will no longer have the same wave pattern on the detector. So you slow down the photons you shoot to detect and EVERY one you CAN determine which hole it goes through will look like it only went through the slit and everyone you miss will land on the back in the same statistical probability as if you hadn't setup the detector to see which hole it goes through. Hope that makes sense, little drunk.

[Anonymous No.1732105]

>>1732087
That article contains a disgusting abuse of the word "observer" and misrepresents the views of many physicists.

[Anonymous No.1732106]

>>1732087
>Implying consciousness is real

Oh you.

[Physics Guy No.1732108]

>>1732036

Quantum mechnically you will keep getting superpositions if you dont observe. If systems started off as superpositions, and kept interacting, you will only see superpositions until you collapse them. YOU HAVE TO COLLAPSE THEM! (Even if they were already collapsed by another). But you dont have to be sentient, or alive, or any of that bullshit. Interaction is essentially the same thing as "observation".

Since observeing is effectiving the only way to get the info of the systems, everything appears as superpositions until "you" collapse it. If it was already "collapsed" by "another", you will just observe the same "collapse", but it would be new to you!

Macroscopically, no. Statictics will set in, and certain probabilties will become so large, that they might as well be certainity. Schrodinger cat was actually an example againist large scale quantum mechanics. It demonstarted that it was somewhat comical to think that you could use Quantum mechanics on a macroscopic scale.

[Anonymous No.1732109]

>>1732105
Is there any way of tagging a wikipedia article *NEEDS TO BE FIXED* so that the community knows it needs to do something about it?

[Physics Guy No.1732110]

>>1732104
Well first of all, the consiousness defined by the quantum wave equation implies a duality of the mind body paradox.

[Anonymous No.1732111]

>>1731802
As I understand it. the speed of light is constant for all observers and the speed of time varies between observers as a result of that. So, why is it that the time dilation at 0.5 lightspeed isn't 0.5, that is, time passing at half the normal speed?

[Anonymous No.1732113]

>>1732104
Apparently, you can't read and resort to following your own train of thought.

>>1732096
That's news to me. That's not what the third postulate of QM states.

[Physics Guy No.1732114]

>>1732036
Yeah, that is bullshit.
See>>1732108

[Anonymous No.1732115]

>>1732108demonstarted that it was somewhat comical to think that you could use Quantum mechanics on a macroscopic scale.

And then the experimental physicists went crazy...

>A team of scientists has succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html

[Physics Guy No.1732118]

>>1732114
>>1732110
>>1732108

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE?

OP GET A FUCKING TRIPCODE.

[Physics Guy No.1732119]

>>1732110
You are not Physics Guy! Troll!

[Anonymous No.1732122]

ok, double slit experiment. i was thinking that the act of the observer could be replaced by say some kind of theoretical special jello. that it isnt the consciousness that matters, but quantum entangling the observed particle into the universe.

put a block of special jello in front of the slit, and this special jello can only be punctured in two places, directly in front of each slit BUT the special jello can only be punctured once, not in both places at once. this special jello would force the observed particle to move through only one slit. the jello would collapse the wave function without a conscious observer. furthermore it does so on the same principles as consciousness. basically a conscious mind is like a kind of special jello in that the observed particle can only effect the conscious mind in such a way as to see the particle moving through one slit. so the state of the particle becomes entangled into the state of the jello, or the particle becomes entangled in the state of the conscious mind.

so are minds just special jello entangling the observed particles into a more restricted exsistance? by forcing the particles to have an impact on the universe that said particles now becomes a part of the universe, linked to every other part that is linked. it joins the particle into our shared stream of cause and effect.

eh?

[Physics Guy No.1732125]

>>1732118
You and >>1732110
are the only psuedo-physics guys

I was the rest of the posts

[Anonymous No.1732126]

>>1732108

Elegant...

[Physics Guy No.1732132]

>>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.

[Anonymous No.1732133]

>>1732122
Yes, but you've missed the main point of the double-slit experiment. The detector behind the slits collapses the wave function when the electron hits the back wall. But the trick is figuring out WHICH hole the particle went through. If you have 1 hole there's a normal distribution on the back wall, when there's 2 holes and you send electrons through 1 at a time they produce a statistical pattern as if they were waves. BUT any experiment that observes which hole they went through will make them act like particles and produce a normal distribution again.

[Anonymous No.1732134]

I think this thread doesn't make any sense

[Anonymous No.1732141]

>metal paddle both moving and not moving
>andiquote "Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously."
>andiquote"through a series of careful measurements"
>andiquote "careful measurements"
...so what the fuck is going on? Superposition still exists when you OBSERVE something?! Surely that's the big news here, not some stupid drum shit (What do you call someone who hangs around with musicians?
A drummer.)

[Physics Guy No.1732149]

>>1732122
>isnt the consciousness that matter

STOPPED READING

WTF would you bring such shitty concepts to physics? Consciousness is not a concept at all in physics. Consciousness is pretty much qualitative bullshit. Please take your bullshit ouuta /sci/ and back to /lit/

[Anonymous No.1732151]

>>1732141...so what the fuck is going on?

It's possible for something to be in two states simultaneously, possible for a particle to pass through BOTH slits without dividing itself, etc.

[Physics Guy No.1732159]

>>1732141
wtf? were are you getting this from?

[Anonymous No.1732160]

>>1732151
state collapses into ONE OR THE OTHER when observed
AND I QUOTE "Through a series of careful measurements"
AND I QUOTE "series of careful measurements"
AND I GOD DAMN QUOTE "careful measurements"

[Anonymous No.1732164]

>>1732160
You dumbass. What the fuck do you think happens in the double slit expiriment?

if it creates an interference pattern, that means that it had to be in a superpositinoed state in order to do that.

[Anonymous No.1732166]

I'm having trouble with this problem. I'm not asking you to crunch out the answer for me, I just can't figure out how to eliminate one of the unknowns, there are just too many for me to use any of the equations I know.

[Anonymous No.1732167]

>>1732159
>wtf? were are you getting this from?

ahem

>>1732115
>http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html

>"A team of scientists has succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving. "

...and then prevented this duality from collapsing even after observation

[Anonymous No.1732168]

why can trains run on magnets but not skateboards?

do they use magic magnets in japan?

[Anonymous No.1732169]

Have you needed any math past the one year sequence of math for physicists, lets say with the Mary Boas book, Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences ?

What programming language do you use the most?

[Anonymous No.1732170]

>>1732164
>you dumbass
no YOU dumbass, try getting the double slit experiment to work if you observe it.

[Anonymous No.1732173]

>>1732105
Which physicists' views does that article misrepresent?

[Physics Guy No.1732176]

>>1732141
>>1732151
>>1732160
>>1732164

Not sure what you are even arguing over anymore

I just want to point out that WE NEVER OBSERVE SUPERPOSTION OF STATES!
WE NEVER SEE THINGS EXISTSING IN TWO STATES AT ONCE.

Mathemtically we do calcualtion with suposition of states all the time, but phycislaly as soon as we make the any kind of observation WE ONLY HAVE ONE STATE. WE ONLY EVER OBSERVE ONE STATE. SUPERPOSITION OF STATES IS JUST A MATHEMATICAL TOOL.

The fucked up part is that we will never really know if things actually exist in nature as superpoositions, cause any observation whatso ever would destory the superposition

[Anonymous No.1732180]

>>1732176
>I just want to point out that WE NEVER OBSERVE SUPERPOSTION OF STATES!
WE NEVER SEE THINGS EXISTSING IN TWO STATES AT ONCE.

dude, DUDE! The article clearly states they measured the drum paddle both moving and not moving at the same time, read my quotes that's why I quoted. Quotes direct from the article.
>"Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously."

This is the question I';m asking - how through carefully measuring do you determine that the paddle is in a state of moving and not moving, surely the act of measuring forces the superposition to collapse?

[Anonymous No.1732182]

>>1732176
What's your take on the theory that instead of gravity, electricity is the major acting force in the universe.

[Anonymous No.1732186]

>>1732176
>>1732176

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html

well apparently you are gonig to have to explain this in a little more detail.

[Anonymous No.1732188]

>>1732115
>http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html

that's the article that was linked to, it seems to contradict the idea of observation collapsing the quantum shizzle shit.

[Anonymous No.1732192]

>>1732182
gravity magnets fit the bill

[Anonymous No.1732195]

>>1732180
well, in the double slit experiment anyway. it can be known that the electrons moved through both slits by using the record of the electrons impact on the backwall. so basically this method records the electron AFTER it's already done it's thing and not during.

so perhaps they measured the paddle after it was done moving/not moving through something like the back wall in the double slit experiment

[Anonymous No.1732198]

having read this >>1732087 article, I'm not reading this paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9501/9501014v5.pdf

Physics has necessarily become philosophical as fuck, because you can't do physics without observation, and observation is no longer a reflection of a model of the universe but a result probabilistically predicted by a mathematical abstraction. There is no way to avoid the philosophical questions brought up, except by being a logical positivist... which of course is itself a philosophy.

The observer problem is that there is no way to define where the observer is. Does it come from a certain level of complexity? Not according to the actual theory. There's nothing to tell you where that level of complexity is. The superposition of the wave equation works perfectly well right up to the point where it gets to your conscious mind, upon which it either must collapse (Copenhagen), or your consciousness must become part of the wave equation (many worlds). The absurdity of both of these necessities was what Schrodinger was trying to point out with his cat, as he was advocating for hidden variables, which we now know must be non-local to exist.

[Anonymous No.1732202]

>>1732108
If it was already "collapsed" by "another", you will just observe the same "collapse"

how? how is this possible? i think thats a million dollar question

[Anonymous No.1732203]

>>1732180
Dude. All they are trying to say in the article, is that they verified that the system was in a superimposed state. They were not trying to stay that it remained superimposed after measurement.

[Anonymous No.1732210]

>>1732202
no. THAT is precisly the trillion dollar question.

If you could solve that question, you could make TRILLIONS on the stock market by MAINIUPATED FUTURE CONTRACTS ON OPTIONS.

[Physics Guy No.1732215]

>>1732180
STFU....when Feynman speaks!

Lol....I would actually need to read the article. The link you gave me is shit. Pop-science is shit, and it gets even the basics wrong.

This could be done though. Although YOU WILL NEVER OBSERVE IT IN BOTH STATES AT THE SAME TIME.

It was likely done like this:

1) Using QM we can put things in superposition, we do this all the time, with small shit. Although, technically, we really dont know if it is superposition or just "appears as superposition".

2) take a measurment

3) observe, record

4) repeat 1)

If we arent chaning our "superpostion making" procedure, we should get the same results everytime. So, if we dont change our produece and get differnt ressults, we figure out the probabibly of each result, and then assume that our orginal state (the one we made) must have been a superposition. This is nothing new. The only cool thing is that they did it macroscopically.

AGAIN, WE ARENT REALLY OBSERVING A SUPERPOSITION, WE ARE IMPLYING ITS EXISTANCE FROM OBSERVATIONS (like we already do). Im sure the actual article is mroe clear about this, your pop sci link is shit.

[Anonymous No.1732222]

>>1732215

>CRUISE CONTROL
>WE ARE IMPLYING
>means inferring

i don't think this nigga a real phycisist.

[Physics Guy No.1732226]

>>1732202
Dude its not that complicated...

I flip a Coin, until I look at the coin it is in a "superposition" of heads and tails.

I look at it and I find what it is. (collapse)

Now I know what it is, but my friend does not. I know the state, he still thinks it could be 50% heads or 50% tails. (he still uses the superposition)

He observes the coin. And then find the same answer I did. Make sense?

[Anonymous No.1732228]

>>1732203
Yes, I can get that.

Admittedly I'd been under the vague impression that the double slit works through knowing that each electron can only have gone through one or other of the slits and seeing the result of the cumulative wave state in the diffraction patterns. But when you collapse the state of an individual electron during the experiment (by checking which slit it went through), it collapses the wave state - so the diffraction pattern is screwed.

What I'm trying to say is that the superposition is showed through the cumulative effects of lots of electrons - all of them in the either/or state and interfering with each other - the effects seen in the mutual interference of their superpositions.

Here there was only one thing so it seems difficult to understand how the effects were seen without collapsing the state straight away.

[Anonymous No.1732230]

>>1732222
I dont think you are a real Nigga

I think you are a superposition of a 40 YEAR old Faggot and a 12 year old girl with down syndrome. COLLAPSE DAMM YOU!

[Anonymous No.1732231]

>>1732215
All the good work was undone with this line:
>Although, technically, we really dont know if it is superposition or just "appears as superposition"

[Anonymous No.1732232]

>>1732230
respect the quads bitch.

[Anonymous No.1732237]

>>1732231
Made sense to me. I'm sure if you ask nice he will dumb it down for you.

[Anonymous No.1732240]

>>1732237
i thinked it was dumbed down too far already, proof is - you understood it

[Anonymous No.1732244]

hmmmm
>your pop sci link is shit.
i resent that it wasn't mine
>If we arent chaning our "superpostion making" procedure, we should get the same results everytime. So, if we dont change our produece and get differnt ressults, we figure out the probabibly of each result, and then assume that our orginal state (the one we made) must have been a superposition. This is nothing new. The only cool thing is that they did it macroscopically
okaaaay

[Physics Guy No.1732246]

>>1732231
We don't know if it is just the "math" that contains the superpostion, or if the physical universe actually can exist in "states of superposition", Since we never can directly observe things in "superposition".

[Anonymous No.1732250]

What is the formula that determines how much fast a rocket can go with a given impulse/motor.

I remember reading that faster an object goes, the more power is required to keep the same acceleration otherwise the acceleration would drop to 0, and the maximum velocity will be reached at that point.

[Physics Guy No.1732257]

>>1732244
worded badly, sorry

If we keep our prodecure the same, and the state is not in superposition, we will get the same results everytime.

If we keep our procedure the same, and get different results, then we can infer that our orginal state was a superposition.

At no point do we actually directly observe the physical universe in "superposition"

[Anonymous No.1732261]

The nine lives

In its first life, Schrodinger’s cat may be viewed in two ways. Either it is part of a quantum system and it exists in a superposition of being dead and alive until someone checks. Here curiousity kills the cat. Or, perhaps the cat should be seen as an observer and it causes the trigger into a definite state of fired or not. Thus, the cat kills itself. The two predictions are contradictory but it is practically impossible to tell them apart.

In its second life, there is no such thing as a cat. If one tries to analyse a cat with accuracy of order h, a cat may only be defined as part of an integral phenomenon, eg. in terms of milk being consumed and hairs being left around the place. The concepts of dead and alive are not even defined until one tries to see whether any milk is consumed!

In its third life the cat is in a superposition of dead and alive until a conscious being checks up on it.

In its fourth life, the cat is either dead or alive. However, in any ensemble there will always turn out to be some dead and some alive. It is impossible to predict which will live and which will die. In its fifth life, the cat causes the entire world to split into two. In one world it lives, in the other it dies.

[Anonymous No.1732262]

In its sixth life, the cat is in a linear superposition of being alive and dead. Half of Schrodinger’s minds perceive it to be definitely alive while the other half perceive it to be definitely dead. In a sense, all are wrong.

In its seventh life, the cat is either alive or dead, assuming that these concepts may be defined purely in terms of the positions of the cat’s constituent particles. If so, the cat’s fate actually follows deterministically from a full specification of the initial state. (Otherwise, it will be in a superposition of dead and alive until someone correlates these with some position.)

In its eighth life, the cat will either live or die according to a random transition. The microscopic trigger doesn’t exist except by virtue of its effect on the bomb and cat.

In its ninth life, one can predict that the cat will be alive or dead with equal probabilities. If it is found to be dead or alive one may conclude that the bomb respectively had triggered or had not. But one cannot talk about whether the cat is dead or alive.

[Physics Guy No.1732267]

>>1732250
With SR or just CM?

You can just derive that shit with very very basic physics anyway. I don't memorize the names of those really simple engineering (shit tier) physics equations anyway.

[Anonymous No.1732268]

>>1732210
>>1732210
what the fuck i'll take a crack at it

ok... quantum entanglement... lets say you are the observer of that electron in the double slit experiment, you are entangling it into your own mind.

the electron has had an effect inside your mind, it has changed your mind. watching the electron move through slit A has fired different neurons then the neurons that would have been fired had you observed the electron going through slit B or if you had not observed the electron at all.

by having an effect on your mind the electron has acted as a cause, with the change in your mind as an effect.

now as we know cause and effect is linked back to the big bang itself. cause and effect interactions are occuring on the macroscopic and microscopic levels at all times all around us and inside us. but all these many cause and effect interactions are all connected to each other. by observing that electron moving through slit A that movement has now via your mind entered the cause and effect stream that connects everything via interactions. the electron interacts with your mind, and your mind interacts with the universe around you, and everyone else in that universe.

[Physics Guy No.1732273]

>>1732268
>>1732261
>>1732262

And Aether has fucked up another thread with his faggotry.

[Anonymous No.1732274]

>>1732268
continued

if someone else, call him observer 2 (you are observer 1), could observe the electron having moved through a different slit that simply wouldn't work as it would undo all the cause and effect interactions that occured in your mind. and your mind is connected via interactions to the universe including observer 2s mind.

the observed interacting cause and effect universe can only register one thing existing in one place at one time. as soon as something that exists in 2 places at once interacts with the cause and effect reality its existance is locked in place.

spinning electrons are like gears in a giant machine. for the machine to work each gear can only be in one place at any one time. so for observer 2, who is part of this machine, to view a gear inside the machine as being in a different place would be impossible unless he was operating outside the machine.

so if observer 2 could isolate himself in some kind of force field that isolates him from the gears, from the electrons, from the cause and effect unified interactions universe, only then could he observe that electron moving through a different slot then observer 1, however that observation would only exist inside observer 2s new isolated universe force field. if observer 2 were to open that force field again... well i dunno, i think he'd be stuck in that force field forever unable to interact with our universe.

perhaps the vast gulf of space is enough to insulate groups of interacting cause and effects from each other. if there are alien species isolated from our series of cause and effect they would never be able to observe us at all because we exist in a "machine" of interactions that are counter to the observations formed by their own interactions.

fin

[Anonymous No.1732275]

These are the 9 interpretations of QM,

The Orthodox interpretation
Bohr’s interpretation
Mind causes collapse
Hidden variables
Many-worlds interpretation
Many-minds interpretation
Bohm’s interpretation
Decoherent histories (Ontology)
Decoherent histories (Epistemology)

as described here http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9501/9501014v5.pdf

[Anonymous No.1732277]

>>1732257
how do the electrons both go through a slit each at different times and also interfere with each other to produce a wave pattern?

[Anonymous No.1732295]

>>1732277
You're asking a philosophical question. Physics can only tell you about the likelihood of where the electron will end up on the screen based the configuration of slits. It can't tell you anything about which slit(s) it actually went through or even if it existed before it was measured.

[Physics Guy No.1732312]

>>1732277
Alot of people seem to be confusing various physics concepts.

Particle wave Duality has nothing to do with "superposition or wave collapse". You do not need those concepts at all.

The double slit experiment is an example of Particle wave duality, the "objects" act like waves as well as partciles. That is all you need to explain the doubel-slit experiment. The superposition of any kinda states of the "objects" has nothing at all to do with any of that. The objects are likely to have no (or little superposition) at all anyway.

[Physics Guy No.1732319]

>>1732277
Just treat them as waves. What is so difficult about that? I dont understand what your problem is?

[Anonymous No.1732323]

>>1732277
because one can observe the path of an electrons movement, but never the speed at which it moves. not due to lack of measuring tools, but because on a fundemental level that electron is existing in more then one place at once. that electron is existing in front of itself and behind itself at the same time. look into how radiation works its the same principle. if you were to make an unpassable wall an electron would come up to that wall and exist on both sides at once and thus "pass through it"

[Anonymous No.1732332]

>>1732319
he wants to know why they are waves, rather then being told by a teacher that they are waves and leaving it at that, he wants to understand WHY and HOW

[Anonymous No.1732336]

>>1732323
Your conclusions are right, but your premise is all bullshit. You are just throwing random physics concepts togther incoherently

[Anonymous No.1732340]

>>1732336
well thats what i get for teaching myself complex physics using wikipedia over a couple weeks without even looking into basic physics first. rewrite it for me?

[Anonymous No.1732345]

>>1732336
IF YOU WERE TO THROW RANDOM VEGETABLES TOGETHER IT WOULD MAKE AN SALAD THATS MY CUNTCLUSION

[Anonymous No.1732353]

>>1732332
>he wants to understand WHY and HOW

Ohh, well I doubt you could understand, HOW and WHY they are waves. It really just boils down to math, if you know math you will understand, if you dont you are screwed.
You just have to be a good boy and listen to your teacher, for now.

In the end to understand advance concepts really just means knowing alot of math. No amount of dumbass analogies will explain advanced physics.

If you "choose" to view the particle as a wave, then it is a wave in the Quantum EM field. It is basic QFT and QED. That is the best I could tell you for now.

To even try and understand QFT and QED, you usuallly need at least a M.S. in Physics. There are tons of "simpler" physics you need to learn first.

[Anonymous No.1732356]

"No amount of dumbass analogies will explain advanced physics."

Bullshit. You're just not creative enough. And since you do know the math you can't even think in terms of dumbass anologies anymore your mind just isnt as wired for dumbass analogies. but if you really took a crack at it, or someone else did, it could likely be explained using a long and complex anology that barely made sense but imparted a general impression

[Anonymous No.1732361]

>>1732353
That sucks I can't even think in numbers. I have to move my fingers when adding or subtracting for fuck sakes. :(

[Physics Guy No.1732373]

>>1732356

1) Why are they waves?

They are not waves, they are not anything. It is a system with inherit properties, you can choose to see it anyway you want. You observe the system and note that it can be described with the mathematics of waves very accurlt. Hence Waves.

2) How are they Waves?

Again they are not waves, it is just a "system". We choose to describe them as waves becuase they way they function matches the mathematical model of a quantum wave theory.

Do you have any real questions? Or just more phil bullshit?

[Anonymous No.1732376]

To even try and understand QFT and QED, you usuallly need at least a M.S. in Physics. There are tons of "simpler" physics you need to learn first.

i bet if i read the wiki on quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics i could get the gist of it without needing to spend years in university.

i hear shit like "you need _____ university degree before you can even understand ______" all the fucking time. and so far every time i've seeked to prove them wrong i did. university isnt anywhere near as essential to understanding as so many assume. in the days before the internet sure. but the largest library in the history of the human race is at all our fingertips. thousands of physics textbooks, lectures, simplifications, articles, discussions all just a google away. no replacement for a proper education, but plenty enough to gain a basic understanding. proper education is a bit outdated anyways, why bother memorizing anything if computers will memorize it all for us? the internet already knows the answer i just have to stroke it the right way to get the answers i want to slide into place.

[Anonymous No.1732377]

>>1732356
>mind just isnt as wired for dumbass analogies

Thanks for the complement

[HA HA HA HA HA HA HA No.1732381]

>>1732376
>i bet if i read the wiki on quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics i could get the gist of it without needing to spend years in university.

LMAO, I would take that bet....you are a funny funny guy.

[HA HA HA HA HA HA HA No.1732386]

>>1732376
I just cant stop laughing!
YOU ARE SO FUNNY!

[HA HA HA HA HA HA HA No.1732395]

>>1732376
You sound like this FUNNY FAGGGOT Aether
YOU always make me laugh, you so stupid

[Anonymous No.1732396]

>>1732373
"They are not waves, they are not anything. It is a system with inherit properties"

everything in existance visible or not has a visual structure, even if parts of that visible structure exist as probablities rather then certainties.

nothing just exists without some kind of form.

[HA HA HA HA HA HA HA No.1732400]

>>1732376
Wow, haven't laughed this hard in a long time

You thing I will go to hell for laughing at Retards?

[Anonymous No.1732403]

>>1732396
Unlike classical physics, modern physics doesn't say anything about what exists. It only says what can be measured.

[Anonymous No.1732405]

>>1732396
and even if the visual structure for something isnt known, the possible visual structures can be hypothesized based on the math. so if someone did know the math they could describe the possible visual structures, said math guy could dumb it down to potential visual representations if he was smart enough.

[HA HA HA HA HA HA No.1732412]

>>1732396
>everything in existance visible or not has a visual structure

No, why would you think such a silly Idea? We are dealing with things that can be much smaller and more fundemental then the "objects" we use to observe shit. There are things that are just too small to see. They are smaller them light, and the light receptors.

Are you a Troll? Cause that was a really fucking stupid statment you made.

[Anonymous No.1732416]

>>1732400
you're overreacting too much to be taken seriously. a bit too desperate to be right suggests that on some level you probably think you might be a bit wrong

[HA HA HA HA HA HA No.1732424]

>>1732405
>possible visual structures can be hypothesized based on the math

No, not really, apparently you dont know much math. There are often infinite or null solutions to most systems if you tried to extrapolate visual info, hence math doenst tell you shit about the "visual".

[HA HA HA HA HA HA No.1732430]

>>1732416
LAMO, no I just really like laughing at retards....
It is fun, and makes me feel good!

[Physics Guy No.1732434]

>>1732424
Agreed

[Anonymous No.1732449]

>>1732412
everything "visible or not" has a visual structure

things that can't be physically seen with the human eye still have structure. you took me way too literally because you're not used to thinking outside of the box. when i said visual structure even if not visible it should have been obvious what i meant. it means that said invisible object has a structure that could be portrayed in a visual way, even without seeing it.

even without an electron microscope you can still portray an atom visually by fucking drawing what it vaguely looks like on a piece of paper.

[Anonymous No.1732474]

>>1732424

hey look i just portrayed infinity and null visually.

is an exact representation possible? no, thats where imagination comes in.

like numbers. numbers are visual representations are they not? a mathmatical equation itself is a visual representation. so obviously its possibly to portray these things visually.

you clearly don't know how to think deeply. probably because you're used to being force fed knowledge by teachers rather then coming to it on your own.

[Anonymous No.1732475]

>>1732449
Perhaps you mean visualizable.

[Anonymous No.1732477]

>>1731802
...999.0 = -1
b/c if you add 1 to it you get ...000.0
which is 0
also divergent series are a jewish fabrication
that is all

[Anonymous No.1732478]

>>1732430
>>1732424
>>1732412
>>1732400
>>1732395
>>1732386
>>1732381
wtf is this faggotry?

[Anonymous No.1732483]

PHYSICS GUY!!!

Can you give me an example of quantum theory? I've never seen it written before

Quantum field theory or QM anythings good, I just hear from friends that its super ugly looking and want to see for myself

[Anonymous No.1732487]

>>1732478
an intellectually arrogant man whos not as smart as he thinks he is throwing a hissy fit. it's quite funny really.

[Physics Guy No.1732492]

>>1732449
>things that can't be physically seen with the human eye still have structure

Again, you have some really faggy ideas. You are the one who is not thinking outside the box. Why do you insist that very "basic" ideas and princples you observe or experince in your meaningless life are how the universe actually works? If is faggots like you that invented religion, to try and personify the universe.

You are dumbing down the univsere, trying to make it understandable to your simple mind, by giving it "baby qualties" you understand. Stop being such a faggot.

Stop assuming "properties" of matter. You are just talking out your ass, and it is very noticable You would make a horrible physicist you are too narrow minded.

\Thread

[Anonymous No.1732494]

Physics guy,
Can you disprove timecube?
(no)
Why is that?
(directives)
Are those laws 100% proven or only helpful?
(no, they are not proven 100%)
So timecube could be right then?
(no, it's pseudoscience)
Was Jesus a Jew or was he a Christ?
(he was Jewish)
Well how come they killed him?
(because he wanted to show his love for us)
What does "Amen" stand for?
(it is so)
Are you sure that it isn't "You are Human"?
(yes I'm sure, learn history)
Do you know that you are poisoned?
(I'm not poisoned)
Okay then.

[Anonymous No.1732500]

When a society has forbidden all adventure and wonder, the only adventure that remains is to tear down that society. Humanity has been transformed into a clone producing factory of education and fields of expertise; not to mention the various markets. No-one is unique and our imagination, the key factor that makes us what we are, has been altered into advancement or restricted through various political plots such as religion – evidently using our human nature against us for profits and control. There is no valid reason for us to ever leave our child image to proceed into adulthood for we never lose our admiration for our own mind. Although we do evolve into mothers and fathers over time, the clarity of our thoughts should stay constant and continue to be personal. We have been separated from who we truly are; the only thing that defines us as human is being stripped and manipulated by the politicians that run our country and no-one really has the knowledge to be bothered. Their methods are subtle and almost unnoticeable; however with a bit of searching anyone can find the truth hidden within the shadows of society.

[Anonymous No.1732503]

If media is given an appropriate handle suddenly it becomes a trustworthy resource; even the news we watch on television force feeds us lies or small percentages of information, guising the truth with a nice clean-coat of bullshit. Our immediate interpretation of what has occurred is most probably genuine, for we live as humans and have a clear idea of how people act through our own output. If being gullible is part of human nature then maybe we aren’t so inhuman after all. We don’t define reality, and we have no hand in changing it – If voting ever did something they would make it illegal. We are all just insignificant pawns being played by political-puppeteers in a game of chess.

[Anonymous No.1732505]

A communication virus is used to assist the state with dominance, if you are taught something in education or from media you pass it on to others when they question you or bring up the topic; a classic person A, person B to person C virus. It’s almost unstoppable as we consider socializing natural – you read the newspaper or an article online and you pass it on like a common cold, and the speed of which it travels is incredible. If you learn a new word, a day later it pops up everywhere – that’s because it’s thrown into society at multiple points, and proceeds to circuit through towns until everyone is using it. Even our mathematics system is flawed; apparently we use base ‘10’ because we have ten fingers, when really we have two sets of five fingers (four excluding thumbs). Nothing in the universe is ‘1’ and never has been, only opposites (2), singularities (3), dualities (4) exist – one is used for economic purposes only. How can a human be ‘one’ being when every human is composed of cubic duality? Top/bottom, Left/right, Front/back, Inside/outside; that’s not ‘one’ thing.

...999.0 = -1
b/c if you add 1 to it you get ...000.0
which is 0
divergent series are a jewish fabrication

[Anonymous No.1732510]

There is only one way to defeat the system, we don’t vote and don’t do what we’re told to do, and through that we force a revolution. Refrain from believing anything anyone ever tells you, even what I have told you. Believe in our own thoughts and interpret life how you want to – if you like adventure then live life as if it was one, don’t let anyone else’s opinions poison yours. There are plenty of ways to interpret the universe; science for example is bound by strict unproven laws such as thermodynamics or single-plane time, and has no regard for the natural symmetry of mankind. If one removes those restrictions, a whole new branch of models can be shaped and we have more freedom to theorise. Do remember that current that the current directives scientists abide by are all but 100% fact, only in place because ‘they work’; and there are many things that work, trust me.

[Anonymous No.1732511]

If someone asks you “do you believe in God?” and you reply “no,” you are automatically tagged as an atheist. What I don’t understand is why it has to be that way. Atheists believe in ‘No God’ whilst theists believe in ‘God’; in other words, Religion believes in ‘life after death’ whilst No Religion believes in ‘no life after death’. Real humans have no time for these games and shouldn’t be pounded with beliefs and restraints; unknowingly we are being taught to notice death to avert our imaginations away from reality, when really we are all already dead. All that matters is mankind and how we spend our time – we shouldn’t think about the end, but rather focus on the present. There is no tomorrow or yesterday, we are just stuck between the two watching the clocks remind us that we are slowly decaying. If time ever ticked the universe would implode, time never ticks only living-beings, nature, planets and black holes ‘tick’ through the means of motion.

To conclude, fuck the system and anyone who aids in the production of clones. If you’re truly human then be free and help bring down those who hold us back. Understanding and concentration are two different things; you can learn or do something by concentrating, that doesn’t mean you have to believe it; know that most of society is forced, hardcore, and nothing is as it seems. We’re all poisoned and the effects of this virus sedate us to prevent us from rebelling. Don’t let them destroy your imagination, and question everything.

[Anonymous No.1732513]

>>1732510
>>1732511
>>1732510
>>1732505
>>1732503
>>1732500
>>1732494

All the "Physics" you need.

[Anonymous No.1732515]

>>1732494
FAGGOTS ON MY /SCI/?
This looks like it was a good thread at one point.