Schrodinger's Cat

[Anonymous No.5024926]

Probably the best quantum mechanics video I've ever seen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1YzFLy44ZM

[Anonymous No.5024928]

Old thread was: http://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/5024706

Too off topic, this time actually discuss the video

[Anonymous No.5024929]

Stop posting this shit

[sage No.5024931]

>>5024928
Cool story bro.

>implying the mod didn't just delete this thread

[Anonymous No.5024933]

>>5024931
He made a mistake. He accidentally deleted this thread while cleaning up the probability theory one.

[Anonymous No.5024938]

She rubbed her breasts approx 10 times, best vid yet.

[Deaner's Left Nut !S0ooHAHDTU No.5024958]

I hate this "experiment" with a passion. Maybe i'm just ignorant.

But I think it's fucking stupid.

Is it supposed to be an analogy for something in QM? Like flatland for discussing dimensions or something?

Either way it's pure shit.

[Anonymous No.5024965]

Moar Danellia.

[Anonymous No.5024967]

>>5024958
think it was made up to point out how microscopic qm uncertainty could affect macroscopic quantities. or something.

[Anonymous No.5024982]

>>5024958
>But I think it's fucking stupid.

So did Schrodinger. By his analogy he wanted to show how he thinks the wavefunction collapse interpretation is flawed.

[Anonymous No.5025426]

>>5024926
Why did she not mention that Schrodinger was trying to demonstrate how absurd the super position theory was?

[Anonymous No.5025753]

>>5025426
That is a triviality. It's obvious.

[Carl No.5025769]

do we really need 5 fucking threads on the front page about her?

[Anonymous No.5025789]

>>5025769
Prove that you are the real Carl. He is a quality poaster. a quality poaster does not complain about quality threads such as this one.

[Carl No.5025810]

>>5025789
im the real 3rd Carl

[Carl No.5026479]

>>5025769

nice work Carl, one of the threads is gone.

[Carl No.5026497]

>>5026479
Stop bumping these threads already Carl.

[Burt No.5026518]

>>5026497

Not everyone lives on /sci/ 24/7, so when we stop in for a moment, we look for responses to our postings, and reply if stimulated.

Is that so hard to understand? does everything have to be a conspiracy to you?

[Carl No.5026521]

>>5025789

There is a 'Real' Carl? I'm skeptical... Dox or it didn't happen.

[Carl No.5026528]

>>5026521

in the french revolution, everyone was jacque.

in the /sci/ revolution, everyone is Carl

[Anonymous No.5026532]

>>5024982

He wanted to show that quantum effects don't apply at macroscopic levels.

Everyone misses the point of it, it's supposed to be an argument by contradiction.

[Anonymous No.5026559]

This shit needs to go. Hopefully the new mod application will bring one or two janitors to /sci/

[Burt No.5026563]

>>5026559

you will rue the day when legitamite /sci/ content is removed to satisfy your book-burning tendencies.

[Anonymous No.5026594]

>>5026559

Why do you hate Science Educators who wear funny hats? What if Einstein had worn a Homburg. Would you have wanted to drive him out of New Jersey?

[sage No.5026613]

> implying quantum effects can occur at a macro scale
> implying Schrodinger's cat was not a joke to begin with

[Anonymous No.5026614]

>>5026594
>>5026563

[Anonymous No.5026620]

>>5026614
You are the troll. We're just enjoying a good science video. Go back to /b/ please.

[Anonymous No.5026621]

Fellow sane people, install 4chanX and hide her threads. I did.

[Anonymous No.5026625]

>>5026620

[Anonymous No.5026689]

thank for that anon, this girl is amazing

[Anonymous No.5026728]

I do not listen to anyone without a shark hat.

[Anonymous No.5026741]

Jesus fuck, that's one annoying accent.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5026783]

>>5024926
who the fuck keeps posting these??

[Anonymous No.5026798]

>>5026741
I bailed at ten seconds. how far did you get?

[Anonymous No.5026820]

0/10 would not bang.

[Anonymous No.5026825]

>>5026783
enjoy your Rose permaban

[Anonymous No.5026832]

I think this is actually the best video out there:

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

Very good animation and exceptional explanation.

[Anonymous No.5026849]

>>5024926
bitch sounds retarded. wouldn't even fuck.

-10/10

[OP No.5026871]

Why even do this when the girl is not objectively cute? She has obviously the looks that may or may not be regarded as cute by an average male.

[Anonymous No.5026890]

Is she retarded?

[Engineer No.5026906]

>>5026904
Ah, this explains why she is so ugly. There are no attractive girls in science.

[Anonymous No.5026904]

>>5026890
She's working on her PhD in physics, so I'd say no.

[Carl No.5026908]

>>5026890
no, she is a woman. they just act like that.

annoying isnt it?

[Carl No.5026917]

Classic Carl!

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5026921]

>>5026908
twat.
women obviously dont all act the same as each other, you misogynist piece of shit

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5026930]

Classic EK!

[Carl No.5026943]

>>5026930

I'm not Carl.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5026947]

>>5026943
stop posting with his name then, dipshit.

[Anonymous No.5026958]

>>5026921
b'awwwww

[Carl No.5026963]

I am the best.

[Carl No.5026971]

>>5026947
that wasnt me.

>>5026921
so you admit you know how woman sound/ look to men? is that from first hand experience?

[Anonymous No.5026974]

>>5026947
super cute say something else

[Anonymous No.5026981]

>>5026947
Get over it darling, everyone knows that women suck at any real science and will always be discriminated against due to their obvious weakness and lack of conviction. It doesn't help that you couldn't string together an argument to save your life.

[Carl No.5026980]

>>5026971
What the hell, yes it is me.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5026987]

>>5026971
>so you admit you know how woman sound/ look to men? is that from first hand experience?
what people look and sound like is the same whether you're a man or a woman, unless you're blind or deaf, or have some sort of visual or auditory impairment.
having a fucking cock doesnt mean things magically sound different!

[Carl No.5026999]

>>5026980
that was me

[Carl No.5027001]

>>5026987
that's impossible to prove. how do you know that the differences between a male and female brain doesnt include some other interpretation to sounds? females do have different sound drivers btw prioritizing certain frequencies above others.

[Anonymous No.5027006]

>>5026999
wasnt me, i don't usually engage in these pissing contests.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5027010]

>>5027001
w/e, DT still sounds annoying high pitched and whiny.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5027013]

>>5027010
actually i'm just jealous because i'm ugly and not as smart as her

[Carl No.5027019]

>>5027010
was that so hard? if you just admitted that she is annoying from the start. this whole argument could have been avoided.

[Anonymous No.5027023]

>>5027013
You can just use her trip btw

EK#.1Omhrk8

[Anonymous No.5027028]

>>5027023
That's her old trip, you moron. She has a new one.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5027031]

>>5027019
i obviously think shes annoying, i saged my first post, and the DT-faggot is a well known spamming troll here.

>>5027023
that's my old trip.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.5027036]

>>5027031
nope

[Anonymous No.5027038]

>>5024958
The point of the experiment is that while we cannot be certain what will happen, something definitely will happen. It was a counter to the early 20th century retards who thought randomness actually existed and that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle refers to anything more then a lack of an ability to know something.

And yet today we still have all these retards that believe randomness and probability actually exist in more then just our perception.

[Anonymous No.5027039]

>>5027036
wait, fuck

fack you EK

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5027050]

>>5027039
ha!
<<<

[Anonymous No.5027062]

>>5027050
I'll be sure to go on IRC later today and get your tripcode banned

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5027181]

>>5027062
ha, good luck with that, faggot

[Anonymous No.5027216]

ITT: Virgins

[Anonymous No.5027217]

1) find cardboard box
2) write "Shrodinger" on the box
3) put some weighted object in the box, maybe even a voice box/speaker that meows every half hour
4) tape the box up
5) sell the box to "science geeks" claiming the box contains a cat that's both dead and alive
6) ??????????
7) PROFIT!!!


You could even put a piece of paper inside the box that will shame them for opening it. If there ever was a cat inside the box, by opening it they destroyed that possibility, thus killing the kitty inside.

[the Great and Powerful EK No.5027219]

>>5027216

you wouldn't know a virgen if it raped you, put you in a box, and sold you at a flea market for $2, then took the prophets to mcdonalds and bought a burgher at the drive thru.

[Anonymous No.5027226]

>>5027010
>>5027031
you go on everyone of these threads and bitch about her. why do you keep coming to these threads if she pisses you off so much? is your jealousy that strong? you have some serious anger issues too.

[Anonymous No.5027230]

>>5027038
QM doesn't deal with matters probabilistically simply because we don't know enough, but because even with perfect knowledge we couldn't predict anything. it IS true randomness. that was Einsteins whole problem with it.

[Anonymous No.5027253]

>>5026904

Facebook: Fictional character.

I loaded her page to find more subtle clues she's acting for someone, but they're pretty outright.

[Carl No.5027255]

stop posting in my name.

[Anonymous No.5027507]

1. Obtain box, dead cat, geiger counter and cyanide
2. Find victum and explain to them Schrödinger's Cat theory and give them box
3. ????
4. Profit

>>GENIUS

[Carl No.5027509]

>>5027255
stop posting in my name

[Carl No.5027515]

I love Titan. She's the best scientist of all and I wish I had a girlfriend.

[Anonymous No.5027517]

This is just another pop science video to help edgy teenagers think they know something about quantum mechanics.
Enough of this shit.

[Carl No.5027598]

im a raging homosexual, i love to suck cocks alllll dayyyy long. me so horny

[Anonymous No.5027635]

>>5027598

>>suspicions confirmed

Carl shall be forever known as a PHAYGOUGHT

/trannymission

[Carl No.5027658]

Bump. The best science video ever. I wish I could have sex with a girl. She has blue hair, so I love her. I wish she would pay attention to me.

[Anonymous No.5027669]

she is cute. prolly dumb as a box of rocks though.

still 10/10 would bang

[Anonymous No.5029060]

>>5027517
Who are you talking to?

[Anonymous No.5029639]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.5029653]

Oh she's cute.

[Carl !EKFQOBUFnQ No.5029809]

I"m the reel Carl.

[Anonymous No.5029812]

Yeah, let's give money to retarded attention whores, they sure deserve it.

[Anonymous No.5029824]

>>5029812
It's for free. You don't need to pay for watching a youtube video.

[Anonymous No.5029840]

>>5029824
Do you know what youtube partners are, you idiot?

[Anonymous No.5029844]

So, what sort of accent is this? I don't think I've ever heard one like this before. Sounds like a mix of dutch, finnish and australian.

[Anonymous No.5029886]

>>5029840
No, I don't. But I know that I don't have to pay anything to youtube.

[Anonymous No.5029915]

Northern greek

[Anonymous No.5029969]

>>5029886
oh lord oh god.

[Anonymous No.5029975]

this video doesn't really make sense
so if there are outcomes A & B and you don't know which one it is, they are both until you know specifically?

[Anonymous No.5030025]

She's only good on doing other kind of reviews. Not science, though.

Perhaps she could improvised a bit about her choreographing, less looking at the camera because she's obviously is reading a text in front of her. Which makes it whole lot awkward.

[Anonymous No.5030026]

>not realizing schrodinger's cat was the greatest troll of all time
>continues to be spouted by pseudoscientist undergrads

[Anonymous No.5030262]

there is no trolling in quatum physics. dannie is not a troll and not a spamener.

she is an information princess.

[Anonymous No.5031569]

>>5030262
What's an information process?

[Anonymous No.5031576]

>>5030262
I would also like to know what an information process is. I know you said princess, but I like to bump useless threads and mimicking the guy above me is the easiest way to be sure my bump retains any relevance.

[Anonymous No.5031633]

Can you stop bumping these threads please? Fucking retards. Seriously.

[Anonymous No.5031649]

This is getting out of hand.

[Anonymous No.5031655]

>>5031649
>ultimate guitar

thumbs up.gif

[Anonymous No.5031659]

Please, stop spamming it or at least keep it to one fucking thread. Jesus fucking christ.

[Anonymous No.5031717]

I found this thread on the second page. Thought I should bump it in case somebody hasn't seen cute science yet.

[Anonymous No.5031754]

Woops, this nearly fell off the frontpage. I bumped it for you though.

[Anonymous No.5031757]

>>5031754
Fuck off faggot. Reported.

[Anonymous No.5031762]

>>5031757
y u mad tho?

[Anonymous No.5031789]

>>5031757
WHY ARE YOU MAD? TELL ME WHY YOU'RE MAD. I MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT BETTER.

[Anonymous No.5031857]

Does anybody have anymore information on this girl?

[Anonymous No.5031883]

>>5031876
>implying a single fuck is to be given
Cute Science!

[Anonymous No.5031886]

>>5031857
no.

[Anonymous No.5031889]

>>5031886
That's okay!

[Anonymous No.5031904]

>cute science
SHES NOT EVEN CUTE GOD DAMN IT. HER VOICE IS A CACOPHONY OF SCREECHING HORRORS

[Anonymous No.5031908]

>>5031904
I respectfully disagree. I think she's an angel, sent from the heavens by God's team of scientists.

[Anonymous No.5031930]

>>5031904
I lol'd a little too much.

[Anonymous No.5031932]

>>5031930
Trololol nerd rage am funny.

[Anonymous No.5031947]

[Anonymous No.5031952]

>>5031947
no, no... let him carry on

it's funnier

[Anonymous No.5031992]

>>5031952
>>5031990

[Anonymous No.5032019]

Oh hey Danielle or what the fuck ever.

[Anonymous No.5032328]

>>5027217
if it meows its clearly not dead

[Anonymous No.5032337]

>>5032335
enjoy the ban

[Anonymous No.5032730]

>>5032337
What was it?

[Anonymous No.5032838]

>>5024926
>Probably

lol, I see what you did there.

[Anonymous No.5033800]

With a cat she becomes even cuter. Too much cute.

[Anonymous No.5033861]

bump for later viewing

[Anonymous No.5033870]

>>5032730
he announced his report

[Anonymous No.5034614]

>>5032328

i lol'd

[Anonymous No.5034716]

cute

[Anonymous No.5035781]

>>5033861
Did you view it by now? It's great, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.5037598]

>>5033870

you'll probably get banned too

[Anonymous No.5038837]

>>5037598

bans for everyone, that's what i say.

wait what?

[Anonymous No.5039905]

>>5037598
Why should he? He didn't do anything wrong.

[Anonymous No.5041348]

Wouldn't the cat be an observer and could collaps his own wave function?

[the Great and Powerful EK No.5041904]

>>5041348

my cat tried that and it took the vet two days to pull it back out

[Anonymous No.5043359]

>>5041348
>pls respond

[Anonymous No.5044273]

>>5041348
Another bump on this

[Anonymous No.5044293]

>>5044273
>>5043359
Yeah, it's called decoherence

DT should do a video on it

[Anonymous No.5044305]

>>5027230
>QM doesn't deal with matters probabilistically simply because we don't know enough, but because even with perfect knowledge we couldn't predict anything. it IS true randomness. that was Einsteins whole problem with it.

Only if you assume QM is complete, in other words don't take the hidden variables/Ensemble/superdeterministic view.

[Anonymous No.5045086]

>>5044293

i sent her a request, and i asked her to give /sci/ a shoutout. i wonder if she knows the level of hatred that /sci/ has for her videos.

[Anonymous No.5045348]

>>5044293

berp for moot. send monies now. i needs to lrn program

[Anonymous No.5046134]

>>5045086
I would love to see her reading this thread.

[Anonymous No.5046334]

this chick is so fuckable

[Anonymous No.5047176]

>>5046334
Fuck off, sexist. She's a scientist. We like her for her insights into theoretical physics, not for her body.

[Anonymous No.5047189]

>>5047176

since when was 4chan a kitchen?

[Anonymous No.5047193]

>>5047189
since you all started bitching for OC...why do you ask?

[Anonymous No.5047199]

>>5047176
>she's a scientist
Sometimes I can't tell if /sci/ is serious or has a very subtle sense of sarcasm.

[Anonymous No.5047222]

>>5047176
All straight males(and lesbians) are in it for her body. The science is a bonus.

So take off your low-cut shirt that says "My face is up here" and go make me a sammich, bitch.

[Anonymous No.5047238]

>>5047176
>Fuck off, sexist.

YOU fuck off back to reddit with your PC shit, faggot.

[sage No.5047251]

>>5047238

your on /sci/, not /b/. flaming is not aloud here.

if you must disagree, do it politely.

maybe you're latent hostility is why women don't like you.

[Anonymous No.5047255]

>>5047251
Why do you do this?

Why do you troll /sci/?

You bump threads here, then go to /q/ and bump all of the /sci/ threads with contradicting opinions - probably on different IPs so the mods can't see you trolling the living shit out of everyone.

Fucking why?

[Anonymous No.5047256]

She looks Jewish.

Jewish filth.

Do not want.

[Anonymous No.5047259]

>>5047251

>your on
>aloud
>you're latent
>sage in name field

2/10 too obvious

[Anonymous No.5047314]

>>5047176
>Scientist
Ha! She's a Youtuber who made a video explaining an experiment which has been explained in a thousand other vids the only difference is that her vid contains cat ears, a sexy accent, and actually quite insubstantial tits. Sexuality is not a crime, beat it.

[sage No.5047317]

>>5047314

also her armpits.

[sage No.5047323]

why the fuck do you do this

[sage No.5047327]

>>5047323

who are you talking to? the haters or the anti-haters?

[Anonymous No.5047328]

>>5047327
he was typing

[sage No.5047330]

>>5047328

isn't that against the rules?

[Anonymous No.5047340]

>>5044305
>2012
>determinism

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.5047341]

sup guys, whatcha talkin about?

[Anonymous No.5047365]

>>5047330
what? being accurate and concise?

...against the rules?

maybe...wouldn't surprise me in the least

[Anonymous No.5047376]

wow, I think I just got dumber from watching that

[sage No.5048018]

sage

[Anonymous No.5048025]

Still?

[Anonymous No.5048940]

>>5047238
I don't have a PC. I use a Mac. And I'm not going to reddit.

[Anonymous No.5049222]

>>5047340

Even Bell admits that loopholes in his inequalities allow for local and complete determinism that obeys causality and relativity, just that it might be extraordinarily hard to do.

[Anonymous No.5049230]

>>5049222
No, Carl. You do not understand how physics works.

Go back to your philosophy class now.

[Anonymous No.5049247]

Bell's theorem says absolutely nothing about determinism or hidden variables. It's a strong point against local hidden variables because it's a strong point against localism.

Why do people always get this shit completely upside-down?

[Anonymous No.5049264]

>>5049247
You are wrong. Show me a crackpot global hidden variable theory that is compatible with the standard model and all existing observational data.

You can't.

[Anonymous No.5049267]

>>5049247
Because the guy who posted that was bumping a thread that had been dead for about 6 hours. It's not a continuation of a coversation, he just finds something to react to or post (whether it's pro-vid, anti-vid, or unrelated) to keep the threads bumped.

This one was on like the fourth page.
I have no idea if it's like a misguided attempt to advertise, or just a very tired troll, but there you go.

[Anonymous No.5049282]

Why do this bitch's videos always stay on the front page for weeks?

Her last thread was made in June and it took until a few weeks ago for it to hit the bump limit.

I don't care about your videos, please stop bumping them from the back of the board back to page 1.

[Anonymous No.5049301]

>>5049230

I'm not Carl.

>>5049264

So? Bell stated that it was possible, not that it had been done. However, there is this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408

>>5049267

I haven't even watched the video. All I care about is local realism.

[Anonymous No.5049308]

>>5049264
Are you fucking kidding me? Bell's theorem practically REQUIRES hidden variables.

When one entangled particle is measured, measurement of the other one has to correspond. That information has to be communicated from one to the other somehow through space and time. It's hard to find anything reasonable to call the mechanism of communication other than a global hidden variable.

Before quantum entanglement, it seemed reasonable to have no hidden variables at all, since every quantum wavefunction collapse seemed locally independent (and random). Before Bell's theorem, it seemed reasonable to have only local hidden variables, since information could have been shared locally at the time of entanglement.

Bell's theorem didn't resolve the problem the EPR paradox caused for QM, it deepened it.

[Anonymous No.5049314]

>tfw this is at the top of the page

[Anonymous No.5049324]

>>5049301
Wait if you haven't watched the video then why don't you make a thread dedicated to Bells work so people actually look at it?

There's really no need to use an ancient spam thread to talk, when you might get serious replies in a new thread.

[Anonymous No.5049331]

>>5049324

Because this was a thread where someone insinuated that Quantum Mechanics implies reality is inherently probabilistic, which isn't even a question answerable by a scientific theory.

[Anonymous No.5049364]

>>5049301
>So? Bell stated that it was possible, not that it had been done.
Are you 12? Science is about testability and predictions. Not crackpot "proposal of concepts".

Anti-science philosophical drones such as yourself don't understand quantum mechanics because they don't want to believe that it is fundamentally correct: they always want to imagine that there is some classical physics beneath all the observations. But there's none.

>http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408
Hooft is a crackpot. That paper is not a theory, it's a concept. This is all very cute to try and defend, but it's already based on the denial of previous results that have been very clear since the mid 1920s. Uncertainty implies observables cannot be simultaneously well-defined up to however many sigmas you want. There cannot be determinism. Instead of arguing with you over what entanglement actually is (since his paper is outright garbage in terms of this), I'll just state this:

ANY local/global hidden variable theory is INCOMPATIBLE with Lorentz symmetry, spin, quantization of observables, gauge symmetry, and (naturally) quantum field theory.

Hidden variable theories do not respect one or more of these experimental results: Bell's theorem, Kochen-Specker theorem, free-will theorem, Hardy's paradox, 2007 Zeilinger et al, etc.

From the aspect of quantum computing, a deterministic underpinning for quantum mechanics implies one of the following:
-There is a classical polynomial-time algorithm for factoring and other problems which can be solved on a quantum computer.
-Quantum computation doesn't actually work in practice.

None of these are sensible. Hidden variable pseudoscientists are mentally living in the 17th century and is unable to grasp the most important revolution of the 20th century science.

[Anonymous No.5049382]

>>5049308
You are some horrible, uneducated, stupid, and pathetic fraudster crackpot spewing breathtakingly dishonest anti-scientific subhuman activist garbage. You are truly intellectually challenged and a prime example of Dunning-Kruger in action. Your uneducated, uninformed, pseudointellectual laymen understanding is sickening. You have absolutely no idea how quantum mechanics works or what Bell's inequalities are. Do you even know what entanglement is? Are you fucking 12? It has nothing to do with "communication of information", it is the tensor product of two unfactorable Hilbert spaces. It is simple probability.

Please read this http://www.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/entan-interpret.pdf or get a quantum mechanics textbook. Trash like yourself is impossible to rationalize with.

[Anonymous No.5049427]

>>5049364

>Anti-science philosophical drones such as yourself

How is my position in any way anti-science? If I really were anti-science, why would I even care about the subject? I might be wrong, but being wrong and anti-science are two different things.

[Anonymous No.5049589]

>>5024926

It's simple.

The cat is a lie.

[Anonymous No.5049628]

>>5049382
Dude, I totally agree with you, but to write that whole thing and end with a preposition is not something up with which I will put.

[Anonymous No.5049652]

>>5049628
Not that guy, but go be pedantic somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.5049658]

>>5049382
>Do you even know what entanglement is? Are you fucking 12? It has nothing to do with "communication of information"
Two particles interact in a certain way. You measure one in one place and time, then you measure the other in another place and time, and the measurements correspond to each other in a certain way. There are no limitations on the separation of the two particles in space and time. After you've measured one, the other "knows" what the result was whenever it gets measured. In theory, the measurements can be a million light years apart and simultaneous, or you can measure one a million years after the other.

You can't use this relationship between the two particles to send information into one which comes out the other (which is the grain of truth in the general dust cloud of impenetrable idiocy you live in), but measurement of the one somehow reflects how the other was measured and what the result was, so on some level this information must be carried across time and space.

To say this has nothing to do with communication of information is extraordinary idiocy. For two measurements to correspond in a reliable way, information sufficient to cause the measurements to correspond must be carried to both from a common source, or from one to the other.

If you were here now, I'd demonstrate how a fist communicates the information of being punched to the face, so the teeth know when to fly about in all directions. That's the kind of communication of information I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.5049716]

>>5049658
You can continue to babble about crackpot bullshit, but it doesn't change reality.

>measurements correspond to each other in a certain way.
Already wrong. Entanglement is a correlation.

>but measurement of the one somehow reflects how the other was measured and what the result was, so on some level this information must be carried across time and space.
No, it is not. Did you even read the nice lecture notes I gave you? You are simply arguing from pseudointellectualism/ignorance and you refuse to accept correct information, instead you live in your own strange little crackpot world. Pretty much the definition of delusional.

Maybe "explaining" through 4chan would help since you are obviously incapable of reading a few pages of lecture notes.

There is nothing active about the connection between the entangled particles. Entanglement is just a correlation - one that can potentially affect all combinations of quantities (that are expressed as operators, so the room for the size and types of correlations is greater than in classical physics). In all cases in the real world, however, the correlation between the particles originated from their common origin - some proximity that existed in the past.

Confused laymen/crackpots such as yourself often say that there is something "active" between particles because they imagine that there exists a real process known as the "collapse of the wave function". The measurement of one particle in the pair "causes" the wave function to collapse, which "actively" influences the other particle, too. The first observer who measures the first particle manages to "collapse" the other particle, too.

[Anonymous No.5049721]

>>5049716
This picture is, of course, flawed. The wave function is not a real wave. It is just a collection of numbers whose only ability is to predict the probability of a phenomenon that may happen at some point in the future. The wave function remembers all the correlations - because for every combination of measurements of the entangled particles, quantum mechanics predicts some probability. But all these probabilities exist a moment before the measurement, too. When things are measured, one of the outcomes is just realized. To simplify our reasoning, we may forget about the possibilities that will no longer happen because we already know what happened with the first particle. But this step, in which the original overall probabilities for the second particle were replaced by the conditional probabilities that take the known outcome involving the first particle into account, is just a change of our knowledge - not a remote influence of one particle on the other. No information may ever be answered faster than light using entangled particles. Quantum field theory makes it easy to prove that the information cannot spread over spacelike separations - faster than light. An important fact in this reasoning is that the results of the correlated measurements are still random - we can't force the other particle to be measured "up" or "down" (and transmit information in this way) because we don't have this control even over our own particle (not even in principle: there are no hidden variables, the outcome is genuinely random according to the QM-predicted probabilities).

[Anonymous No.5049726]

>>5049721
There is NO classical mechanics behind the observations. Quantum mechanics is fundamentally different in this regard. IT'S JUST PROBABILITY - NOTHING ELSE. Quantum mechanics uses the SAME LOGIC as ordinary probability theory on a dice. The only difference is we assume the dice already has a value before we look. In quantum mechanics, this is not the case, and it will result in incorrect observations if we assume it.

[Anonymous No.5049745]

>>5049726
>To say this has nothing to do with communication of information is extraordinary idiocy.
Except it doesn't. You continue to babble on about incredibly idiotic, aggressive crackpot proclamations without the faintest idea of what you're saying/talking about. Better yet - let me start asking this. What does this even mean? What are the experimental implications of a FTL "physical link" between particles?

For one, this would imply the "link" is an observable quantity. Is there any evidence that it exists? No. If not, provide some. You will surely win a Nobel if you manage to do so.

Secondly, this FTL link would violate all probabilistic rules of quantum mechanics. It also breaks T-symmetry. It nullifies all of physics back to and including Kepler's laws.

Third, Lorentz invariance strictly prohibits any communication between particles at FTL speeds. If you know any trivial entanglement experiments that are done in a typically 2nd year undergraduate course, you would know that entanglement is a PROBABILISTIC CORRELATION, not a PHYSICAL PROCESS.

Please ACTUALLY READ this: http://www.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/entan-interpret.pdf and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

The lecture notes discuss all the experimental details and what entanglement actually is.

[Anonymous No.5049773]

>>5049745
>If you were here now, I'd demonstrate how a fist communicates the information of being punched to the face, so the teeth know when to fly about in all directions. That's the kind of communication of information I'm talking about.
Typical inane, incoherent babbling from a pseudointellectual crackpot with severe popsci misconceptions. What psychological motivation makes you study a subject (science) in which you are supposed to be open to empirical evidence and not outright deny like an orthodox Christian?

Why do you refuse to even read a Wikipedia article which at several times attempts to address these issues? *HOW* did you even discover what entanglement was in the first place?

[Anonymous No.5049798]

you_are_this_mad.png

[Anonymous No.5049822]

>>5049726

>The only difference is we assume the dice already has a value before we look. In quantum mechanics, this is not the case, and it will result in incorrect observations if we assume it.

Read: In non-deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics.

For any given set of empirical observations one can contrive both deterministic(and causal) and non-deterministic theories to explain and predict them. Contrive being the operative word here, because the deterministic theories, by necessity of their increased predictive power, have to include more information and thus can't be more simple. A contrived theory used to prove an epistemological point might not be very pretty, but it doesn't have to be because the point in contention is not necessarily that such a theory is elegant, logical, or practical, but that such a thing is possible. I'm not saying that quantum mechanics, as it exists now isn't a monumental achievement, or that a local hidden-variables theory will be proved tomorrow, but what I am saying is that it is hypothetically possible.

[Anonymous No.5049840]

>>5049716
>>measurements correspond to each other in a certain way.
>Already wrong. Entanglement is a correlation.
What do you think "correspond" and "correlate" mean?

Do you not even speak English? Is that the problem here?

>There is nothing active about the connection between the entangled particles.
This is equivalent to a statement that you believe in local hidden variables.

Entanglement arises from a conservation law. The classic example is of pairs of particles with entangled spin due to conservation of angular momentum.

If you imagine the particles are spinning little spheres (local hidden variable), the same-axis measurement makes perfect sense: one is spinning on the perfect-opposite axis to the other, with the axis determined at the time of "entanglement". Bell's theorem is about how this model goes to shit when you measure on different axes.

If there aren't local hidden variables, then you are "rolling the dice" when you measure one of the particles. It wasn't "spinning on an axis" already, the measurement *creates* the spin value that it measures.

(too long)

[Anonymous No.5049847]

continued from >>5049840

However, this is hard to explain for the other particle. Measuring on the same axis, its measurement can't create the spin value randomly: the result is tightly constrained by conservation of angular momentum. This is the "spooky action at a distance" everybody knew about in QM and Einstein wanted to be rid of: how does the second particle *know*?

You can't just say "it's a correlation" and "there's nothing active about the connection" as if that's an explanation. Either the information of the measurements is generated at the time of measurement (QM) or before (hidden variable), except that when measuring the second entangled particle on the same axis (EPR paradox), we KNOW it's determined before, yet when we measure at different angles (Bell's theorem), we learn it's not determined by the particles secretly being little spinning balls.

The correct post-EPR/Bell QM position certainly isn't very satisfying: the information of the second measurement is generated at the time of measurement, but in a way that is consistent with the results of the first measurement... somehow.

The proper attitude is not to say "there's nothing active about the connection" but "we have no idea how this connection works, we just know that it has to, and does".

[Anonymous No.5049851]

>>5049822
>Read: In non-deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Read: formulate or provide me with a legitimate deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics which does not violate Lorentz invariance, incorporates all current experimental data, is compatible with the standard model, and incorporates entanglement in the inane fashion you suggest, and it will be a real working one, not just a crackpot "proposal of a concept", and I'll take back everything I've just said.

Even "already wrong" hidden variable theories like Bohmian mechanics do not do entanglement in with the fucking off-the-wall nonsensical drivel you have stated. What you said has nothing to do with the empirical evidence regarding entanglement, nothing to do with mathematics, and probably nothing to do with philosophy, either. It's something an English graduate student would type up while doing LSD.

>but what I am saying is that it is hypothetically possible.
Except you are wrong. Flying elephants are "hypothetically possible". Jesus' "miracles" are hypothetically possible. Satan is "hypothetically possible" Evolution is "hypothetically wrong". Do you even know what a "hidden variable" is?

Hidden variables in any quantum theory, local or global, violate the isometry group of space-time. So either special relativity is wrong, or some 17th century attempt to incorporate an empirically untestable concept that makes no predictions is.

What kind of education do you have?

[Anonymous No.5049880]

>>5049745
>Except it doesn't. You continue to babble on about incredibly idiotic, aggressive crackpot proclamations without the faintest idea of what you're saying/talking about. Better yet - let me start asking this. What does this even mean? What are the experimental implications of a FTL "physical link" between particles?
Jesus christ, you just can't fucking read, can you?

Look at this shit you're pulling, putting "physical link" in quotes as if it was something *I* said instead of something you pulled out your own ass because of your own functional illiteracy.

[Anonymous No.5049888]

>>5049851

Perhaps I should make myself clear. My ultimate point is that the entire body of scientific knowledge, if it is to be complete description of the physical world, should only accept causal and deterministic theories as being complete descriptions of their respective fields. For the sake of debate, I'll concede to you any disagreements on the nature of quantum mechanics. If it really is true that within the framework of QM as it exists today that local hidden-variable theories are impossible, then either quantum mechanics or special relativity must be incorrect. If it really is true, then they are at best ad hoc.

[Anonymous No.5049895]

>>5049840
>>5049847
You are a sad, pathetic troll, crackpot, or both.
>This is equivalent to a statement that you believe in local hidden variables.
No, it is not. It is the complete opposite. This statement means you do not know what quantum mechanics is.

>Entanglement arises from a conservation law.
What? There is no Noether current from a Hilbert space tensor product.

>the result is tightly constrained by conservation of angular momentum.
This isn't how you get entanglement. Entanglement is present in any observable. It has nothing to do with conservation laws.

>Bell's theorem is about how this model goes to shit when you measure on different axes.
No, it is not. Bell's theorem is a general statement about two measurements, A and B. It tackles the principle of locality - i.e. A’s result is predetermined independently of B’s choice of what to measure. Spin is an example of this.

>You can't just say "it's a correlation" and "there's nothing active about the connection" as if that's an explanation.
What do you MEAN an explanation? THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. There is no "REAL WAVE" or "PHYSICAL INTERACTION".

>we KNOW it's determined before
That's because you're reducing the density matrix! It's simple probability!

>The correct post-EPR/Bell QM position certainly isn't very satisfying: the information of the second measurement is generated at the time of measurement, but in a way that is consistent with the results of the first measurement...
Again, because of simple probability. The wave function is subjective for all observers. Why can't you accept nature is probabilistic?

[Anonymous No.5049898]

>>5049895
>somehow.
There is nothing physical about the wave function. It is the rules of probability that play out on a line bundle on the cotangent bundle of space-time. There is nothing more. Again, ANYTHING ELSE violates Lorentz invariance. There isn't any other observable. You are delusional - the equivalent of a religionfag.

[Anonymous No.5049902]

>>5049851
>formulate or provide me with a legitimate deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics which does not violate Lorentz invariance, incorporates all current experimental data, is compatible with the standard model, and incorporates entanglement in the inane fashion you suggest, and it will be a real working one

The inclusion of these:
>does not violate Lorentz invariance
>is compatible with the standard model
...demonstrates that you lack the basic intellectual equipment for this kind of discussion.

>Show me a new theory that not only agrees with all of the experimental evidence, but is also the old theory, and maybe I'll take you seriously.

This isn't how thinking works, you bloody chimp.

[Anonymous No.5049910]

>>5049895
>You are educated stupid!

>Timecube is 4-corner truth!

>It's simple probability!

You sound this crazy.

[Anonymous No.5049917]

>>5049880
>Look at this shit you're pulling, putting "physical link" in quotes as if it was something *I* said instead of something you pulled out your own ass because of your own functional illiteracy.
Clarify yourself, then. If QUANTUM MECHANICS ISN'T ABOUT STAR ALGEBRAS, HURR DURRR, THEN WHAT IS IT ABOUT? You are implying it's classical, therefore some "PHYSICAL THING". QM IS A PROBABILISTIC DEVICE THAT MAKES PREDICTIONS.

>>5049902
>but is also the old theory
I don't think you understand reading comprehension. Quantum field theory includes all of our billions of existing observational data. If you are to extend this framework, it must be compatible with such.

You are a troll if you do not think Lorentz invariance is not fundamental.

[Anonymous No.5049922]

>>5049910
I'm the crackpot now? You are disagreeing with all of modern physics. Okay. Let's go from first principles now.

A system in quantum mechanics is a star algebra <span class="math">(A,(-)^*)[/spoiler] over <span class="math">\mathbb{C}[/spoiler]. An observable in some element <span class="math">a\in A[/spoiler] such that <span class="math">a^* = a[/spoiler]. A state is a linear function <span class="math">\rho: A\to\mathbb{C}[/spoiler] positive <span class="math">\forall a\in A[/spoiler], so <span class="math">p(aa^*)\geq 0 \in \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{C}[/spoiler]

Where do you disagree?

[Anonymous No.5049933]

>>5049888
>if it is to be complete description of the physical world, should only accept causal and deterministic theories as being complete descriptions of their respective fields.
Quantum mechanics is causual. You don't want something that isn't deterministic to fill your religious fantasies?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=iMDTcMD6pOw

[Anonymous No.5049935]

>>5049888
>if it is to be complete description of the physical world, should only accept causal and deterministic theories as being complete descriptions of their respective fields.
Quantum mechanics is causal. You don't want something that isn't deterministic to fill your religious fantasies?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=iMDTcMD6pOw

[Anonymous No.5049952]

>>5049935

Causal, but not deterministic. Religion has nothing to do with it.

"Assuming the success of efforts to accomplish a complete physical description, the statistical quantum theory would, within the framework of future physics, take an approximately analogous position to the statistical mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics."

[Anonymous No.5049957]

>>5049952
It has everything to do with religion. There isn't any determinism. Science deals with FACTS and LOGIC. Determinism strictly violates existing laws of physics. Particles are probabilistic. There isn't anything more. You can lie to yourself, but it does not change reality.

Quoting someone who outright refused experimental evidence is quackery and a petty appeal to authority. This is the science board, you know.

How about instead of arguing over philosophical drivel we start here:
>>5049922
Where is your disagreement, what should be modified? I am very competent in axiomatic QM, so I can tell you what's wrong with any of your misconceptions and how they disagree with experimental evidence.

[Anonymous No.5049962]

>>5049922
I disagree with the bit where you think that theories consistent with observation should be thrown out because they violate lorentz invariance in some completely abstract and experimentally irrelevant way, even if they provide something nice like determinism.

The choice between models that agree with experiment is a matter of taste and tradition, no matter how weird the underlying assumptions. When you declare lorentz invariance fundamental truth, and determinism crazy religion, you're obviously showing religious fanaticism yourself, and a complete lack of insight.

You're also failing to communicate at a very basic level, as if you don't care whether you understand the people you're talking to, or if they understand you. You jump to wild conclusions, and choose what to say with an utterly bizarre combination of assuming everyone knows exactly what you're talking about and that nobody knows anything about what you're talking about. As long as what you're saying seems technically correct to you, you seem to think it's worth saying just to hear yourself say it.

This is seriously the way schizophrenia works.

[Anonymous No.5049974]

>>5049957

>Determinism strictly violates existing laws of physics.

Well then someone's been writing unfalsifiable stuff into them. It is impossible to prove through empirical observation alone whether the world is deterministic or not.

>a petty appeal to authority.

And quoting Feynman isn't? You don't accept Bell's testimony on this subject so I'm not expecting you to accept Albert's, but he wrote what I think more succinctly than I can.

>Where is your disagreement, what should be modified? I am very competent in axiomatic QM, so I can tell you what's wrong with any of your misconceptions and how they disagree with experimental evidence.

That's not me. I said I was conceding to you any disagreement on the technical nature of QM.

[Anonymous No.5050006]

>>5049962
>I disagree with the bit where you think that theories consistent with observation should be thrown out because they violate lorentz invariance in some completely abstract and experimentally irrelevant way
It's not at all abstract or irrelevant. You are confusing empirical evidence with assumption. There's a few cases to consider:

1 - Entanglement is superluminal. This is an outright violation of the speed of light, causality, etc.
2 - There is no quantization of observables with hidden variables. For the sake of concreteness, consider the orbital angular momentum of the Hydrogen atom. How do we know that "m=l_z/hbar" must be an integer? Well, it is because the wave function "psi(x,y,z)" of the "m"-eigenstates depends on "phi", the longitude (one of the spherical or axial coordinates), via the factor "exp(i.m.phi)" which must be single-valued. Only in terms of the whole "psi", we have an argument. However, when you rewrite the complex function "psi(r,theta,phi)" in the polar form, as "R.exp(iS)", the condition for the single-valuedness of "psi" becomes another condition for the single-valuedness of "S" up to integer multiples of 2.pi. If you write the exponential as "exp(iS/hbar)", the "action" called "S" here must be well-defined everywhere up to jumps that are multiples of "h = 2.pi.hbar". This is an inherently quantum condition that you cannot do with underlying classical formalism.

[Anonymous No.5050008]

3 - There is no hidden variable for spin. It's purely quantum mechanical. You could also think that the "spin observable" has pre-determined binary polarizations of the spin with respect to any axis in space. Well, that's no good. Such a picture could never predict simple facts, for example the fact that if a particle is prepared in the "spin-up" state with respect to one axis, the probability of "spin up" with respect to another axis must be "cos(theta/2)^2" where "theta" is the angle between the two axes.

There's much, much more that I do not have time to go over. I already covered other examples, such as quantum computing earlier on.

>even if they provide something nice like determinism.
They violate experimental fact. How old are you?

>The choice between models that agree with experiment is a matter of taste and tradition, no matter how weird the underlying assumptions.
There's a difference between assumption and agreement with existing framework/evidence. Hidden variables cannot and do not agree with evidence.

>You're also failing to communicate at a very basic level, as if you don't care whether you understand the people you're talking to, or if they understand you.
What do you not understand?

>You jump to wild conclusions
Such as?

>and choose what to say with an utterly bizarre combination of assuming everyone knows exactly what you're talking about and that nobody knows anything about what you're talking about
What does this even mean? What "utterly bizarre combination" am I using? Are you even a physics student?

[Anonymous No.5050011]

>As long as what you're saying seems technically correct to you, you seem to think it's worth saying just to hear yourself say it.
What are you talking about? Provide a concrete example and I'll clarify anything you want. I'm a published researcher, I assume anyone who I am talking with about quantum mechanics has basic knowledge of quantum mechanics. I haven't gone over that at all.

>This is seriously the way schizophrenia works.
I think you are the schizophrenic one. You are delusional in addition to having a stunning amount of incoherence and stupidity in regards to experiment and theory. For yet another fucking example, the primary assumption of why quantum computing works is the neglect of determinism and a reality of the formalism of orthodox quantum mechanics. Why don't you test your idea of determinism against at least a single and simple situation, a collection of 3 qubits, the ammonia molecule, anything else? You would see as clearly as I have when I did these tests that the status of all these "deterministic theories" is exactly on par with telepathy. An imitation of quantum mechanics that agrees with only some of the experiments and that also miraculously bans quantum computers at the same moment is exactly as crazy as a theory of classical computers that suddenly prevents you from connecting a GPU with a microprocessor. It can't happen. You could rationalize your philosophical belief, but it doesn't do the copulating work at all.

[Anonymous No.5050022]

>>5049974
>>5049974
> It is impossible to prove through empirical observation alone whether the world is deterministic or not.
Except it is. I already explained this.

>And quoting Feynman isn't? You don't accept Bell's testimony on this subject so I'm not expecting you to accept Albert's, but he wrote what I think more succinctly than I can.
What is "Bell's testimony"?

>I said I was conceding to you any disagreement on the technical nature of QM.
Then that's that. You aren't arguing over anything, or you're arguing from ignorance. What you fail to understand is that hidden variables <span class="math">\neq[/spoiler] the same formalism as quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.5050051]

>>5050022

>Except it is. I already explained this.

Imagine we observed six dice rolls and recorded the results, which came up all threes. Was this because the dice were weighted or because we got lucky?

>What is "Bell's testimony"?

Now whether or not he is correct my argument still stands, but in this book he is interviewed and goes on record saying that if the universe is completely and utterly deterministic then locality can be preserved because events can be caused by earlier events arbitrarily far in the past. He also admits that to construct a theory on this basis would be incredibly difficult.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ghost-Atom-Discussion-Mysteries/dp/0521457289

>Then that's that. You aren't arguing over anything, or you're arguing from ignorance.

I'm arguing about epistemology, about both the aims of science and the scope of the questions it can answer. I would be having the same argument with you if this was the 18th century and someone had muddled the philosophical interpretations of statistical mechanics.

>What you fail to understand is that hidden variables = the same formalism as quantum mechanics

I might not know how to calculate a path integral but I did know that.

[Anonymous No.5050276]

>>5027226
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.5050299]

>>5025753
Can you explain a bit more?

[Anonymous No.5050814]

>>5050299
the cat is an observer

[Anonymous No.5050873]

But Schroedinger invented the analogy because he thought superposition was bullshit...

He wasn't trying to explain anything other than that it was ridiculous.

Which it turns out it wasnt...

[Anonymous No.5051116]

>>5050814

not in the classical formulation. it was just a cat.

[Anonymous No.5051128]

>>5050873
No he did not think superposition was bullshit. He thought macroscopic superposition was bullshit. He was trying to express how the notions of quantum mechanics appear silly when applied to macroscopic objects, but he still found them correct on a quantum mechanical scale.

[Anonymous No.5051147]

>>5002564
>>5008072
>>5024926
Marketing, on /sci/!

[Anonymous No.5051216]

great video

[Anonymous No.5052107]

>>5051128
But Schrodinger's cat is about microscopic superposition. What is actually in superposition in the experiment is not the cat but the atom to trigger the cat's death.

[Anonymous No.5053050]

>>5051116
>cats can't observe

[Anonymous No.5053136]

>>5031904
But that's just an opinion. What's really important is that her video is educational and informative.

[Anonymous No.5053150]

>>5031649

>jew science
>lol'd

clearly she's spaming her own fucking videos or someone is doing it for her also

>skinny as fuck DYEL arms
>annoying voice
>2/10 would not bang

[Anonymous No.5053171]

grgertsgregresg

[Anonymous No.5053191]

gredsagresg

[Anonymous No.5054320]

>>5053150

or, perhaps, as probability theory teached us, ppl just like the videos and want to share with the less fortunet.

[Anonymous No.5054960]

>>5053136
I agree.

[Anonymous No.5054986]

>>5053050
They can. He is wrong.

[Anonymous No.5055023]

>>5050276
I asked myself the same question. Bump for an answer.

[Anonymous No.5055056]

>>5053150
What are you on about?

[Anonymous No.5055081]

>>5055056
Nothing. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He is delusional.

[Anonymous No.5055104]

>>5055081
Oh, ok. Thanks anyway

[Anonymous No.5056079]

>>5054320
That doesn't even need probability theory, it's just an observational fact.

[sage No.5056119]

>>5024926

this has been up for two weeks. no need to bemp

hide and sage, hide and sage.

[Anonymous No.5056918]

>>5056079

observation sometimes needs probability theory to explain it.

same as this video.

[Anonymous No.5057755]

>>5056918
Probability theory is a tool we use when we can't determine the outcome exactly. Once we have the technology to fully understand determinism, we won't need probability theory anymore.

[Anonymous No.5057757]

>>5057755
Does this mean Who Wants to be a Millionaire isn't a game of chance?

[encephalon !!shxfCFb4+j/ No.5057789]

LOL someone bumped all the daniella titan videos i love you /sci/

[Anonymous No.5058574]

>>5057757
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.5058575]

>>5057757
Who wants to be a millionaire is a game of skill. Either you know the answer or you don't.

[Anonymous No.5058600]

>>5053050
Why can they?

[Anonymous No.5058610]

I blame TBBT for this.
>It's either alive or dead, but we don't know. That means it's both alive and dead at the same time!
HURR I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR GENDER IS, THEREFORE YOU'RE BOTH GUY AND A GIRL BEFORE I LOOK IN YOUR PANTS

[Anonymous No.5058644]

>>5058610
You are confusing gender with biological sex. Gender is the social expression of your personality. Biological sex is your bodily features and your chromosomes. Two different things and not hard to remember.

[Anonymous No.5058648]

>>5058644
>>5058610
oh boy here we go

[Anonymous No.5058649]

>>5058644
Stop nitpicking, you know what I meant very well.

[Anonymous No.5059472]

>>5058649

he isn't nitpicking. gender and biological sex are not related in that way.

[Anonymous No.5060274]

>>5049382
> It has nothing to do with "communication of information"
Yes, it has. That's exactly what quantum entanglement is about. You collapse a wavefunction here and the information is instantly communicated to all the entangled particles.

[Anonymous No.5060278]

That is either a very large cat or a very small girl.

Also that video is terrible.

[Anonymous No.5060300]

>>5060274
That's not "information". The observer knows what the collapsed state is, but doesn't know whether it's symmetric or anti-symmetric with regard to the collapsed state of the other entangled particle.

[Anonymous No.5060333]

>>5029975
It's explained like shit, what a terrible video.

[Anonymous No.5060373]

bump lol

[Anonymous No.5061133]

>>5029975
>>5060333
You don't know the outcome until you observe it. Did you even watch the video?

[Anonymous No.5061154]

>>5061133
this

[Anonymous No.5061177]

>>5060373
I thought acronyms were discouraged here

[Anonymous No.5061197]

>>5061177
They are, he's new here.

[Anonymous No.5061222]

>>5061197
Oh, I see. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.5061246]

Is it me, or does she get cuter every video?

[Anonymous No.5061267]

"Our curiosity kills the cat." lol

[Anonymous No.5061291]

Schrodinger's Cat. Isn't that the same theory as quantum immortality?

[Anonymous No.5061310]

Im really in love with this, Its sheer genius

[Anonymous No.5061337]

damn why cant they make shit this simple all the time?

[Anonymous No.5061359]

>>5061337
this

[Anonymous No.5062450]

>>5061359

because of job security. if physicists admitted that it was all this easy, they would have to get real jobs.

[Anonymous No.5063245]

>>5062450
Wow, I didn't know that

[Anonymous No.5063610]

I still think DT is the best quantum cat lady :3

[Anonymous No.5063642]

DT fans represent!

[Anonymous No.5064117]

It's Daniella!!!

[Anonymous No.5064327]

>>5024926
bump for the quantum cat:3

[Anonymous No.5064967]

>>5061310
Same here. She really knows what she's talking about and can communicate it efficiently.

[Anonymous No.5066060]

>>5060333

it isn't really supposed to be like a college lecture, more like introduction for someone interested in learning a bit about physics, while having fun.

not so much "cute" science, as casual science. but don't get me wrong - she sticks to valid scientific facts.

[Schrodinger's Cat No.5066068]

meow

[Anonymous No.5066143]

>>5024926
Oh god her voice is so fucking anoying, and the thing is explained like shit, even watching TBBT one can learn a better approach to the experiment

[Carl No.5066151]

>>5066143

watch the one where she dunks a mose in some water. it's better.

and it's good /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5066639]

>>5066151
Do you have a link?