[ 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: 39 KB, 470x306, quantum.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4739884 No.4739884 [Reply] [Original]

Quantum Physics!!! I've already learned most of it but what the fuck does it mean?! What does /sci/ think the implications are?

>> No.4739891

>>4739884
>inb4 copenhagen interpratation

On a side note, it seems to imply that the universe is inherintly based on probability rather than determinism.

>> No.4739906

what does that mean for free will?

these probabilities have an origin right?

>> No.4739912

>>4739906

RANDOM FLUCTUATIONS LOLOLOLOL

>> No.4739910 [DELETED] 

>Quantum Physics
>I've already learned most of it
>what the fuck does it mean?

I don't think words mean what you think they mean.

>> No.4739942

Signals can travel FTL, but only in the way that cannot be used to send actual physical information FTL. Therefore Einstein is still boss.

>> No.4739946

Google "interpretations of QM".

>> No.4739969

>I've already learned most of it
Yeah, nah.

>> No.4739975

Quantum Physics proofs consciousness exists and that it affects matter.

>> No.4739979

Many worlds is the implication.

>> No.4739989

Nobody really understands Schrödinger's neko. Thousands of physicists do nothing but trying to solve this mystery.

>> No.4739997
File: 18 KB, 470x336, yeahno.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4739997

>>4739975

This is a giant no. You're made of particles and everything else made of particles makes the same impact on nature. For short, a rock would change the experiment as much as you would so your consciousness has nothing to do with it

>> No.4740003

>>4739891
Yes.

>>4739906
What do you mean by "origin?"

>>4739942
No.

>>4739946
Yes.

>>4739975
Hell no.

>>4739979
Fuck no.

>>4739989
What the shit are you talking about?

>>4739997
Yes.

>> No.4740011

>>4739989
Uh no? Plenty of people understand it.

All its really saying is that quantum mechanics is so different from what we're used to, it can't be applied on a macro level.

>> No.4740012

>>4739989
schrodinger's cat is an analogy to show why quantum mechanics is wrong

>> No.4740015

Quantum mechanics is entry level. You need to go deeper.

>> No.4740016
File: 531 KB, 496x497, notevensure.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4740016

I was wondering about quantum entanglement since I also learned a bit of that. Doesn't entanglement imply that everything is already entangled with everything else regardless of whether or not we know the entanglement? Does that mean that our universe actually isn't probabilistic? Doesn't that contradict QM? Isn't my brain about to explode?

>> No.4740026

>>4740016
Here's a good analogy:

You have two balls - one is red, the other is green. The balls are in two separate boxes, and we don't know which one is in which. Now, by opening one of the boxes and discovering that the ball inside is, say, green, we immediately know the color of the ball in the other box. It doesn't matter how much you separate the boxes before opening them.

>> No.4740035

>>4740026
my balls aren't red and green lol

>> No.4740036

>>4740016
Why would it imply everything is entangled, and why would that mean things aren't probabilistic? I don't follow.

>> No.4740038

>>4740026

I already understand it that way, I'm just saying that if 2 particles can be entangled with each other, and that can be entangled with something else, which is entangled with something else off to include everything, doesn't that mean everything can be entangled... leading back to the conclusion that there is no probability, we do actually live in a deterministic world?

>> No.4740054

>>4740038
Why would that lead to the conclusion that there is no probability? The state of the initially observed particle is still probabilistic.

>> No.4740056
File: 30 KB, 499x453, but it do.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4740056

Copenhagen interpretation blowing my mind.... It makes a ton of sense that things would be probabilistic before they actually had to make an impact on the state of the universe....

>> No.4740058

>>4740038
Also, why do you jump to the conclusion that EVERYTHING is entangled?

>> No.4740076
File: 73 KB, 640x480, duckie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4740076

>>4740054

My thought pattern goes like this:
>>The state of the initially observed particles are probabilistic.
>>Those initially observed particles are undoubtedly entangled in some way with something we don't know about but regardless still exists
>>By not knowing the previous entanglement, that entanglement is random to us. The results of the experiment therefore seem random.
>>Even though it appeared random to us, it was still determined....

In that sense everything is intertwined (entangled) so we measure seemingly probabilistic values and come up with quantum theory, but everything is still determined

Soooo confused

>> No.4740078

>>4740076
see >>4740058

And do you understand what
>>The state of the initially observed particles are probabilistic
means?

>> No.4740086
File: 72 KB, 463x564, spacepancake.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4740086

I assume everything is entangled because the way I learned it particles stay entangled unless unknown forces act upon them. If we just knew all the forces everything would appear entangled. In this way if we have one starting configuration don't we always end with the same configuration?

>> No.4740095

>>4740086
You're still jumping to unfounded conclusions.

>> No.4740102

Alright, question about the Copenhagen interpretation now....

So we put a neko in a box where there's no influence between the outside would and inside the box and it has a 50% chance to live or die, then when we open the box it'll either be alive or dead, but until then it's both to us...

Now we're the neko in the box and we don't die. When the box gets opened does the same universe appear to us as to the people who were always on the other side????

When we're outside the box the contents of the box are a wave function and opening the box makes the wave function collapse to one possibility.

When you're in the box the outside world is a wave function, when the box opens the wave function collapses to one possibility.

So does it collapse to the same thing and make one universe whether you're in the box or outside?

>> No.4740108
File: 36 KB, 300x400, willsmoth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4740108

>>4740095

Shit man, can you just explain to me how you think particles can get entangled / unentangled? The way I learned it seems to imply a completely causal universe which implies a deterministic universe (Even though it's not the same as a classical universe)

>> No.4740111
File: 83 KB, 640x512, bear.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4740111

>>4740095

Shit man, can you just explain to me how you think particles can get entangled / unentangled? The way I learned it seems to imply a completely causal universe which implies a deterministic universe (Even though it's not the same as a classical universe)

I think I must have learned it wrong because I'm sure someone would have picked up on this before now

>> No.4740683

Entanglement.

Say you split an atom or something, and two particles are created; one with up spin and one with down spin. You don't know which is which, but you know the probabilities of one of them being up spin or something.

The particles could be moved really far apart and you still don't know which is which (haven't checked).

As soon as you check the state of one of them, you instantly know the state of the other one. The mathematical description of what just happened requires the collapse of a 'wave function', and so the states aren't any more defined in terms of probability. They were 'entangled'. When you observed the state of one of them, the mathematical description of the situation changed.


>non physicist
>never took physics classes
>read wikipedia and pop science books

>> No.4740697

>>4739942
>Signals can travel FTL, but only in the way that cannot be used to send actual physical information FTL. Therefore Einstein is still boss.
What if the signal being sent is the signal itself?

>> No.4740720
File: 1.41 MB, 3000x2275, fundamental particles and interactions.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4740720

My two cents is Quatum Mechanics is a gimmicky way to describe a nonlinear fluid in which particles are localized self-propagating waves or wave-packets, probably the Gabriel La Freniere theorized ether:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110711095644/http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
Oh man I just found out he died!
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/gabriel-lafreniere-wave-structure-of-matter-
pioneer-dies/

>> No.4740746

>>4740683

That makes sense.

But, what are the implications of this? What does it do?

>> No.4740763

>implications
>of physics

I don’t understand the question and refuse to acknowledge it.

>> No.4740779
File: 78 KB, 400x258, 21332993.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4740779

so does it imply both particles have both spins until checked, or that the spins are just not known?

>> No.4740780
File: 480 KB, 1575x1095, chart_2006_4[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4740780

>> No.4740807

>>4740108
Particles become entangled once they vibrate in unison.

>> No.4740915

>>4739997
What you seem to be missing here is what it means. If you are made of the same particles as the rock, then so are your thoughts, emotions, actions, the chemical spasms and electrical firings that allow you to function, are all made of the same particles as that rock. DO you have any idea what this would mean for science? Falling under the little that is understood about quantum entanglement, it's not that you could produce the same effect as the rock, it's that you must be...

>> No.4740921

>>4740915
>it's not that you could produce the same effect as the rock, it's that you must be...

Or rather, you must be inextricably linked to the rock, as well as to whatever the rock is linked to.