[ 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: 36 KB, 380x304, quantum-image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4987410 No.4987410 [Reply] [Original]

Is quantum mechanics in favour of an infinite universe or...?

What are some important findings it has made that can be communicated to a beginner?

What is its significance/importance?

>> No.4987422

Quantum consciousness.

>> No.4987426

>>4987422
I think that's an interesting theory.

>> No.4987437

quantum mechanics is pseudoscience bullshit

>> No.4987454

>quantum mechanics

>> No.4987467

guys pls

Quantum mechanics is taking over your archaic form of physics.

>> No.4987468
File: 195 KB, 500x700, 13432753020872.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4987468

>>4987437
>>4987422

>> No.4987478

>>4987468
Faggot. Go research quantum consciousness.

>> No.4987482

>>4987478
0/10

>> No.4987485

>>4987482
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

>> No.4987488

>>4987485
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

>> No.4987489

>>4987487
>implying it isn't a hypothesis

>> No.4987490

>>4987478
I have, and it wasn't particularly convincing.
I guess it depends on how you're referring to quantum consciousness - a) quantum states are involved in neurochem or b) that consciousness somehow magically arises from hurr durr quantum entangled shit? A is legit, but B is not.

>> No.4987487

>>4987478
>>4987485
>>>/x/

>> No.4987491

Can you guys please address the OP.
Why is there only a response to pseudosci?

>> No.4987494

>>4987493
It is, actually, a hypothesis if you bothered to read it.

Just ignore him, anyway.

>> No.4987495

>>4987491
Pseudosci is the only thing /sci/ can talk about. Nobody here likes, let alone knows real science.

>> No.4987493

>>4987489
>>>/x/
don't come back

>> No.4987499

>>4987490
Quantum entanglement was proposed by Albert Einstein and a few other leading scientists.

>> No.4987498

>>4987494
>>>/x/
don't come back

>> No.4987503

>>4987495
That's unfortunate.

>> No.4987501

>>4987494
It's an unscientific hypothesis. Unscientific hypotheses can be discussed on >>>/x/

>> No.4987510

>>4987506
>>4987505
Obviously not. I was just pointing out that it wasn't proposed by pseudoscientific crackpots like your dismissal insinuated.

>> No.4987505

>>4987499
I'm not saying it's not real, I'm saying it has no place in theories of consciousness. Also,
>fallacy: argument from authority

>> No.4987506

>>4987499
1. This doesn't justify your pseudoscience nonsense.
2. Argument by authority is not how science works.

>> No.4987512

>>4987510
You failed to do so. It is still unscientific crackpottery. Did you even read my post?

>> No.4987511

>>4987505
And "theories of consciousness" have no place in /sci/. Metaphysics and untestable claims belong to >>>/x/

>> No.4987514

I feel for you op bahahaha

>Is quantum mechanics in favour of an infinite universe or...?

>What are some important findings it has made that can be communicated to a beginner?

>What is its significance/importance?

All they know how to do here is tell you your wrong without any justification and shitpost to no end. Enjoy your stay.

>> No.4987513

Quantum mechanics is in favour of a finite universe.

>> No.4987515

>>4987511
The neurological property of consciousness is certainly a scientific subject. I'm not talking about qualia or anything here.

>> No.4987516

>>4987513
Thank you!
Care to explain further, please?

>> No.4987535

quantum mechanics is pseudo shit

>> No.4987540

>>4987535
just stop.

>> No.4987551

>>4987511
this.

>> No.4987557

>>4987516
Basically, the universe is expanding, right?
Universe has edges of "empty" space (containing virtual and real dimensions. See, M-theory) that are expanding. This rate seems to be speeding up, howerver the percents of dark matter/energy found by the [I think it was the] WMAP that leads to an idea that it will slow down in a [really large number] years or so.

>> No.4987567

Much appreciated!

> "empty" space (containing virtual and real dimensions

Why is it termed as 'empty' when it contains dimensions?

>it will slow down
How certain are they of this?

>> No.4987580

>>4987567
They are not certain. It is not ever certain with quantum mechanics [usually]. This is a theory for finite space, one I think makes sense.

And it's termed "empty" [with quotations] due to the fact that we call it a vacuum most often. No matter. But due to it having virtual dimensions, it is hypothesized that it has virtual matter that can slip in and out of the virtual space.

Again, this is a hypothesis as most quantum mechanics is.