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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 46 KB, 490x600, einst_3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4125722 No.4125722 [Reply] [Original]

Physics question time....
You ask....
I answer (If your questions arent too fucking stuid)

GO GO GO GO!

>> No.4125725

why did you misspell stupid, please explain in terms of physics

>> No.4125726

Does time actually exists or is it a concept we made for ourself to perceive motions in space?

>> No.4125733

>>4125726
DERP question.
*Facepalms

>> No.4125749

>>4125733
It's a legitimate question. Time we know to exist is an assumption that every one makes. But the nature of time hasn't been explored at all.

>> No.4125751

Maybe it is a stupid question... Which is the smallest (and most "fundamental", I would suppose) particle known to date?

>> No.4125753
File: 53 KB, 800x544, einst_9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4125753

>>4125726
Is there really a difference?

>> No.4125755

>>4125749
Did you seriously say the nature of time hasn't been explored, when the OP's picture is Albert Einstein.

*Facepalms

>> No.4125757
File: 78 KB, 795x600, einst_10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4125757

>>4125751
That is not a stupid question.

Quarks, Gluons, Electrons, Muons, Tau, Neutrions, and photons are all thought to be "point particles".

>> No.4125761

>>4125733
>>4125755

im seriously questioning the intelligence in here

>> No.4125763
File: 57 KB, 509x600, einst_sail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4125763

>>4125757
Meaning:

1) There size is actually smaller then we can measure

Or

2) They really are just "points"

We will not know for a while which is the case.

>> No.4125771
File: 342 KB, 800x1130, Rincewind____by_Tarthiev.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4125771

>>4125757
All right. So, is it possible you explain me wave-particle duality? My knowledge is barely high school level (inb4 underage, I'm going to college next year), hence the insecurity about me being able to understand the concept, at least generally.

>> No.4125780

Sports car accelerates from zero to 30mph in 1.5s, How long does it take for it to accelerate from zero to 60mph. Assume that the power of the engine is independent of velocity and neglect friction.

the answer is 6s but i need an explanation.

>> No.4125784

What is the relationship between the de broglie wavelength and the solution to the Schrodinger wave equation?

>> No.4125787
File: 44 KB, 412x600, einst_rad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4125787

>>4125749

The nature of time has been explored in great detail....Einstein comes to mind. Most of his work revolved around the study of "time" and what "time" actually was.

Alot of other great physicist made alot of progress regarding the nature of time as well.

Minkowski, Lorentz, Poincaré, Noether, Lagrange and even Hamilton, all have shed light on what "time" actually means and how it relates to the rest of the universe.

>> No.4125795

>>4125757

We could get more specific and consider the rest mass of said particles (or "virtual" rest mass via e=mc^2) and equate smallest with lightest. It's not very scientific, but I feel that intuitively the "smallest particle" would be whichever point particle is of least energy. Hmm...

>> No.4125830
File: 11 KB, 220x275, 220px-Einstein1921_by_F_Schmutzer_4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4125830

>>4125771

Babbys first Quantum mechanics:
Fundementallty everything is made of these "objects" that sometime behave as "waves" and sometimes behave as "particles". The type of experiment done (observation system) determines if the objects act as waves or particles.

Quantum Field Theory (they way shit actually works): Everything is actually a "field". These fields are sometimes imaginary, sometime real, sometimes visible, sometimes invisible. Etc. If a field is "excited" in a particlar way, it forms what we see as a "particle". Hence, the particle we see as an "electron" is just a particlar excitation (specific state) of the "electron field". The fields themsleves are essentailly "waves" that permiate all space-time.

>> No.4125831

>>4125780

Are you sure you're wording this correctly? I imagine we're assuming constant acceleration. Then acceleration = rate of change of velocity = 30mph/1.5s.
Then 60mph=(30mph/1.5s)*t
and so t=3s. The answer to the question you've posed is 3 seconds...

>> No.4125835

>>4125831
yeah that's what i kept getting too but the answer is supposedly 6s.
oh wells.

>> No.4125850

>>4125784

If you're so smart why don't you answer this Physics Guy?

>> No.4125854

>>4125835
>>4125831

>mfw retards

Integrate Vdt with respect to time from 1.5 to x and let it equal 30.

>> No.4125862

>>4125784
The Schrodinger equation is an eigenstate equation for wavefuctions of time and space, the solution of which are.

The De Broglie wavelength measures the wavelength of subatomic particles; the wavelength of the probability distribution waves found through the Schrodinger equation.

>> No.4125882

>>4125854

THIS. I don't know why I assumed acceleration to be constant in my previous post, you've implied that the POWER is constant. Here's an alternative explanation:

Power is the rate of change of work per unit time. So P=dW/dt.
The work done on the car increases it's kinetic energy such that W=KE. KE (kinetic energy) is 1/2mV^2, where V is velocity and m is the mass of the car(don't worry, this will cancel out).

So then W= P*t=1/2mV^2

Plug in V=30mph and t=1.5s to solve for P (in terms of m) then plug P back into the equation along with V=60mph and solve for t. The mass m will cancel out and you'll get 6 seconds for t.

I hope that helps.

>> No.4125884

>>4125753
For a physics guy your skill at the subject is really lacking. Mathematically, when you model an object as a function of its course through space with respect to time, you get a unique graph that cannot be replicated using its course with respect to a different part of space.

Take, for example, the path of a ball as you throw it upwards. If you plot its height on the y-axis and its horizontal position on the x-axis, you're going to get an exact picture of its complete path. If you plot height versus TIME (instead of horizontal position), however, you get a graph that looks similar but actually means something completely different.

>> No.4125885
File: 68 KB, 543x600, einst_pat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4125885

>>4125780
>>4125835
>>4125831
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/car-acceleration-d_1309.html

Maybe acceleration is not constant in your problem. Maybe it is the "power" of the engine that is constant.

>> No.4125899
File: 69 KB, 480x768, einst_20.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4125899

>>4125884
WTF are you talking about? How is anything you said relavent to the topic at hand?

All you are doing is talking about changing the independent varible...wtf does that have to do with anything? Of course you get differnt graphs if you change the independt varible...DURR. wtf kid? WHAT is your fucking point?

>> No.4125916
File: 111 KB, 492x598, btfrstrtd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4125916

>>4125899
My point is that your brain is STUPID.

>> No.4125965
File: 97 KB, 983x768, einst_bb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4125965

>>4125884
>>4125726
Look...everything we do is fundemenally from a "human perspective". Everything we learn, explore, and theorize, has a "human bias" that fundemenatlly cannot be removed. We can simplify concepts ad-infinium, but that doensn't change the inherit human bias.

At our most "simplified human bias", time indeed exists. It is basically an "imaginary dimension". However in the future, maybe our most "simplifed human bias" will have eliminted time. It is a possibility...

To wonder if time "actually exists" beyond our human bias (animal/earth bias), assumes that there is some "univeral perspective" that exists independent of the observers. That doesn't make any sense.

There is no "universal bias". It does not exist. So, your question is kinda fucking retarded.

You know, our most "simplified human bias" says that "TEMPERATURE DOES NOT EXIST". Indeed tempeture has been simplifed in such a way that it is not some fundemental property of the universe or objects, but just the result of other fundemental properties. Temperture is derived from motion and statistics. As humans, we "experience temperture", even though it is not fundemental. Not being "fundemenal" doesn't make it any less hot or cold though. The "human bias of the averge citizen" says tempeture exists, so it exists for them, regardless of it being fundemental or not.

>> No.4125971
File: 79 KB, 728x586, einst_la24.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4125971

>>4125916
Sillu trolls are silly
R U Lost?
<-/b/

>> No.4125981

>>4125722
Do you know what a shannon entropy is and its function?
please tell me how it is in layman's terms i can get the information off of wiki and google but too lazy

>> No.4126022

How significant and at what mass is the most significant excess in the new combined Higgs search results from CMS?

>> No.4126246

If a car is going the speed of light and turns on its lights what happens?

>> No.4126249

>>4126246


The light goes the speed of light according to a stationary observer and the driver in the car.

>> No.4126252

In ten words or less...

What is the difference between Special Relativity and General Relativity!

Go!

>> No.4126256

>>4126252

tensors

>> No.4126258

How do you reconcile Newtons 2nd law and Brownian motion?

>> No.4126259

>>4126252
Special = no acceleration of body, General = acceleration of body

>> No.4126300

what's your level of education? from what univeristy?

>> No.4126302

explain the meaning of the anti-derivative of a position function

>> No.4126322
File: 25 KB, 281x291, strange-albert-einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126322

>>4126022
There has been a lot of internal arguing/discussion about this lately (I work on CMS).

I really don't feel like I should comment too much, because yall are worse then christians when it comes to spreading bullshit and rumors (and believing them as true).

The only thing I will say is that I believe the gamma gamma channel really needs further study.

>> No.4126327
File: 16 KB, 220x232, 220px-Einstein_and_ben_gurion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126327

>>4126258
Statistics

>> No.4126344

will we ever reach a point where everything knowable about physics is known?

>> No.4126354

>>4126344
Yes. And then we will invent new sciences for the new questions.

>> No.4126358
File: 441 KB, 924x1203, Albert_Einstein_1947a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126358

>>4126302
The "classical" anti-derivative is just a consequence of Stokes Theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem

It doesn't always have "physical interpretations", it depends of the systems, and it's use. In very basic physics, there is little (if no) point to take the anti-derivate of position.

>> No.4126371

>>4126344
Even if we ever do know everything there is to know about physics we will never know that we know everything. There is no way to be sure we're not missing something even if we're not.

>> No.4126400

>>4126371
If we reach a certain level of knowledge and then remain at that level for many millenia, then is it not fair to say we know everything knowable?

what would be the next step, creating a particle collider the size of the solar system?

>> No.4126408
File: 55 KB, 547x450, Einstein3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126408

>>4126344
>everything knowable about physics is known

Physics by definition is the "most fundamental" level of science. To know all of "physics" means we have answered all questions about the physical universe on a fundamental level. This probably will never happen, since we always find new "fundamental questions" and "systems".

If things are discovered that are more "fundamental" then our current physics, they will simply be made into a new " branch of physics". This is what we do, it happens alot.

There is nothing more "fundamental" then physics, as far as the hierarchy of science is concerened. It may be possible to "know all of chemistry" or "know all of biology" one day, since those things have a "limited scope". However, since physics has an endless scope, it is unlikely for us to "know all physics" ever!

>> No.4126412
File: 5 KB, 304x107, ch04-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126412

The langevin equation.

Particle paths are essentially non-deterministic.

Unlike hamiltonian dynamics, particles do not conserve energy--yet they are driven toward a maxwellian distribution.

I'd also like to talk about the QM version...

>> No.4126417

What is the physical significance of the non-commutativity of 6 of the 8 color charge operators?

>> No.4126433
File: 21 KB, 340x457, albert-einstein092310.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126433

>>4126400
>creating a particle collider the size of the solar system

That day will come.

Also, after physics has finished answering the most "fundamental questions" (which will probably never happen), physicist will likley move to the other fields and fill in the gaps of chemistry and biology.

This actually happens already alot. With more "physics" discoveries, more physicist move to other fields and use physics for these areas of research.

>> No.4126443

If god did play with dice would it be d&d or craps?

>> No.4126470
File: 50 KB, 486x605, Einstein1921.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126470

>>4126412
Ok, sure...but first...
Why do you care about brownian motion so much? Are you writing a paper or something?

Also, did you want to "make" a quantum version. Or does one exist already somewhere you can refer me to?, either way it seems like a pretty trivial task. Are there some "inherit" principles the QM version needs to have? some invarience of somesort?

You do know, that not everything has to conserve energy right, even in hamitonian dynamics.

Conservation of energy is not a "fundemental property" is it a "derived property" for certian physical system.

>> No.4126490
File: 74 KB, 509x640, einstein1c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126490

>>4126417
I wanna say the non-commutivity implies that a gluon doesn't just have one color, correct me if Im wrong? It has been a while since studied QCD, I am more a QED kinda guy.

>> No.4126491

What do we need in order to obtain molecular/atomic precision in manufacturing? I would prefer answers more specific than "more time".

>> No.4126492

ok OP any news on the faster than life neutrino found at cern in september

>> No.4126497

are fields an illusion in respect to our inability to be able to detect what is really going on?

>> No.4126502

How many years are we from the technology necessary to build a space elevator?

>> No.4126506

>>4126433

>That day will come

I'd like to think that by the time we have the capacity for constructing things on such a scale, we'll have better things to do with our resources.

>> No.4126509

>>4126497
Depends, do you accept the information your senses collects is representative of reality, or do you think reality is the construct of your mind trying to make sense of the information you've gathered?

>> No.4126511

Will our concepts of (curved) space time as in GR need a massive overhaul to be compatible with quantum field theory outside limiting cases?

>> No.4126513
File: 43 KB, 720x450, 189701_212152802132391_100000130188079_985299_5206601_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126513

What is the difference in specific heat capacities between lithium six and seven. Why is there such a large difference?

>> No.4126515

Is the slight gravitational pull of a cat dying in a box a few metres from me enough to cause decoherence?

Why does light slow when entering thicker media?

If a photon stream bounces off a mirror at a 45 degree angle, its configuration is multiplied by i. If it bounces at a 90 degree angle, is it multiplied by -1? Or by -.707+.707i (or something) if it bounces at a 22.5 degree angle?

>> No.4126522
File: 98 KB, 492x315, dice..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126522

>>4126443
The only one who knows how fictional characters would respond to certain situations is the writer of the character.

The writers for the fairytale you seek are long dead, so you probably will never know your answer. Maybe you should concern yourself with some more modern fiction, like Harry Potter (tons more exciting then the bible).

>> No.4126530

>>4126522
is lronhubberd close enough

>> No.4126545

>>4126513

Protip the heat capacity of 6Li is suppressed because that knowledge is useful in developing thermonuclear weapons.

>> No.4126550
File: 19 KB, 292x326, Einstein_4..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126550

>>4126506
What is more important then trying to answer fundemental questions about the universe?

Essentially you are telling me that the meaning of life, and all that shit is pointless to you? You never think about anything truly important? Really?

What the fuck do you find important then?

>> No.4126590

>>4126550
>>4126550
amen. This anon seems to think fiscal quarterly earnings is what's important in life. Very little made me rage more than the idiots who thought building the LHC was a waste of money, especially since these idiots were Americans who would gladly fork over their taxes on building a military.

>> No.4126606
File: 37 KB, 485x340, 1015_albert-einstein-dead-celebs_485x340.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126606

>>4126513
Why does property __"x"__ of ___insert chemicals/atoms here___ behave different then __insert chemicals or atoms here___.

To actually answer questions like that (from the ground up) is not trivial. It can be done, but it isn't usually anything alot of physicist care about or study.

See, that "math" and "procedure" for all the stuff is actually very very very basic, and can be applied to all of chemistry and atoms and shit trivially.

Basically all your are doing is Quantum mechanics. It is semi-trivial to "form" the initial equations to represent your "chemicals/atoms". It is not trivial to solve the equations (shit ton of differential equations with operators (often most of which is only numerically solvable). We usually use supercomputers to do the math, since it is so fucking long. Then it is also not trivial to use stats to obtain the bulk properties from the quantum properties. So only physicist studying that particular chemical or atoms, would likly know the answers off the top of there head.

If you want to cheat though, and make tons of shit approimations (which may or may not be justified) there is probably some very specific equations developed by chemists that only applies to the types of systems you are talking about. You should ask a chemist about that though, not a physicist.

>> No.4126616

>>4126545
I would say bullshit but i cant find it.

>> No.4126629

Hey, PGOP, you missed my Q.
>>4126502

>> No.4126644

Are we approaching the end of the age of empirical science?

>> No.4126655
File: 77 KB, 640x746, aaaeinstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126655

>>4126629
Sorry to disapoint you, but no one really gives a shit about a space elevator (i'm sure a few labs). A space elevator isn't really on the science "do-to" list right now.

I would say if more people got actively involved maybe it could be done in 20-50 years. But chances are, it will never be done. Likely, we will just improve space/air travel (much more research is being focused on that).

Space elevators just don't seem to have any real "must have benefits", and the little benefits they do have opposed to other space travel will become obsolete in the near future.

>> No.4126670

>>4126655
I realize that the logistics and political or economic climate aren't very conducive to one being constructed, that's why I phrased my question as
>How many years are we from the technology necessary to build a space elevator?
>technology necessary
But thank you, you answered my question.

Do you think that space flight will actually become a commonplace thing? If so, to what extent?

>> No.4126691

>>4126644
Nope.

Some counties are currently parting with science and turning to shit (looking at you USA), but overall science is doing very good.

>> No.4126704

Momentum, let's see i can't get a complet hold of the idea that r1 x f1 + r2 x f2 = 0 represents the second law of mach, 'every pair of forces have to be alinged in the same line'

>> No.4126714

how does quantum gravity work?

>> No.4126726

>>4126670
>commonplace

Yes, eventually.
The problem is just one of material engineering/material science/chemistry, there is no problem in the basic physics.

Eventually we will have cheaper materials that allow for space and air travel, when this happens new markets and possibilities will open up. Space travel will become like air travel, and new political boundaries/authorities will be made. A shit ton of space-stations will be made, them moon colinization, solar system, etc.

Best Guess is in like 60 years we "could" have full everyday man space travel, but it could be sooner. It doesn't take that long for great new inventions to be used. Bussiness is bussiness, and once we have the materials needed to cheaply build cheap space crafts it will only be a few years before they are commercial.

>> No.4126745

why do you faggots like scalar field theory so much?

>> No.4126771
File: 15 KB, 640x400, gammagamma.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4126771

Long time no see, monsieur! I see you've found some new Einstein pictures as well in the meantime.

Random question: how large is the cross section of <span class="math">\gamma\gamma\rightarrow\gamma\gamma[/spoiler] on box level?

>> No.4127604
File: 2.30 MB, 300x240, 1312250020200.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4127604

Hey!

Personally, what do you think of entropic gravity?

What is the significance of black hole entropy?

Can you explain to me why the interference pattern of a single photon disappears when measured?

>> No.4127607

>>4127604
Measuring the photon collapses its quantum state.

>> No.4127629

How does one define the "borders" of the universe? Is it just background radiation stemming from the Big Bang?

Also, what lies across the border of the universe?

>> No.4127635

Explain neutrinos and how they are found/triggered within a stabilized environment

>> No.4127636

>>4127604
I can just see /b/ as the falling pingpong ball, 4chan as the mouse trap in the middle and the internet as all the flying pingpong balls as a .gif

>> No.4127644

Why does physics ignore the possibility of negative energy?

>> No.4127645

>>4125780
>>4125981
I can help, but it isn't physics at all.
Entropy, in an information theoretic sense, is the sum of -p(x)log(p(x)), for some (discrete) random variable x. Basically, it refers to the expected number of bits of information knowing one outcome of x gives, and is a lower bound on how many bits it takes per outcome of x to encode x.

>> No.4127646

>>4127645
Sorry, I don't know why that first link was in that post at all.

>> No.4127647

>>4127644
Lack of any evidence for it, and our best models model the world just fine without allowing for it.

>> No.4127660

What chemicals shoud i use to burn somebody or injure them really bad

>> No.4127661

The concept of time is an abstract way to view past events, the present and predict the future. Predicting the future is astrology. Therefore, time is bullshit.

>> No.4127663

>>4127645
What do you mean it isn't physics? If you have a system that can be in n states, each with probability p_n, then that's your entropy.

>> No.4127664

>>4127660
Dihydrogen Monoxide

>> No.4127850

>>4127644

how the fuck does that even work? It seems like such a rediculously stupid concept because energy is either observable or its not.

>> No.4127863

Suppose you are able to go faster than the speed of light.

I want to know, what happens as pertaining to time dilation?

It would be stupid to assume that they travel backwards through time.
They are still going x m/s, it's just that x is higher than 3*10^8.

WHAT HAPPEN?

>> No.4127867

>>4127664
yeah, that shit is deadly.
Depending on its state, it can either burn, freeze, or suffocate someone, and it is so easy to obtain.

>> No.4127873

>>4127863
There's no answer to that question. Time dilation is a concept that arises from special relativity, which again arises from the fact that c is the upper limit, which again arises from the assumption that c is the same in every frame of reference.

If c isn't the upper limit, we need new concepts - and there is none out there yet.

>> No.4127885

>>4127664

WATER LOLOLOL EX DEE SUCH A NERD ROFLMAO PMSL

>> No.4127891

>>4127873
Okay then.

More special relativity.
This one has had me confused for a while.

A is moving at 3/4c. B is the stationary reference point.
A experiences time more slowly than B.

Now change the point of reference.

B is now moving at 3/4c in the other direction, A is the stationary reference point.
B now experiences time more slowly than A.

Wait, what?

A experiences time slower than B.
B experiences time slower than A.

How does this work?

>> No.4127896

>>4127885
Do you dispute the fact that it is possible to harm someone with water?

>> No.4127904

>>4127885
Man, you sure told him...2 hours later.

>> No.4127912

>>4127891
Simple, time is relative and both frames of references have their own clocks - and both frames measure the other clock as "dilated". It's a symmetry aspect that seems counterintuitive, but works.

You'll have to be careful though, if start liking events in space-time to both clocks. There is no absolute simultaneity. If some events happen to be simultaneous in one frame, they may not be in the other one.

>> No.4127937

Hey, PG.

I'm thinking of entering either U of Zurich or ETHZ, have you heard anything about these two universities in terms of their physics departments? i.e. reviews by peers, etc

Also, do you recommend particle physics or astrophysics? I'm just a newbie about to dedicate my life to physics, so any help as to what math would be essential is also nice.

>> No.4127944

>>4127912
But if both measure the other as dilated, which one is actually dilated?
They are dilated relative to the other, both have been going slower in time than the other.

I give up, I'm a biologist, not a physicist. I only know this much thanks to A-Levels.

Maybe there is a true stationary frame of reference which these questions are fixed by knowing, but we are as yet unable to measure it?

>> No.4127959

>>4127944
I walk away from you backwards.
To you, I appear to be getting smaller.
To me, you appear to be getting smaller.

Which one of us is actually getting smaller?

>> No.4128367

>>4127959
Good example.

>> No.4128378

Physic guy, you still here?

I was wondering on the nature of "information" in theoretical physics. I keep hearing about black holes absorbing or destroying information or something and that just really confuses me.

How can information be a physical quality? I might be wrong, but if we take Kantian Epistemology as true, then information is just the composition of our minds from sensory input, not an actual quantity or quality out in space.

>> No.4128390

>>4128378
I thought information was just the word we give to what happens when intelligent beings reverse the natural process of heat loss, and thus go against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I don't into physics tho.

>> No.4128433

>>4128378

I am not OP, but am also a physicsfag...

when you hear the word 'information' in theoretical physics, it is almost always to do with the concept of quantum information...

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

So when people talk about whether black holes destroy the information of a quantum system, they are discussing whether entangled photons that get pulled into the black hole lose their entanglement (or not) - we dont know!

>> No.4128455

>>4128433
Ah, very interesting. So if they were still entangled, this could theoretically be used to send data out of a black hole, hence the problem, right?

>> No.4128474

>>4128455

Perhaps... Entanglement alone is not enough to actually pass on data, as we see it and interpret it - there still needs to be some classical form of communication between each end of the collapsing entangled state in order to pass on any actual information.

However, it is useful in a lot of systems, to think of the entanglement between particles as information, and then there are a number of operators (measurements) that can be performed that would destroy the 'information' of the system, and a number that would not (ie, in the 2-slit experiment, if you measure which slit the particle goes through, the information causing the interference pattern is destroyed and you lose interference)

Rather than thinking of it as actual information, it might be better to think of it as a tool for thinking about quantum states

>> No.4128524

Question here

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK IS ENTROPY AND HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN IT TO A RETARD LIKE ME

>> No.4128540

>>4128524
I might be wrong but I think the simplest way to think about it as the measurement of the amount of unusable energy in a system. The more a closed system operates, the more entropy is generated and thus the less usable energy in a system.

thus when Entropy reaches maximum, the whole system is in equilibrium and thus no work can be done.

>> No.4128554

is most of an atom really empty space or is it like dark matter or some shit?

>> No.4128563

>>4128524
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lav6R7PpmgI
Watch the video responce below as well.

>> No.4128581

explain to me what a quantum dot is

>> No.4128662

>>4125722
Particles which have electric charges has electric field. How is this happening . Why there is electirc field ?

>> No.4128675

>>4128662
The same reason particles that have mass have a gravity field.