hey scientists, how can a theory of the universe exist based on human semantics?

File: 46 KB, 300x422, Jason Statham.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:44:58 2011 No.3172275 [Reply] [Original]

hey scientists, how can a theory of the universe exist based on human semantics?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:46:58 2011 No.3172288 File: 1.11 MB, 140x140, mandelbrot.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I agree. I think it's absurd.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:47:32 2011 No.3172292 read teh bible

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:49:58 2011 No.3172299 What are you referring to? Bear in mind discussing religion is against the rules.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:52:58 2011 No.3172315

>>3172299
Calling forces in the universe "infinite" and "zero" makes absolutely no fucking sense to me. Especially when dealing with quantum mechanics. Has any theory of quantum mechanics been proven ever?
I mean, where do scientist get off labeling something as infinite when no human has any idea what infinite actually means?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:56:58 2011 No.3172332 >>3172315 0/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:57:58 2011 No.3172336 >>3172315 I know you're trolling, but infinite is simply without limit... I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure infinity isn't actually a number. Also, quantum mechanics is one of the most accurate theories of mankind

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:57:58 2011 No.3172337 >>3172315 Infinite means it goes on forever, it doesn't end. 1/0 is not infinity because no matter how many 0s you have you will never reach 1.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:58:58 2011 No.3172340 >>3172336 >Also, quantum mechanics is one of the most accurate theories of mankind. how so? >>3172336 >but infinite is simply without limit Exactly, cockshiner. How can you prove something is without limit without sitting down and observing it forever?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:00:58 2011 No.3172348

>>3172340
Because it describes out observations of reality with high accuracy?

Because the models we use can be analyzed and determined what behaviors exist and then tested to see if this behavior is valid. Even if we can't observer "FOREVER" doesn't mean that something cannot be without limit. Not only that, but not all infinite things are based on time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:02:58 2011 No.3172354 >>3172348 >Because it describes out observations of reality with high accuracy What accuracy? Dude, just give me some theories that don't have "we can assume" somewhere in tham. 3 should do.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:04:58 2011 No.3172357

>>3172340
Anomolous magnetic moment of the electron, calculated to first 3 orders in QED.
Agrees with the experimental result to 1 part in 10^9.

If you can calculate something to 9 significant figures and it agrees perfectly, you're definitely not doing it wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:04:58 2011 No.3172359 >>3172348 Also give me one thing that has been PROVEN to be infinite.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:04:58 2011 No.3172362 >>3172354 You have these theories see, that tell us stuff about really small particles and how they behave. And then when we go in and take measurements with real high accuracy, those predicted by the theory are really close as well.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:04:58 2011 No.3172363

We just try to observe what we can of the universe in our own way to entertain our lives on this tiny little rock. In reality, what we think is a solid theory about the universe will most likely be shown to be false hundreds of years from now, and then the cycle continues.

Also, lol at these ignorant faggots not understanding what you're asking, and getting all flustered, thinking you're trolling.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:05:58 2011 No.3172365 >>3172359 infinity

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:05:58 2011 No.3172366 >>3172357 Can you say that without sounding like a jackass? Pretend you're smarter than me and are able to convert that into layman's terms, not just copy shit you heard from somewhere else.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:06:58 2011 No.3172371 >>3172363 >faggot comes to sci board and tries to discuss nebulous philosophical concepts. >thinks we dont understand what he means we just dont give a fuck about it.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:07:58 2011 No.3172372

>>3172354

>Dude, just give me some theories that don't have "we can assume" somewhere in tham. 3 should do.

Not sure if trolling...

You always have to work in a framework in which you suppose something to be true.
You determine whether or not your supposition is reasonable or not based on whether the predictions of your theory agree with experiment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:07:58 2011 No.3172374 >>3172371 >we just dont give a fuck about it. Nope, you're just an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:08:58 2011 No.3172375 >>3172365 Hows that? >>3172362 Like what? >inb4 you say obscure shit again and dont give any actual examples.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:09:58 2011 No.3172377 >>3172366 Uh, basically electrons have this property called spin and this causes a magnetic dipole. QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) says it will be certain amount X We have tests that measure it to be Y X and Y are almost exactly the same numbers

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:10:58 2011 No.3172378

>>3172371
That wasn't OP turdbrain.
>>3172372
>You determine whether or not your supposition is reasonable or not based on whether the predictions of your theory agree with experiment.
And once fucking again. Give me some examples where quantum mechanics isn't just theory. Seriously...must I repeat myself?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:11:58 2011 No.3172380

>>3172354
>does not understand inductive reasoning and the basis of the scientific method
>does not understand the philosophical underpinnings of science
>believes in accessible universal truths that are both axiomatic and provable
>does not understand the inherent contradiction therein

>>3172366
>believes that all science can be expressed in layman's terms, thus implying that anyone can understand it

>is clearly too ignorant to merit serious discussion

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:11:58 2011 No.3172382 >>3172377 X & Y = force of magnetic field

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:11:58 2011 No.3172383 >>3172377 hmm...I'll just take your word for it shall I?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:12:58 2011 No.3172385 >>3172383 Or you could go run the experiments yourself or read the journals or just fucking watch youtube videos like most people on sci to become a genius

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:13:58 2011 No.3172386 >>3172366 You're threatened by conversations that imply ignorance on your part. We're all ignorant of the vast majority of human knowledge. We specialize. Instead of being threatened, you can just ask questions to clarify.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:14:58 2011 No.3172391 >>3172380 >greentexts a lot >offers nothing of substance >types like a smeg-head, You know no one actually thinks /sci/ knows shit about science right? I mean, do you wonder why people have no faith in science?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:15:58 2011 No.3172393 >>3172385 Or you could link me BRAH!? >>3172386 Yeah, I am. Thats what i've been fucking doing this whole time. All I'm seeing is green everywhere.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:16:58 2011 No.3172394

>>3172391
>You know no one actually thinks /sci/ knows shit about science right?
LOL. Most people here are armchair science enthusiasts, sure, but there are genuine scientists here too.
>I mean, do you wonder why people have no faith in science?
Your train of thought is obscure to me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:17:58 2011 No.3172402 >>3172393 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:18:58 2011 No.3172405

>>3172394
>Your train of thought is obscure to me.
if you want it simple as fuck i'd say you guys have trouble reaching out to people.
But I digress, you quantum scientist are obviously superior with your years of not just developing theories about the universe that help no one in the long run...oh...wait...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:19:58 2011 No.3172412 >>3172405 its hard to communicate with faggots who can barely form coherent sentences.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:19:58 2011 No.3172413 >>3172405 LOL Your accusation that /sci/ isn't friendly enough with science outreach is hilarious when your posts are so obviously inflammatory.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:19:58 2011 No.3172414 >>3172405 You...came...here...and...asked...questions.... Head...exploding...trolled so hard....

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:21:58 2011 No.3172417 >>3172402 >This makes QED one of the most accurate physical theories constructed thus far. Like it's a huge deal, hahaha. Do you have any more..substantial articles?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:21:58 2011 No.3172419 File: 94 KB, 787x746, cat2 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3172414 Abort! Abort! Here, here's a cat! Look at the pretty cat!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:22:58 2011 No.3172422 >>3172417 References and external links, how the fuck do they work?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:22:58 2011 No.3172425

>>3172366
Someone's mad.

When you put an electron in a magnetic field, there are two states it's spin can be in: aligned or anti-aligned to the field.
The magnitude of the coupling between spin and field is given by something called the g-factor. Relativistic quantum mechanics predicts it to be 2.
Experimentally, it's slightly more, around 2.002.

In QED, which is the quantum field theory of electricity and magnetism, there are corrections to the g-factor based on loop diagrams (Feynman diagrams with internal loops). The level of agreement between the QED prediction and the experimental result is pretty amazing: 1 part in a billion.

There's plenty of other evidence for QM too: it predicts atomic structure, behaviour of conductors, semiconductors, superconductors (Low-Tc ones, anyway). It correctly predicts the way molecules form, what colour something should be based on it's molecular composition, and so on.

you say that in 100 years we may have completely changed our minds about these things, but that's not so. QM is right. Sure, our interpretation may change (some people don't like the Copehagen interpretation for instance), and we may have to make some minor corrections, but that's all.
There's a good analogy I heard: We used to think that earth was flat. Then we figured out it was spherical. Then we realised that actually it's an oblate spheroid.
So saying the earth is flat, and saying that it is spherical are both wrong. But it's less wrong to say it's spherical than to say it's flat.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:24:58 2011 No.3172431 >>3172419 You just saved my life. I am forever indebted to you, kind stranger.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:28:58 2011 No.3172442 >>3172417 The first calculation of the anomolous moment was done by Julian Schwinger. Just google his name along with QED and magnetic moment and you should find something. Given that it's such an old paper, it should be quite easy to find it for free.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:29:58 2011 No.3172445

>>3172425
>We used to think that earth was flat.
No, we didn't
>>3172414
Because I knew I'd get a bunch of bullshit answers.

Okay seriously you guys...seriously. Is there any way to explain this shit without a bunch of terms already laid out in 100 prior theories? Or must I go through the entire history of QM since the 30s to get it?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:31:58 2011 No.3172454

>>3172445
>hurdurr why do I have to work to learn things
You don't need the history of QM. But if you think the terms aren't needed, you're just wrong. Your ignorance of what the technical terms mean doesn't imply they can be expressed easily in small, familiar words. That would make the material much, much longer, because you'd basically include a description of all the terms.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:31:58 2011 No.3172459 >>3172275 You can, but it is of limited value.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:35:58 2011 No.3172479

>>3172454
Okay but SURELY you can dumb it down a bit? Just change the words. Most of the time they mean the same fucking thing as regular English, just said in smuglish.
I mean, the way you all explain these theories, can't you tell I am in a state of un-gripped-ness? I am completely smeggin' un-gripped. I have absolutely nothing to latch on to. I mean, instead of fucking "dipole" can't you fuckinin say "a separation of positive and negative charges."?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:38:58 2011 No.3172489

>>3172445
>No we didn't

Fine. We thought it was spherical. Then that it was an oblate spheroid. Clearly that's slightly wrong too, because there are fucking mountains and canyons everywhere.
But saying it's an oblate spheroid is less wrong that saying that it's spherical.

Only 2 theories are really necessary to understand it, QM and special relativity. If you really want to understand, then you need to spend some time studying some physics. If you don't like that, sorry, but too bad, it's the only way to get a decent understanding.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:39:58 2011 No.3172493

>>3172479
Sure.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/QM

> Most of the time they mean the same fucking thing as regular English, just said in smuglish.
No, this is wrong. Without the precise terms, you can't perform research. Simple words only get the gist across. New terms are created to symbolize entire concepts that took a lot of time to form and establish and which take time to learn as well. When people speak with those terms, it's among people who already understand them, and it's much faster.

> I mean, instead of fucking "dipole" can't you fuckinin say "a separation of positive and negative charges."?
See above. And what you said doesn't quite capture the precise meaning. If you expanded ALL the terms this way, it would be easily five times as long, and much harder to read because of the length of sentences. Scientists aren't going to do this. Why should they?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:43:58 2011 No.3172502

>>3172489
But how am I to know that any of it is correct? As far as I know, its a human language trying to understand the un-understandable universe. I mean, you smegheads were saying infinity is proven when the godamn wikipedia page's forst sentence says "Infinity (symbol: ∞) is a concept in many fields"
A fucking concept. How am I to know QM isn't just one big concept?

mtp !HjLTtX.XQ2 Sat Jun 4 11:43:58 2011 No.3172503

>>3172489
>Only 2 theories are really necessary to understand it, QM and special relativity. If you really want to understand, then you need to spend some time studying some physics. If you don't like that, sorry, but too bad, it's the only way to get a decent understanding.

was about to write that too. truth has been spoken, im out.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:43:58 2011 No.3172504

>>3172479

It's a magnetic dipole, not electric. The difference is that an electric dipole is caused by charge seperation, a magnetic dipole is (usually) caused by a current loop, although there's a complication in the case of the electron, in that the dipole is intrinsic to the electron.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:45:58 2011 No.3172508

>>3172454
Stop wasting your time. He wants some sort of paint-by-number coloring book illustration of QM etc. He's obviously one of those pretentious pseudo-intellectuals who doesn't understand that some things require extensive knowledge that can't be summarized pithily on a napkin.

"derp the universe must be so simple that I can understand it's deepest complexity through simple explanations on a summer afternoon"

Fucking failtard.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:46:58 2011 No.3172515

>>3172502
>But how am I to know that any of it is correct?
The theory makes accurate predictions about what actually happens when tested. That is the be-all and end-all of science.

And, as linked before,
>>3172402

You don't believe it? You think everyone is conspiring together to lie to you? Go perform some experiments yourself. It WORKS. The really in-depth experiments require expensive, sensitive equipment, but a lot of things don't. I found the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron in an undergrad lab (Millikan oil drop experiment).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:46:58 2011 No.3172517 >>3172502 Because it agrees with experiment. As far as infinity goes, I see it as purely mathematical concept. Infinities in physical theories are just a reflection of our ignorance about some part of the question.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:47:58 2011 No.3172519

>>3172493
>No, this is wrong. Without the precise terms, you can't perform research.
But I'm not trying to fucking perform research am I? I'm just trying to gain a basic understanding on why QM is so widely accepted in the scientific community.
See, this shit here is why religion will never die.

>Why should they?
You're right, why should scientists try to reach out to the human race? Seriously, why cant you expand the terms when someone is ASKING you to? What the fuck is wrong with you?
>inb4 counter arguments that rely on assumptions and don't quite make sense

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:47:58 2011 No.3172520 >>3172502 We already know the language we use has limits, but unless you come along with a new form of communication, shut the fuck up.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:48:58 2011 No.3172525

>>3172519
> I'm just trying to gain a basic understanding on why QM is so widely accepted in the scientific community.
BECAUSE IT GETS THE FUCKING NUMBERS RIGHT WHEN YOU PERFORM EXPERIMENTS DAMMIT

No other theory does. If a better theory comes along that accurately predicts things that QM cannot, then QM will be replaced, just like all theories before it. We are asymptotically approaching Truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:49:58 2011 No.3172530 >>3172515 >>3172517 >>3172520 >come to /sci/ asking questions >swear words everywhere, people telling me to learn shit/ calling me a faggot >people assuming I think theres a "conspiracy to lie to me" Okay, fuck it. Just drop it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:51:58 2011 No.3172535 >>3172530 Surely you understand our frustration.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:52:58 2011 No.3172540 >>3172530 Your questions have all been answered. When you ignore the answers, it generates some animosity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:52:58 2011 No.3172541 >>3172519 It's accepted because it correctly predicts the outcome of a huge number of experiments. That's it. At the end of the day, the only way to test whether or not a physical theory is correct is compare it with nature.

mtp !HjLTtX.XQ2 Sat Jun 4 11:52:58 2011 No.3172542

>>3172519
>google.com
>search for words/concepts you dont understand
>FUCKING REAAD EVERYTHING
>Profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

seriously though, if you dont understand something, then look for it on the internet.
http://192.197.62.35/staff/mcsele/lasers/Quantum.htm start there, cos clearly you dont know anything.

BROTIP: dont attack people saying they dont know what theyre doing, WHEN YOU DONT HAVE A FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHAT THEYRE DOING

[/rage]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:53:58 2011 No.3172543 >>3172535 Yeah, I don't want to frustrate you all. Just drop it. I haven't learned a single thing from his board in 5 years and I wont now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:54:58 2011 No.3172545 >>3172543 Are you retarded or something?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:54:58 2011 No.3172546 >>3172543 > haven't learned a single thing from his board in 5 years and I wont now. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Your loss, and your fault.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:54:58 2011 No.3172547

>>3172519

It does us no good to give up precision when explaining things to those who are asking questions in an obviously hostile way. Clearly when you phrase questions in the form of "I mean, where do scientist get off labeling something as infinite when no human has any idea what infinite actually means?", you've taken a fairly strong stance on the issue already.

When questions are asked in this way, we know you aren't interested in hearing the answers so much as trying to arguing against them. So if we simplify the conncepts to a point where they can be easily understood, details are lost, and those "gaps" will be attacked, even though they only exist in the limited understanding of the attacker. What you're doing now is a fairly typical response to a lack of willingness to play that game, which is to bitch about how elitist we are because you can't disprove any theory without learning anything about why it is actually accepted in the first place.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:56:58 2011 No.3172548

This thread reminds me of the video of Richard Dawkins talking to this creationist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

C: Where's the evidence?

RD: Here, go to this museum to see this, go to that museum to see that.

C: Where's the evidence?

RD: There's evidence from DNA, visit a biology laboratory.

C: Where's the evidence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:56:58 2011 No.3172549 ITT: typical /lit/ poster comes to /sci/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:57:58 2011 No.3172553 >>3172543 And that speaks volumes about you.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:58:58 2011 No.3172559

>>3172547
You've given me wikipedia links with a bunch of terms I cant understand and no way for me to understand them.
Thanks guys.
Also you haven't really answered that question have you? Infinite *is* a human construct, theres no way around that, why would you even try to argue that point? To virtually every question I've asked, I've not gotten one god damn straight answer besides "hurr durr you're a faggot with no understanding of science, go away." And seriously, If thats how you gonna be just drop it and no one say anything from now on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:00:58 2011 No.3172562 >>3172559 >You've given me wikipedia links with a bunch of terms I cant understand and no way for me to understand them. >Thanks guys. Did you even TRY that Simple Wikipedia article? http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/QM

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:01:58 2011 No.3172568

>>3172559
>, I've not gotten one god damn straight answer besides "hurr durr you're a faggot with no understanding of science, go away." And seriously, If thats how you gonna be just drop it and no one say anything from now on.
That's just not true.

For most of this thread, the "infinity" thing hasn't been an issue anyway. The only physical infinity I can think of is the hypothetical extent of the universe - although our current evidence is also consistent with a universe that wraps back on itself (finite volume, but no edges or center).

I don't see why this has anything to do with the validity of science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:02:58 2011 No.3172569 Please stop trying to explain QM and QFT to the retard. He clearly does not wish to learn.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:02:58 2011 No.3172571 >>3172548 I've gotten one link about "Precision_tests_of_QED" Seriously guys, just shut the fuck up. >>3172553 Yeah, especially when the first 3 replies are some dude agreeing with me and two about religion.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:05:58 2011 No.3172586

>>3172562
>Did you even TRY that Simple Wikipedia article
No, because it's a bunch of algebra and shit I dont understand.
Guys.
Seriously.
I know you all think you're better than everyone else but can you just ONCE try explaining something? A simply as possible. I am a fucking retard faggot newfag religious retard, so please try to explain this to me.
>>3172569
Putting an addition sum on a blackboard doesn't teach someone how to add.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:05:58 2011 No.3172588 >>3172571 Seriously, fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:06:58 2011 No.3172591 >hey scientists, how can a theory of the universe exist based on human semantics? You people shuold have known not to respond to a thread like this to begin with. But I am surprised about how much he's persisted.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:06:58 2011 No.3172593 >>3172586 >No, because it's a bunch of algebra and shit I dont understand. If you're not even going to try, you don't deserve knowledge.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:06:58 2011 No.3172595

>>3172559

You have recieved a number of straight answers, you've just bitched because you didn't like that they used precise terms. Or just ignored them as in the case of the responses to
>I'm just trying to gain a basic understanding on why QM is so widely accepted in the scientific community.

See the following posts:
>>3172517
>>3172525
>>3172541
>>3172348

And when you asked for more details saying "what accuracy":

>>3172357
To which you started alternately bitching about use of jargon and not giving authoritative or precise enough answers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:07:58 2011 No.3172596 >>3172559 Then stop being so aggressive. You don't understand something, but want to learn about. That isn't something that you ought to be ashamed of, and you don't need to try to hide your ignorance by attacking everyone that tries to help.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:07:58 2011 No.3172600

One day a dispassionate young man approached the Greek philosopher and casually said, 'O great Socrates, I come to you for knowledge.'

The philosopher took the young man down to the sea, waded in with him, and then dunked him under the water for thirty seconds. When he let the young man up for air, Socrates asked him to repeat what he wanted. 'Knowledge, O great one,' he sputtered.

Socrates put him under the water again, only this time a little longer.

After repeated dunkings and responses, the philosopher asked, 'What do you want?' The young man finally gasped, 'Air. I want air!' 'Good,' answered Socrates. 'Now, when you want knowledge as much as you wanted air, you shall have it.'

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:13:58 2011 No.3172622

>>3172595
I've received a bunch of you guys saying shit and ONE EXAMPLE OF SHIT I DON'T UNDERSTAND. What the FUCK am I supposed to do with this? Tak your word for it? Thats my whole fucking point, I don't want to take your word for it, I want to find out for myself, but I don't want a small wikipedia article full of algebraic formulas as my fucking starting point.
>>3172593
thanks bro
>>3172596
Attacking whom? My "where do scientists get off" question was a legit question, worded poorly yes, but a legit question.
I'm sorry if I attack people who call me a faggot without the slightest provocation, though this is 4chan, so it's what I expected.
But back to point one. I'm obviously a guy who has no understanding of physics or QM, so, WHERE DO YOU GET OFF giving me these fucking terms and equations I clearly wont understand? And if you cant make the terms any simpler JUST DON'T SAY ANYTHING.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:13:58 2011 No.3172623

Do you realize that peole that are way smarter than you have dedicated their lives for things like QM and even they don't know too much about it.

If you are genius it might take you something lke 10 years to understand, if you are not then it might even be impossible.

You can't seriously just come here and "Explain this to me." and assume you will understand.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:14:58 2011 No.3172627 >>3172600 This is the perfect response to this entire thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:15:58 2011 No.3172630 >>3172622 >Thats my whole fucking point, I don't want to take your word for it, I want to find out for myself Then perform some science experiments. But QM is pretty far out there - you should start with simple circuits, or with thermodynamics.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:16:58 2011 No.3172638

>>3172622
> but I don't want a small wikipedia article full of algebraic formulas as my fucking starting point.
Buy an introductory QM textbook. No, wait, that has even more math.

By an introductory, high-school-level physics textbook. I gotta warn you though, it will have algebra, possibly even calculus.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:17:58 2011 No.3172639 Wach this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM Understand it, and then come back

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:17:58 2011 No.3172640

>>3172623
>Do you realize that peole that are way smarter than you have dedicated their lives for things like QM and even they don't know too much about it
Yeah, hence my whole fucking question on why it's so widely accepted. And to those whoe say "the experiments fit" What experiements? Fit what?
Fit that Q=YxX-3? YEAH MAN THAT OPENS UP A WHOLE WORLD OF KNOWLEDGE FOR ME.
>>3172600
It was a dark and stormy night, and a man came into the hotel lobby, soaking wet, and said,
"Gimme a room."

"I'm sorry," said the desk clerk. "We only have one room left. And it's haunted."
"I don't care," said the man. "I don't believe in ghosts."
"All right," said the desk clerk. "I warned you." And he gave the man the key.
The man went up to his room, lay on the bed, read his newspaper, and he heard a voice.
"Got you where I WANT you. Now I'm going to EAT you."
but the man was okay because ghosts cant eat.

>>	♥ !Rrxa7zePwI Sat Jun 4 12:17:58 2011 No.3172641 the world takes care of itself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:18:58 2011 No.3172644 >>3172640 Try the Feynman lectures, that's a good idea. >>3172639

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:21:58 2011 No.3172655

>>3172640
>And to those whoe say "the experiments fit" What experiements? Fit what?

It fits reality.

See this:

>>3172425

>In QED, which is the quantum field theory of electricity and magnetism, there are corrections to the g-factor based on loop diagrams (Feynman diagrams with internal loops). The level of agreement between the QED prediction and the experimental result is pretty amazing: 1 part in a billion.

This is one thing, there are others. We predict something and then do the experiment. Then we compare the results and see that the prediction is accurate representation of reality.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:21:58 2011 No.3172657

>>3172639
You know I've seen a fucking video of magnets being explained in about 30 seconds and I understood it. That video just furthers my point that science and normal people will never coexist. Why does that guy have to be such a smug fuckhead about it? What good does it serve?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:22:58 2011 No.3172659

>>3172640

It seems like you want the understanding of someone who's spent a long time studying physics condensed into a few snappy sentences.
That's just not possible. First things first, are you actually willing to invest any significant amount of time in learning about this stuff?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:23:58 2011 No.3172662

>>3172657
>That video just furthers my point that science and normal people will never coexist. Why does that guy have to be such a smug fuckhead about it? What good does it serve?
The aggression is on YOUR part. Why are you so incredibly antagonistic, and then expect us to be kind?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:23:58 2011 No.3172665 >>3172640 >waaahhh physical properties of the universe are related to each other quantitatively!! >how can I possibly understand bawwwwwwwwwwwwww lol arts students

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:24:58 2011 No.3172671 OP, what do you study?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:24:58 2011 No.3172672

>>3172622
>I've received a bunch of you guys saying shit and ONE EXAMPLE OF SHIT I DON'T UNDERSTAND. What the FUCK am I supposed to do with this? Tak your word for it? Thats my whole fucking point, I don't want to take your word for it, I want to find out for myself, but I don't want a small wikipedia article full of algebraic formulas as my fucking starting point.

>doesn't want to take anyone's word for it
>doesn't want to learn this shit himself

MEGADERP

Guess what, quantum mechanics involves intricate mathematics. If you can't understand that then you will never be able to understand quantum mechanics beyond whatever notions you currently have.

Ffs, you seriously seem to think that this is something that someone can explain to you by a simple post on an image board.

You truly are a fucking idiot and a massive faggot troll. Fuck off and go try to learn this shit the way everyone learns it instead of bitching at everyone who can't spoonfeed this shit too you.

OP: I want to learn how to drive.
Instructor: Ok, lets review some theory
OP: WTF? I just want to learn how to drive.
Instructor: You should really learn theory first, but ok, we can go out for road lesson. So, first things first, the pedel on the right is the accelerator.
OP: Stop using all of these technical fucking terms. Just give me the keys and tell me how to fucking drive! Fuck, you really suck at teaching.
Instructor: I can't just magically teach you how to drive if you don't even know anything about cars.
OP: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:24:58 2011 No.3172673 >>3172657 Magnets are not the point of that video. From post times i can see that you didn't even wach it. You don't have any hope if you don't even listen to people that are trying to help

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:25:58 2011 No.3172678

>>3172657
Understanding how the universe works is not easy. Your demand that it be easy cannot be satisfied.

And your 30-second explanation of magnets that you understood? It's very superficial. If you want to REALLY understand magnets, it takes a long time and a lot of work, a lot of reading, a lot of effort, and then, when you reach the frontier, you perform experiments that no one has performed before, and you learn things that no one ever knew.

You don't even want to go down that path. So, here's the deal: If you ask a specific question, and not just "why QM", I'll do my best to give a simple (but shallow) answer.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:26:58 2011 No.3172681

>>3172640
>>YEAH MAN THAT OPENS UP A WHOLE WORLD OF KNOWLEDGE FOR ME.

The science community doesn't give a shit about you. The quality of a theory is not dependent on your opinion or your understanding.

If you want, however, to understand any scientific theory that is slightly complicated, you first have to understand the math behind it, because the whole universe is closely binded to it's mathematical underpinnings.

I already know your answer will be "LOL I DONT KNOW TEH MATHS EXPLAIN TO ME IN LAYMAWNS THURMS", but that doesn't change the fact that to grasp any physical stuff, you need the math.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:26:58 2011 No.3172682 >>3172657 >magnets being explained in about 30 seconds and I understood it. No you didn't. It's not simple enough, you understood a simple idea ABOUT it, but you are far from understanding why. This intellectual arrogance gets you no where, bro.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:26:58 2011 No.3172683

>>3172672
>OP: I want to learn how to drive.
>Instructor: Ok, lets review some theory
>OP: WTF? I just want to learn how to drive.
>Instructor: You should really learn theory first, but ok, we can go out for road lesson. So, first things first, the pedel on the right is the accelerator.
>OP: Stop using all of these technical fucking terms. Just give me the keys and tell me how to fucking drive! Fuck, you really suck at teaching.
>Instructor: I can't just magically teach you how to drive if you don't even know anything about cars.
>OP: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

This.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:26:58 2011 No.3172684

OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!
OP IS A TROLL, STOP FEEDING HIM!

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:29:58 2011 No.3172692

>>3172659
>That's just not possible.
Then science will never have a place in society.
>>3172665
green-text and an insult. Cool.
>>3172672
But If someone wanted the basics of driving it COULD be given out in 2 minutes, what is your point?
>>3172673
I'm watching it now. I'm halfway through and all I can see is reasons on why its so hard to explain I mean, If i asked why magnets attracted/repelled each other, what would you say?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:31:58 2011 No.3172696 >>3172692 > If i asked why magnets attracted/repelled each other, what would you say? Exactly what he said in the video. You're at the level of "because of magnetic forces". If you want more intimate understanding, you have to be willing to learn more.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:31:58 2011 No.3172700

>>3172622

That wasn't the only example given: >>3172377
>>3172425

The issue of you not being able to understand isn't our fault. We have no knowledge of you level of understanding of mathematics (though your questions do imply that it is limited). Further, when presented with these points you requested journal articles. You think the journal articles will have less jargon and equations than our summaries? If you can't understand our summaries than requesting those is pointless, and there's nothing we can do to change that.

If you want things you can prove for yourself without any advanced knowledge of math or physics, quantum mechanics is FAR beyond your reach. You should start with classical mechanics, as others have suggested, try working with circuits. This can be done cheaply and easily, and they can be explained reasonably well with only algebra. Quantum mechanics cannot. If you're unwilling to use any math to try to understand physics, then you will always fail. Physics is a very mathematical science. To not use math in physics makes no sense, as then you're just randomly throwing shit around for no reason. Admittedly wikipedia articles on technical subjects usually aren't the most user-friendly, but what do you want us to do? We aren't allowed to give you vague explanations because then you're taking our word for it, but we're not allowed to show you proof for them because you can't understand it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:32:58 2011 No.3172704 >>3172692 >Then science will never have a place in society. >implying scientists are not a part of society How patronizing can you possibly be? You are endlessly abusive and insulting. What do you expect as a response?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:32:58 2011 No.3172705

>>3172683
>OP: I want to learn how to drive.
>Instructor: Ok, that pedel is to accelerate, the other is to break, the gear stick is pretty self explanatory. D for drive, R for reverse etc.
>OP: Okay cool, that shopuld get me started, I can learnt all the theory later
>Instructor: Cool
>OP: Okay
>Instructor: Okay
>OP: Okay
Seriously, what the fuck are you trying to say with that shitty analogy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:33:58 2011 No.3172709 >>3172705 You don't want to learn, and yet demand that it occur. There is no royal road to learning.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:35:58 2011 No.3172719

>>3172704
>What do you expect as a response?
I don't know. A bunch of greentext and insults. Which is what I've gotten.
>>3172709
No. I'm asking you to start simple. That is it, that is all I ever asked. In fact I dont even know how what you said is relevant to what I just said at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:36:58 2011 No.3172721 >>3172692 >BAWWWWWWWWWWWWW I don't understand maths or terminology BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:37:58 2011 No.3172730 >>3172692 Then science will never have a place in society. The fact that you can use the internet to state that bears a sweet, sweet irony. Without science, society would still be sitting in its cave.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:38:58 2011 No.3172734 >>3172700 >We aren't allowed to give you vague explanations because then you're taking our word for it, but we're not allowed to show you proof for them because you can't understand it. Exactly this.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:38:58 2011 No.3172735

>>3172719
>No. I'm asking you to start simple. That is it, that is all I ever asked.
That has been given to you, multiple times.
>>3172493
>>3172630
>>3172700

Start with small experiments in circuits or in thermodynamics. There are good resources for small experiment kits. Try the Feynman lectures if you prefer an oral lecture. However, we warn you that QM is not simple for laypeople, or even for physicists, and you have to know a fair bit of math to do anything in it.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:39:58 2011 No.3172738

>>3172639
>How do magnets work?
"Well yous see if you start out with a why in the question we could compare it to why someone went to the hospital, you see I'm not going to actually explain anything, I'm going to tell you why I cant explain anything because it fits in with this doco we're filming at the time and even though I could explain it in terms a reasonably intelligent person would understand I'm going to go on this triad that makes 0 sense whatsoever and answers nothing."

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:40:58 2011 No.3172746 >>3172738 Your failure to extract understanding from that video is an indictment of you, not of Feynman. Same as if you said the music of Mozart is garbage. If you want understanding, you will obtain it. I don't think you do.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:41:58 2011 No.3172748

>>3172692
>If i asked why magnets attracted/repelled each other, what would you say?
Depends. It all depends on the level of "why" you are looking for. You can ask why again an again untill there is no person left to answer.
The level of answer must be first determined.

In this thread many people have give you answers. They range from "It works" to wiki articles explaining it.
As you have untill this point refused to accept all proof provided then there is not much hope for you. Some things just can't be explained so that even retards can understand.

It explains reality that is the reason why QM is accpeted, much like Theory of Gravity explains gravity pretty well and because of that it's accepted.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:42:58 2011 No.3172751

>>3172730
Yes, and we're much better off now with out atomic weapons, greenhouse gasses and still being stuck on the Earth being pretty much no closer to understanding where the universe came from than we were 1000 years ago.
>>3172735
>Start with small experiments in circuits or in thermodynamics. There are good resources for small experiment kits. Try the Feynman lectures if you prefer an oral lecture. However, we warn you that QM is not simple for laypeople, or even for physicists, and you have to know a fair bit of math to do anything in it.
Okay.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:43:58 2011 No.3172755

>>3172751
>Yes, and we're much better off now with out atomic weapons, greenhouse gasses and still being stuck on the Earth being pretty much no closer to understanding where the universe came from than we were 1000 years ago.
I disagreed before, but this clinches it.

You're a troll. I mean really?
> no closer to understanding where the universe came from than we were 1000 years ago.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:44:58 2011 No.3172758 >>3172751 Then get the fuck off the internet and go live up a tree :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:45:58 2011 No.3172761 >>3172746 No, I do extract understanding,. I understand that scientists can't explain science to people yet wonder why people don't care about science. >>3172748 >hope for me >retards could understand >It explains reality When did it explain reality?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:46:58 2011 No.3172767 >>3172559 Infinite is not really a human concept. For reading, I recommend "Bridges to Infinity." Really a fantastic non-fic short history of math.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:46:58 2011 No.3172768

>>3172761
> I understand that scientists can't explain science to people yet wonder why people don't care about science.
They can't explain to people who don't want to learn the details. Pick one: The simple answer with no detail that you'll have to accept at face value, or the detailed investigation.

But you've already shown that you reject both.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:49:58 2011 No.3172780

>>3172755
How does the universe exist?
You *CAN'T* fucking answer me that. NO FUCKING ARGUMENT. NO ANSWER. NO INKLING. No way, no how, so what are you trying to argue against what I've said?
>>3172758
You misunderstand me. Theres definitely a difference between helpful scientist and the "theorizers" as I call them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:50:58 2011 No.3172787 >>3172761 Since the theory was used to predict things accurately. This happened when the thing was invented. Try the wiki article about QM to find the dates.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:51:58 2011 No.3172792 >>3172768 >The simple answer with no detail that you'll have to accept at face value Okay, give me that one.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:52:58 2011 No.3172799
File: 339 KB, 540x3872, 20101217.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3172780
>How does the universe exist?
You REALLY failed to get the gist of that Feynman video. If you want an ultimate Why, that's not possible. At all. And it's not a problem for science. Why should it be?

This pic should illustrate the problem ITT.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:52:58 2011 No.3172800 >>3172780 State an example for a helpful scientist please?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:53:58 2011 No.3172801 >>3172792 For what specific question?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:53:58 2011 No.3172805 >>3172761 >People don't care about science YOU don't care about science, don't try to saddle others with your ignorance.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:53:58 2011 No.3172807

>>3172780

It's interesting that you can divorce theory from the ability to design modern technology. Do you think that computers were made by people randomly assembling little bits of wire and hooking it up to random objects until the apple II was created from thirty feet of copper wire, seven forks and a garden trowel?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:54:58 2011 No.3172808 >>3172799 > If you want an ultimate Why, that's not possible. At all. And it's not a problem for science. Why should it be? Then What Is The Point Of Quantum Science Holy Fucking Fuck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:55:58 2011 No.3172814 >>3172780 you're coming rather close to a creationist definition of the word theory

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:56:58 2011 No.3172818 >>3172808 The point is that it can be used to make assumptions that can be proven to hold by experiment

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:56:58 2011 No.3172819 >>3172807 what

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:56:58 2011 No.3172820

>>3172808
You don't understand science *at all*, it seems. We want to understand the universe, yes, how it works, how control it, what makes everything tick, but ultimate philosophical WHY is not the goal. You see, the final WHY question has no meaning.

>Why the universe
>Because it is
>Why existence
>Because it is

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:57:58 2011 No.3172822 >>3172808 It gives fairly accurate predictions/explanations about reality, much like any other theory does.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:57:58 2011 No.3172825 >>3172820 >>Why this thread >>No one knows

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:57:58 2011 No.3172826 >>3172801 (cont) I'm still waiting for your specific question, to which I have promised a good-faith attempt at the simple, no-detail-but-you'll-have-to-accept-it explanation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:57:58 2011 No.3172827 >>3172818 So the point of QM is to justify itself? >>3172814 You're putting words in my mouth.

>>	sage Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:58:58 2011 No.3172833 >>3172827 No, you have a real world problem and apply a theroy to it to solve the problem

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:58:58 2011 No.3172834

>>3172827
>So the point of QM is to justify itself?
No, it is to accurately predict the outcome of real experiments. Through this we gain not only the understanding of how things work, but the power to manipulate them.

Your computer can't exist without QM. We use it to create field-effect transistors, of which your computer has billions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:59:58 2011 No.3172835 >>3172827 The "point" of quantum mechanics is to describe nature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:00:58 2011 No.3172838 >>3172827 Suggesting that scientific theories are about anything but predicting and explaining the results of real-world xperiment (you know, WHAT REALLY HAPPENS) is hilariously ignorant.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:00:58 2011 No.3172840

>>3172833
What problem? How big the universe is? Why magnets are magnetic?
How do any of the theories presented in QM justify experimentation?
Or do scientists tend to take a "because its there" approach to spending millions finding out useless bullshit?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:02:58 2011 No.3172845

>>3172840
>How do any of the theories presented in QM justify experimentation?
What does this sentence even MEAN?
>Or do scientists tend to take a "because its there" approach to spending millions finding out useless bullshit?
All of modern technology comes from QM, pretty much. Computers, lasers, all the neat drugs that come from protein folding and quantum chemistry research, etc.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:02:58 2011 No.3172848

>>3172808

To model reality and gain the ability to make accurate predictions of what would happen under various circumstances. If possible, it's good to try to understand more fundamentally why certain things occur, by which I mean finding a "lower level" explanation. Kind of like if a boat were moving up and down into and out of your field of vision at regular intervals, you could model that and predict when it would next appear, but if you found that it was because of the varying water levels at low and high tide that it was moving like that.

This also kind of discusses why we cannot provide an ultimate "why". There is an infinite regression that occurs when you try to get more and more fundamental answers. Have have discovered what we call "elementary particles" which we believe to be the most basic things that exist, but we can't explain WHY they exist, or WHY there is something rather than nothing. Those are questions for the philosophers and theologians.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:03:58 2011 No.3172849

>>3172840
> How big the universe is? Why magnets are magnetic?
Science works well for both of these.
>How do any of the theories presented in QM justify experimentation?
I don't even... what?

Are you seriously arguing that QM hasn't been worth investigating? Nigga u srs?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:03:58 2011 No.3172852 >>3172840 An example for a problem that can hopefully be solved with QM are how to make computers faster, with the application of quantum effects to computation, yieldung quantum computing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:04:58 2011 No.3172865 >>3172840 If all people were like you, we would still be in caves.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:06:58 2011 No.3172870

>>3172840
>Or do scientists tend to take a "because its there" approach to spending millions finding out useless bullshit?
>Using your life that depends on the useless bullshit to complain against that same uselless bullshit using that same useless bullshit

You just went full retard
It'stimetostopposting.jpg

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:07:58 2011 No.3172876

>>3172845
You do know that engineers did all that stuff right?
also
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry
All I'm seeing is shit about shit that happened in the 30s.
>What does this sentence even MEAN?
Whats the point of QM
>>3172848
So..what do QM scientists do? I seriously cannot be more legit in this question. Whats the QM scientists daily life like? Do they sit their churning out experiment after experiment till it fits the theory? What do they do with it after that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:08:58 2011 No.3172880 >>3172840 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5q6OqSo4s quantum mechanics is stupid, its done nothing for us!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:09:58 2011 No.3172888 >>3172876 >implying engineers are smart enough and have enough time between their cock sucking and ass sex to discover QM

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:10:58 2011 No.3172891

>>3172876
>So..what do QM scientists do? I seriously cannot be more legit in this question. Whats the QM scientists daily life like? Do they sit their churning out experiment after experiment till it fits the theory? What do they do with it after that?
Oh wow. There is no such thing as a "QM scientists". Many fields of science depend on and use QM constantly.

You really DO sound like a creationist. You may not be religious, but you are JUST as ignorant. QM was pioneered BEFORE 1930. If you want to seriously continue arguing that all the things it has given us weren't worth the effort, I suggest you log off right now because you couldn't be holding this conversation without your computer.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:10:58 2011 No.3172893

>>3172876
>You do know that engineers did all that stuff right?

No they didn't, you morons. The only thing engineers are good at is using what physicists invented to build circuits and attempt to do it in the cheapest way. All of modern electronics were invented by physicists.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:11:58 2011 No.3172898

>>3172849
>Are you seriously arguing that QM hasn't been worth investigating
I'm asking you to tell me why it is without resorting to "niger_full_retard.jpg" and "troll detected"
>>3172852
>An example for a problem that can hopefully be solved with QM
Ahh...hope...
>>3172865
If more people were like QM scientists we'd be sitting around scribbling on paper and not actually getting anything done.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:11:58 2011 No.3172900

>>3172876
>>You do know that engineers did all that stuff right?

Engineers just apply the theories scientists come up with. None of the things mentioned were thought up by engineers.

Article about the results of years of work in quantum computing: The first quantum computer! Still a long way to go, but still. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/d-wave-one-quantum-computer-canada,12776.html

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:12:58 2011 No.3172903 >>3172898 You're not worth talking to. You've already been refuted, and have ignored it. >>3172845 I tip my hat to you, troll. You really had me thinking you were sincere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:13:58 2011 No.3172906 >>3172900 >Engineers just apply the theories scientists come up with. And you can't see how that is a 100 times fucking better than sitting around talking about things? >just apply the theories >just 10/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:13:58 2011 No.3172908 >>3172898 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Applications

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:13:58 2011 No.3172909 >>3172906 They are both necessary. Stop being butthurt.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:13:58 2011 No.3172910 >>3172906 How can you apply the fucking theories if we dont know them yet?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:13:58 2011 No.3172914 >>3172903 Then fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:14:58 2011 No.3172917 >>3172908 This.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:15:58 2011 No.3172923

>>3172876
There isn't really such a thing as a "QM scientist". There are people who USE quantum theory, to do things such as modelling protein interactions so we can understand drug interactions or try to understand things like how bacteria interact with cell membranes, how we can make better lead-free piezoelectrics and so on and so on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:16:58 2011 No.3172926 File: 35 KB, 415x298, gay-couple-kiss-415.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3172906 Not him, but engineers NEED scientists to provide theories, and scientists NEED engineers to provide lots of comfy tech. Now kiss and make up you two.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:17:58 2011 No.3172930 >>3172876 >Do they sit their churning out experiment after experiment till it fits the theory? What do they do with it after that? And you said the people who mentioned "conspiracies to lie to you" were putting words in your mouth. >>3172515

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:17:58 2011 No.3172931
File: 35 KB, 692x313, teaching_physics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3172622
If you don't understand it and are so interested in it, then start from scratch and study QM and everything else needed to understand it. If you don't understand it, then at least be humble and say "I don't know much about it, so I'll refrain from taking positions".

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:18:58 2011 No.3172934 >>3172931 This fucking pic right here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:18:58 2011 No.3172935 >ITT: /sci/ calls troll yet responds to him for over an hour stay classy faggots. >>3172908 Wow. Absolutely nothing necessary to my survival.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:19:58 2011 No.3172939

>>3172876

>Do they sit their churning out experiment after experiment till it fits the theory?

Other way around. Experiments have to be done lots of times to produce large data sets so as to minimize the effects of errors (it's a big issue when dealing with something so small, as being off in a measurement by even a tiny bit can cause your results to vary wildly). Then theoretical physicists try to model the behaviors of things mathematically, then they make predictions, which are either generally in agreement with the values experiments give (because of large data sets, we judge the "correct" experimental value to be the value that all the experimental data centers around, disregarding the ones that are the furthest off from the majority of the points, because they are most likely in error if most of the other experiments get another value).

Though QM was mainly developed in the 20's and 30's. Unless someone is trying to make a better theory or reconcile QM with gravity, then they're probably not doing a lot with QM. There are experimental physicists that do, because with newer tech we get the ability to test predictions of QM that we couldn't before, and we have to test it for consistency with reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:20:58 2011 No.3172942 >>3172935 >Wow. Absolutely nothing necessary to my survival. >lasers, computers, MRI, advanced chemistry for medicine Get the fuck out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:20:58 2011 No.3172943 >>3172935 Your computer is not necessary to your survival as well, so stop using it faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:20:58 2011 No.3172946 >>3172935 Yeah, to problem with us /sci/entists is, we have a good heart and want to help everyone struggling with science, even the trolls. If you don't need computers, please get off the internet and hand in your phone. Thanks.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:21:58 2011 No.3172948

>>3172935
>Wow. Absolutely nothing necessary to my survival.
Pretty much no science is needed for survival. But personally i enjoy my life with computers and great food and houses. You can continue to live in cave.
You either accept all science or no at all. You can't just pick that you like gravity but don't like QM

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:21:58 2011 No.3172949 >>3172898 There are quite a few theorists currently trying to figure out, for example, how high-temperature superconductivity works by "scribbling on paper". Do you think that understanding high Tc superconductors wouldn't be useful to mankind?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:22:58 2011 No.3172954 >>3172948 >You can't just pick that you like gravity but don't like QM Well, he can I suppose. It makes fuck-all difference, as he's not contributing to scientific progress anyway.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:22:58 2011 No.3172957

>>3172942
>Diseases have multiplied exponentially because of increased population brought on by scientific advances
>antibacterial drugs are only creating stronger bacteria
>MRI scans cause cancer
>Lasers have never been relevant to my life
>Computers are either totally crap or too expensive for a normal person to own
Go science =)

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:23:58 2011 No.3172958

>>3172946
>Yeah, to problem with us /sci/entists is, we have a good heart and want to help everyone struggling with science, even the trolls.
*sigh*
This. I got sucked in to this because I thought he might be serious, and not trolling.

He did a good job. 10/10.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:23:58 2011 No.3172959 >>3172957 Troll harder.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:26:58 2011 No.3172965 >>3172959 Yeah, OP puts that shit to shame. OP is a true troll. >>3172957 Learn from OP, young padawan.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:26:58 2011 No.3172966

>>3172948
>You either accept all science or no at all.
Cubeism, here I come.
>>3172949
>Do you think that understanding high Tc superconductors wouldn't be useful to mankind?
No, in fact the chief point of science these days it seems is to disprove the existence of religion, thereby admitting there is no purpose to life, how can something without purpose have something improve its usefulness? I'm not religious, nor am I trying to start a religious debate, but how can you argue this shit when you admit theres no point to any of it?
>>3172954
I'd stake my life that no one on this board will contribute anything to science ever
>even you =(

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:28:58 2011 No.3172971 >>3172965 I am OP. And I mean everything I just said.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:28:58 2011 No.3172974 >>3172966 People already have contributed to peer review journals that visit here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:28:58 2011 No.3172975 >>3172971 Nah. OP was a much better troll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:29:58 2011 No.3172976 FUCK YOU FAGGOT OP I HAVE BEEN TROLLED SO HARD CHOKE ON A DICK AND DIE

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:29:58 2011 No.3172980 >>3172971 OH, THEN YOU MUST BE A RETARD TROLL YOU HAVE NO HOPE >greentext >greentext Here, maybe this will help you understand why science is so fullproof you fucking faggot 0/10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:29:58 2011 No.3172981 >>3172966 OP is a much better troll than you. With OP there was reasonable doubt as to whether he was trolling or just confused. You're just plainly trolling.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:30:58 2011 No.3172983

>>3172957

Ahh right all those diseases. The great cowpox epidemic of 2010. The polio plague of '01. A person's chance of dying from an infectious diseas is exactly the same as it was 1000 years ago. Oh wait.

>MRI scans cause cancer

Not only do you not understand science, you also don't understand that making such a claim requires evidence

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:30:58 2011 No.3172985 The /sci/ board needs a function where something can be entered in the email field which can be activated later on in the thread by the troll to prove that the troll was truly a troll and not some dumb shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:31:58 2011 No.3172989 >>3172985 All I can think of is a temporary trip and then a later admission of trolling. Or just ramping it up to 11 to make it clear at the end. OP did a good job of ramping up, but slowly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:31:58 2011 No.3172991 >>3172974 >peer review journals Yeah, I actually saw one on paleontology. Hahaha, I crack myself up. But seriously, that's all I've seen. Something about dinosaurs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:31:58 2011 No.3172993 >>3172983 You're justifiably upset with such accusations, but OP is trolling.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:32:58 2011 No.3172994 >>3172989 Something that is like a trip, but hidden and then if another function is entered with the trip's PW, the trolls post become labeled with said trip, proving he was intentioned.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:32:58 2011 No.3172995 >>3172525 What experiments have we done in a lab to verify dark matter? Can I empirically verify dark matter for myself? Isn't quantum mechanics only accurate if you invent dark matter in order to fix anomalies?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:33:58 2011 No.3172996 >>3172983 Yeah, I understand that science is keeping that weak alive which is a fucking well known fact detrimental to the human race.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:33:58 2011 No.3172997 >>3172971 Suureee you are Suuurreee you meant Trollface.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:33:58 2011 No.3172998 >187 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Well done, OP. There's hope for the future of trolling after all. I was becoming discouraged with the really poor quality of trolling lately.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:34:58 2011 No.3173002 >>3172996 Start a different thread, you'll be able to milk that one as an entirely new troll-thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:34:58 2011 No.3173003 >>3172995 SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. QM IS PERFECT BECAUSE IT CAN BE TESTED AND WORKS ALL THE TIME hurr durr

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:35:58 2011 No.3173006 >>3172995 >>3173003 >intentially conflating QM and GR for the lulz Hahaha you're a funny guy

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:35:58 2011 No.3173007 File: 119 KB, 512x636, trolllines.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OP here, you know what, I'm going to just roll with this.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:35:58 2011 No.3173010

>>3172995
btw what I mean by this is, when we went and calculated how much mass their should using quantum mechanics, our calculations said that there we were MISSING 90% of the mass necessary for the affects we were observing.

Instead of going, "holy shit we are 90% wrong," we went, "Let's invent dark matter so that our being only 10% correct is accounted for!!!! Yay!"

90% of the mass necessary for what we observe either does not exist or cannot be observed, so instead of thinking "hmm we're 90% off, maybe our maths are fucked" we went "what can we invent to make ourselves still right! Oh! DARK MATTER/MAGIC!"

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:35:58 2011 No.3173012

>>3172966

That's funny, because in every single scientific paper I've ever read, there's been no mention of religion.

Besides, how can you "disprove the existence of religion"? Religion exists, that's why there are churches and mosques and temples all over the place. Derp.

>but how can you argue this shit when you admit theres no point to any of it?

I'd rather have lots of knowledge than none. Sure, it might have no meaning once I'm dead, but why should that bother me? I'm not dead yet.
I'd also rather live in awesome place with cool stuff that in a cave scribbling pictures of wildebeest on the walls in shit.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:36:58 2011 No.3173015

>>3172989

There's a problem with that though, that a lot of people will do that just to try to get out of looking like a dumbass. In OP's case, if these last few troll post were OP, he was clearly trolling from the beginning and ramped it up, but that's only clear because the topic was initially on the edge of a clear troll. I've definitely seen people make stupid comments and dig themselves in deeper trying to avoid admitting they're wrong just to make one or two ludicrous posts and claim to have been trolling the whole time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:36:58 2011 No.3173016 >>3173010 This is hilariously wrong. QM has nothing to do with the reason we know there's extra mass we can't see. Seriously, you should start a blog and then use it as rage.jpg material.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:37:58 2011 No.3173019 >>3173010 And we can observe the effects of this visible matter as well.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:37:58 2011 No.3173022

>>3173015
> I've definitely seen people make stupid comments and dig themselves in deeper trying to avoid admitting they're wrong just to make one or two ludicrous posts and claim to have been trolling the whole time.
True, but it's usually possible to tell the difference. OP did a masterful job though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:37:58 2011 No.3173023 >>3173019 *invisible

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:38:58 2011 No.3173026

>>3173010
Which is my (OPs) point really, despite no one saying anything relevant to it.
>>3173012
>I'd also rather live in awesome place with cool stuff
You mean your parents basement? I'm sorry but everything you're fucking saying is subjective. I think being a caveman would be rockin'
>inb4 someone says I'm a faggot

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:38:58 2011 No.3173027 I am loving the postmortem of this troll-thread. Never change, /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:38:58 2011 No.3173029 >>3173010 0/10 You obviously know that galactic rotation curves have nothing to do with QM.

>>	JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sat Jun 4 13:38:58 2011 No.3173030 Does /sci/ get trolled with the same bullshit so often?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:40:58 2011 No.3173033

>>3173030
Oh, this is an example of a very good troll, especially for /sci/. He seemed dumb but sincere at first, and very slowly ramped up. It was very well done.

The examples of /sci/ getting "trolled with the same bullshit so often" are the atheism/religion threads.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:40:58 2011 No.3173037 >ITT: people call OP a good troll to get out of the fact that they were fucking dumb enough to respond to a troll. The shit stinks both ways guys.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:41:58 2011 No.3173041 >>3173026 >subjective >subjective >subjective >Mommy, my brain hurts, dun mek me do tha sciencz

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:43:58 2011 No.3173046 >>3173041 >talk bullshit >used the term "cool stuff" in his previous post 3/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:46:58 2011 No.3173058 File: 66 KB, 320x240, jimmy-valmer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OP here, thanks guys, you've been a terrific audience.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:46:58 2011 No.3173059 >>3173037 But it was a pretty good troll. He started out on the line of being plausibly sincere, and then slowly ramped up. Poor trolls just come right out front with "u mad", etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:46:58 2011 No.3173060 >>3173026 Aw hell, that post really diminished the quality of your troll. Gotta know when it's time to stop!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:47:58 2011 No.3173063 >>3173059 >He started out on the line of being plausibly sincere, and then slowly ramped up. How many times are you going to say that exact thing?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:48:58 2011 No.3173068 >>3173060 So do you guys. You really should have stopped an hour ago. Takes two to tango and all that!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:48:58 2011 No.3173070 >>3173063 I was replying to someone who apparently hadn't read that. It really was pretty skilled. I mean, he didn't come right out with "u mad". He slowly ramped up, and that's the mark of a good troll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:50:58 2011 No.3173075 >>3173070 >He slowly ramped up Dude, seriously get a fucking thesaurus.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:51:58 2011 No.3173077 >>3173075 I think it's just a good way of saying it. I mean, OP was a fair sight above most trolls on /sci/. They just say something retarded right off the bat. But OP started at a believable level, and then slowly ramped up. It was pretty impressive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:51:58 2011 No.3173079 File: 22 KB, 370x278, crazysociopath.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] If language is made up, how can government exist? >go back to /sociopath/, aka /new/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:52:58 2011 No.3173081 >>3173075 He obviously really likes the expression. Maybe he didn't at first, but his preference surely slowly ramped up over time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:52:58 2011 No.3173082 >>3173077 Yeah I think the best part was when I started slowly, but when I ramped up it really took the cake.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:55:58 2011 No.3173089 >>3173082 >>3173081 >>3173077 My enjoyment of the references to how OP slowly ramped up his trolling is slowly ramping up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:56:58 2011 No.3173094 >>3173089 What will keep me up tonight is how the ramping up of the mentioning of the ramping up is really ramping up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:58:58 2011 No.3173099 File: 123 KB, 780x683, troll_orgy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I love you, /sci/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:59:58 2011 No.3173102 The funny thing is, ramping up doesn't describe what the troll did at all. He just repeated the same stuff over and over. Maybe his stupidity ramped up over the time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 14:00:58 2011 No.3173106 >>3173102 The funny thing is you've probably never kissed a girl.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 15:54:58 2011 No.3173559 File: 311 KB, 585x571, 4chan stupid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Everyone ITT is an idiot. Yes, including me.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math