/sci/ - Science & Math

[Teamo Supremo No.2588928]

Sup /sci/? My physics teacher was telling me about this experiment on the whole space-time continuum and the future and whatnot. I'm posting because I want to read more about it and was hoping you guys can point me in the right direction: articles, websites, the actual name of the experiment, etc. I searched but never find.

Anyways, a scientist has this radioactive substance, and he knows that half of it will decay in a week. Okay, but in this substance, you know half of the particles will break up, but how do you know which particles will decay and which ones wont? So, the scientist decides at the end of the week he's going to test a set of specific particles and see which ones have decayed. So at the end of the week, he finds most of the ones he had decided he would check in the past are still there. He does this again and the same thing happens. So as long as he decides he'll check a particle at the end of the week, it doesn't decay!

This blew my mind, and I really want the article or whatever. If someone can point it out to me.

[Anonymous No.2588941]

>>2588928
Slap your teacher in the face for me please.

[Anonymous No.2588947]

I haven't read OP's post, but I support slapping your teacher in the face. A nice teacher slap is always a good idea.

[Anonymous No.2588952]

>>2588928
the particles will have the same chance of decaying weather or not he checks on them. if a half life passes, he should find that about half of his sample size decayed. that isn't to say there isn't a small chance that none would or all would, but those are very unlikely.

[Anonymous No.2588956]

>>2588928
He was trying to explain the Quantum Zeno effect. You should buy your teacher a beer!

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

>>2588941
>>2588947
Ya'll are fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.2588966]

>>2588952
You are also fuckin retarded

[Anonymous No.2588973]

>>2588956

[Anonymous No.2588975]

>>2588956
and he fails horribly. this is not how Zeno effect works.

[Anonymous No.2588982]

>>2588956
mind = BLOWN

[Teamo Supremo No.2588987]

>>2588956
This is exactly what I was looking for pal. Thanks

[Anonymous No.2588994]

>>2588975
Nope, the teacher actually describes it fairly well (albiet dumbed down).

Frequent observation of the particles caused them not to decay. What part don't you get?

Trollin?

[Anonymous No.2589002]

it didn't make it sound like it could keep radioactive elements from decaying tho. if that were possible, couldn't we stockpile highly unstable elements and do experiments on them even tho they normally decay in microseconds?

>>2588956
fuck you. you're completely retarded.

[Anonymous No.2589004]

>>2588987
No problem. Glad to help.

[Anonymous No.2589007]

>>2588994
so if one person observed one particle of a sustance, would the substance never decay?

my mind is blown....

[Anonymous No.2589012]

>>2588956
what the FUCK man
how does this even WHAT THE FUCK

can someone please explain how in the name of FUCKSHIT this can work

[Anonymous No.2589017]

so why haven't we studied metallic unununium? i see a new slew of troll physics on the board here...

so if I keep staring at a pot of water on a stove, it won't change states by boiling? if I look at an airplane in the sky it stops moving? there has to be some limit on this process you describe, and by the wiki article and experiments described, it makes it sound like radioactive decay isn't changed by this as much as OP says.

you're full blown retard for saying otherwise.

[Anonymous No.2589023]

>>2589012
it depends on how you "observe" the particle. if you "observe" it by using high energy methods, you can keep it in an elevated state because you keep adding energy to the system.

[Anonymous No.2589027]

>>2588994
No, teacher said that DECIDING to observe some particle prevented them from decaying, have you even read OPs post?
>So as long as he decides he'll check a particle at the end of the week, it doesn't decay!
which is total bullshit, this is not how it works

[Anonymous No.2589028]

>>2589002
The more observation, the less liklihood of decay. It would take constant observation to prevent them from decaying altogether.

We are not capable of "constantly" observing anything. Also, this is really old shit (from the 70's). It is pretty fucking trivial by now. It is not a "big deal" anymore.

[ЯR !!qSRZhfCxFtq No.2589030]

>>2589012
haven't finished reading the wiki article yet, but I suspect that the observation collapses the observed particle's wavefunction, and before the function can relax back to its original position, if you hit it with another observation the chances of it being in the same spot increase dramatically

this is really cool; I've never heard of this before

[Anonymous No.2589039]

>>2589028
and in OPs example the frequency of observation was 1x/week. I think my original statement in >>2588966 would hold.

retard.

[Anonymous No.2589050]

>>2589027
Ok, I guess I read it wrong. I stand corrected.

[Anonymous No.2589057]

another thought comes to mind... not sure if any studies performed here. The examples given on wiki suggest that things can be kept in a higher energy state by constant observation. This could be explained by the simple fact that observation adds energy to the system. What if you were trying to keep something in a low energy state while it is surrounded by radiation that could raise it. Would observation prevent this from occurring? An example would be observation in a lasing medium while pumping... could observation prevent the laser from turning on?