I'm having a hard time believing quantum mechanics. There has to be an underlying explanation that we haven't reached yet. How is it naturally possible? It can't be.

File: 119 KB, 500x681, 1434246032602.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Oct 20 21:34:39 2015 No.7604530 [Reply] [Original]

I'm having a hard time believing quantum mechanics. There has to be an underlying explanation that we haven't reached yet. How is it naturally possible? It can't be.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 20 21:38:06 2015 No.7604538 >>7604530 >haven't studied a single bit of physics, let alone quantum mechanics >HURR I DON'T BELIEVE IT

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 20 21:39:23 2015 No.7604540 >>7604538 Just because you are incapable of understanding it doesn't mean others are as well. Were the primitive experiments not enough?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 20 21:44:16 2015 No.7604553 >>7604530 Quantum mechanics is actually quite elegant if you actually look at it instead of encountering it as a giant popsci list of Weird Things. The difficult and strange part is explaining how it connects to the reality we experience.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 20 21:47:33 2015 No.7604557 >>7604530 LMAO Alex is a cuck. Also the fuck is that shit anyway.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 20 21:49:53 2015 No.7604562 dude quantum mechanics lmao dude spookyness lmao dude randomness lmao dude unquantifiable lmao dude indeterminable lmao dude we cunt no nuffin lmao dude magic lmao

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 20 21:54:59 2015 No.7604571 >>7604557 Vash is an even bigger cuck m8

Anonymous Tue Oct 20 21:55:16 2015 No.7604573

>>7604530
Since you haven't specified a particular area of QM that confuses you, I'm unsure what exactly you're referring to.

In general, the mysteriousness of QM is that really small stuff acts differently than stuff approximately "our" size. Is this shocking? I guess so. If you can remove your presumptions from how things ought to act, QM is a coherent theory. Just remember you have literally no empirical experience with quantum stuff, but you're aware of experimental facts.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 20 22:16:35 2015 No.7604625 >>7604530 is pic a parody? >soliloquy still hasn't gotten her name legally changed

Anonymous Tue Oct 20 22:27:44 2015 No.7604636
File: 119 KB, 1024x700, CGCihlNUEAAX2Y3.jpg large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7604530
>How is it naturally possible? It can't be.
On the one hand, you have your emotional need to believe that there are absolute answers to every question.
On the other hand, there is reproducible scientific observations showing your belief is ill-founded.
You do the math.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 00:47:00 2015 No.7604862 >>7604557 It's probably satire about the whole open relationship fad

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 00:57:40 2015 No.7604891 >>7604530 >believing HOW ABOUT TAKE A FUCKING PHYSICS CLASS THEN YOU FUCKING MONG

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:01:08 2015 No.7604898 >>7604891 In other words, the simple double slit experiment could have an alternative explanation than "if I see it, it changes"

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:04:00 2015 No.7604905 File: 793 KB, 4960x1450, 2668856-1343105061510.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7604530 What aspect exactly are you having a hard time understanding?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:05:13 2015 No.7604907 >>7604898 youtube vids do NOT fucking count as a physics class TAKE ONE

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:06:07 2015 No.7604909 >>7604530 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:17:48 2015 No.7604939
File: 128 KB, 294x316, 1442538889657.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7604907
>taking the academic Jew
Honestly best thing you can do if you want to learn physics is pick up a physics book and start reading.

Literally the only reason to ever take any class is if it is required for a degree which you need for your occupation. You can learn much faster and more cheaply through self-study alone.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:34:11 2015 No.7604971

>>7604907
Well, lectures on youtube serve the same purpose as a physics class. Anyway, the double slit experiment still stays the same, in or out of the class. I think you need to get over the pretentious appeal of sitting behind a desk with 100 others students.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:34:42 2015 No.7604972 >>7604530 >How is it naturally possible? this is your problem

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:36:24 2015 No.7604977 >>7604971 THEN DO SOME SELF STUDY, READING WIKIPEDIA / SEEING YOUTUBE MEMES IS NOT KNOWING PHYSICS, STOP TALKING ABOUT YOUR SHIT MEME EXPERIMENT

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:42:14 2015 No.7604986 >double slit is a meme Now I've heard it all

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:46:34 2015 No.7604996 [DELETED]

>>7604977
It's not a meme. It's a testable experiment you can do. When you observe the "wave" pass through, it "becomes" a particle. But when you don't see it, it's a wave. The "memetic" experiment, no matter how many times said or done, still adheres to reality. And, back to the main point I was trying to make, I don't believe it's just based on probability or whether or not someone is observing it. There is a better explanation we haven't thought of yet.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:49:37 2015 No.7605002

>>7604996
>believe
back to square one, i don't care what explanation you heard on wikipedia/youtube, it's so tarnished it's a meme, go take an actualy physics class if you have any curiosity (OK FUCK, SELF-STUDY)

>>7604986
>implying it's not meme-tier with all the other attractive physic buzzwords posted here

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:50:16 2015 No.7605003

>>7604977
It's not a meme. It's a testable experiment you can do. When you observe the "wave" pass through, it "becomes" a particle. But when you don't see it, it's a wave. The "memetic" experiment, no matter how many times said or done, still adheres to reality. And, back to the main point I was trying to make, I don't believe it's just based on probability or whether or not someone is observing it that "magically" changes the outcome. There is a better, more logical explanation with unconsidered factors that dictates the reason which we haven't thought of yet. Maybe our line of sight does something. Heck, I'd be more willing to believe that we emit some type of radiation from our eyes that affects the outcome than something that just changes after being "watched"

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:51:48 2015 No.7605007 >>7605002 Do you have any idea what I do in my spare time? You don't know anything about me. Your conclusions are consistent with your rationality, or rather, lack of.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:55:31 2015 No.7605019 >>7605003 see >>7605002

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 01:58:24 2015 No.7605024 >>7605007 Then lay down the math you supposedly already know, and realize why it's true, and cut the "believe" bullshit,

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 02:05:38 2015 No.7605037 OP it's like watching TV. If you look closely at the screen you'l see individual pixels and the space between them. If you stand back (assuming you have a good panel) you'll only see the overall picture.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 02:08:29 2015 No.7605043

>>7605024
Oh, you mean walk through everything that is already laid out in online lectures, rather than simply tell you the premise of what you are deducing from the experiments which began the entire field in the first place is wrong? Remember, as what I call an axiom of philosophy is that if the premise is wrong, so is the conclusion. Even if I went on about charged particles in electric fields or spins of particles via vector spaces or operators or anything, the math involved is based on the premise.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 02:09:34 2015 No.7605044 >>7605043 Then learn from something more serious than online lectures, like a book?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 02:11:16 2015 No.7605049 >>7605044 I would love to go into your mind for a day. You are an enigma.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 02:24:25 2015 No.7605075 >>7605049 That experiment isn't a justification. It's simply an explanation. Drop it and learn from something else if you dont like it.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 02:45:08 2015 No.7605117

>>7605043
>Remember, as what I call an axiom of philosophy is that if the premise is wrong, so is the conclusion.

Holy shit you are fucking stupid.

Let's say I have one premise.

Let's keep it simple for you, since you are a special sort of ignorant:

"You're a dumb little bitch, and your reasoning abilities are not your strong suit."

From which we can conclude (when the premise is true) that:
"Your reasoning abilities are not your strong suit."

Which is true.

Now, suppose our premise is false (it isn't, but for the sake of argument). There is only one way it could be false, and that is if the conjunction comes out false. This is only the case when at least one conjunct is false.

Let's suppose it's the first conjunct that's false, that "you're a dumb little bitch" isn't true. Well then the whole premise is false.

By your logic, we can then conclude that the conclusion from earlier is false, that it's not the case that "your reasoning abilities are not your strong suit."

Which would mean that if you aren't a dumb little bitch then your reasoning abilities ARE your strong suit, which is simply not true. You could just be a little slower than average, without being a dumb little bitch (of course this isn't how it is in your case, but rather purely an example).

The fact that a premise is false or flawed has no bearing on the truth value of the conclusion you gigantic retard. The only thing that that means is that the premise does NOT entail a true value for the conclusion, not that it entails a false one.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 02:51:33 2015 No.7605140

>>7605117
premise |ˈpremis|
nounLogic
an assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory: the fundamental premise of the report.

Would you not say that as a result of "reasoning abilities are not your strong suit", that it would follow as a conclusion that "you're a dumb little bitch", though? So if the premise of "reasoning abilities are not your strong suit" is false, the conclusion is false as well.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 02:55:31 2015 No.7605162 >>7605140 Different guy here. Google "fallacy of the inverse"

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:01:40 2015 No.7605182

>>7605162
I really don't want to. A premise is as simple as its definition. The problem is that the example that person provided could work both ways, using "You're a dumb little bitch" as the premise and the other as the conclusion and vice versa. It's because his example is so terrible that I might lose him if I use another.

He put two elements in a premise, and then regurgitated one of those elements as the conclusion. Why not just erase the element in the conclusion from the "premise", and use that?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:04:29 2015 No.7605190 >>7605182 It's to show you with a trivial example that your "logic" is actually a fallacy. ~P and P -> Q does NOT imply ~Q

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:08:25 2015 No.7605199 >>7605140 Premise: All swans are black Conclusion: Some swans are black The premise wrong but the conclusion is still true (and the conclusion even follows from the premise).

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:10:22 2015 No.7605206 >>7605190 I don't know what those symbols denote. So, you're arguing that a wrong premise can have a correct conclusion? Please, tell me you're kidding.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:11:06 2015 No.7605211 Quantum mechanics don't exist. They are an illusion caused by faulty math and tools of detection.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:11:57 2015 No.7605214

>>7605182

It seems he did put both of those in the premise, but I think that was an accident.

Anyway, I should add that observing a wave function doesn't actually mean looking at it. That's a huge misconception. Consciousness has nothing to do with it, and things like Schrodinger's cat are more of an analogy.

I found some girl on YouTube that explained some if it quite nicely. Her channel was through the looking glass or something similar. Worth a look.

Keep in mind that what you perceive isn't always what's right. Put your pride aside and realize that collaborations of dozens of the greatest minds ever known to us have compiled, tested, and verified these things many times over.
Put yourself out there and fully understand their arguments before you attempt to criticize them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:12:56 2015 No.7605216 >>7605206 Im not. If you don't know what those symbols mean then you either i) Dont study STEM ii) Aren't over the age of 18 In any case, please go away.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:13:56 2015 No.7605217 >>7605206 See >>7605199 you retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:14:54 2015 No.7605219 >>7605211 Exactly. It's like when they used a lie detector on a plant. >Well I'll be darned, this plant has feelings! I need to publish this! Not >Damn, seems like my machine is shit. I should work harder.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:16:31 2015 No.7605223 >>7605219 You're either a master baiter or have no concept of how science works.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:17:20 2015 No.7605225
File: 25 KB, 800x800, sdfsfdsf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7605199
No, the premise is still true.. Some of the selected/considered swans are black, but all of them are black. That argument is a total play on words.

IF all the swans are black, all the swans are black. You can't retract it in the conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:21:59 2015 No.7605231 File: 39 KB, 562x437, Ohwow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7605225 3/10 bait

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:22:12 2015 No.7605232 >>7605225 Sorry, let me rephrase that: Of all that are black, some which were selected/considered are black.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:23:07 2015 No.7605235 >>7605225 http://www.mathplanet.com/education/geometry/proof/if-then-statement

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:24:43 2015 No.7605237 >>7605232 >>7605225 you have a really fucking hard time with language dont you

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:24:55 2015 No.7605239

>>7605225
>>7605232
So all swans are black? This is not only empirically false but you have no argument for why it is necessarily true. It is false, could be false, and I am calling it false for the purposes of the hypothetical. You claimed that an argument with a false premise must have a false conclusion. I showed you an argument with a false premise and a true conclusion.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:25:08 2015 No.7605240

>>7605237
>>7605231
The problem with it is the confusion by the sentence which is extremely vague. You don't specify anything at all. Some (which implies not all of them are being considered) of the swans are black, but still, all of them are black. This reminds me of that "What is 3 x 5 / 6 + 2" question you always throw out to people. You aren't being specific at all. The premise always remains intact. You cannot change the result to not conform to the premise, otherwise you're working from a different premise.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:26:58 2015 No.7605245

>>7605182
>>7605214
>
>It seems he did put both of those in the premise, but I think that was an accident.

It was quite purposeful actually. Here's another, simpler example to illustrate the point.

P1: 99/70 = sqrt(2) & x (mod 2) = 1 -> x + 1 (mod 2) = 0

C: x (mod 2) = 1 -> x+1 (mod 2) = 0

The premise is false, since 99/70 != sqrt(2). However, the conclusion is still true despite the fact that the premise is false and that the conclusion is a conjunct in the premise.

That's because the truth or falsity of the premise has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the conclusion, without demonstrating that the falsity of the premise necessarily entails the falsity of the conclusion, which is a much stronger claim
than logical implication or entailment.

It helps to think about it this way.

If you have a set of propositions gamma, then for any proposition Q entailed by gamma, delta implies Q where delta is a superset of gamma.

This is called monotonicity of entailment. As a consequence, even if you add unsatisfiable formulae to construct the superset delta, and even if gamma is the empty set, delta still implies Q.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:28:51 2015 No.7605250 >>7605240 You're not making any sense AT ALL. The premise -> conclusion example of For All and Some given by the first guy was good.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:29:07 2015 No.7605251 >>7605245 But you cannot say in the premise a false statement.... Because then the premise and everything that follows is entirely wrong.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:29:35 2015 No.7605252

>>7605240
There is nothing vague about it.

If all swans are black then at least one swan is black.

What about this argument don't you understand?

It's a valid argument (meaning the conclusion follows from the premises assuming they are true), but not a sound one (since the premise is not true). The validity of the argument is separate from its soundness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:30:41 2015 No.7605253 >>7605251 What follows doesn't have to be wrong, only the implication. >>7605245 stop trying, the guy hadn't studied predicate logic and won't get it

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:31:08 2015 No.7605257

>>7605250
Sure I'm making sense, you guys just thrive off being vague and not specifying what you mean.

So by saying that some of the swans are black, you're implying the rest of the swans aren't? You just stated in the premise that all swans are black. You can't just change that because you feel like it. It's a play with words. I had a better example of how well you guys like to play with words. There was a thread somewhere not long ago which did this very thing. I wish I saved them for this occasion.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:31:41 2015 No.7605258

>>7605251
>But you cannot say in the premise a false statement.... Because then the premise and everything that follows is entirely wrong.
We just showed you it's not. And of course you can make an argument with false premises. People do it all the time. Another example:

If wish-granting genie's existed then I could get rich.

But you can still get rish even if wish granting genies don't exist. The falsity of the premise does not necessitate the falsity of the conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:33:35 2015 No.7605261 >>7605258 >>7605258 If you're telling me anything after "99/70 = sqrt(2)" has any relevance to being "correct", there is no point in discussing this further.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:34:16 2015 No.7605262

>>7605257
You're not making any sense at all. I'll rephrase the first example more formally so you can try to get it.

Proposition P: All swans are black.
Proposition Q: Some swans are black.

It is true that P->Q.
It is true that Q.
However, it is not true that P.
This proves that ~P & P->Q does NOT imply ~Q.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:35:44 2015 No.7605263 >>7605261 There is no point because you have no knowledge of basic predicate logic at the high school level. You're objectively wrong, but you lack the basic knowledge to understand the examples you've been given. It's impossible to get through to you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:36:06 2015 No.7605264 >>7605262 Can you please cut it with the symbolism? Just speak in words please.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:36:52 2015 No.7605266 >>7605261 >If you're telling me anything after "99/70 = sqrt(2)" has any relevance to being "correct" If 99/70 = sqrt(2) then 1 = 1 Well I guess you just disproved 1 = 1 then huh?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:37:07 2015 No.7605268 >>7605263 You're right. If this is what you call logic I want nothing to do with it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:37:53 2015 No.7605272 >>7605268 You're off to a good start, Retardo.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:38:08 2015 No.7605273 >>7605266 but it doesn't so where is the "else" condition to the if?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:40:28 2015 No.7605277 >>7605264 No. You were told you were not making any sense, and you say you are. You say we're making a play of words, so here you go, objective statements. If you don't get it, too bad, you're going to have to trust us that you're not making any sense.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:41:25 2015 No.7605279

>>7605273
But what doesn't, 1 doesn't equal 1? And arguments don't need an "else" condition.

You have 3 choices:

1. Disprove the argument "If all swans are black then some swans are black."
2. Prove all swans are black
3. Disprove that some swans are black

If you fail to do any of these three then you must concede a valid argument exists with a flase premise and a true conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:41:29 2015 No.7605280 >>7605273 >but it doesn't so where is the "else" condition to the if? toppest kek, this one got me

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:43:20 2015 No.7605283

>>7605277
You're using symbols I am not familiar with. Wouldn't it make sense to speak what you mean unless you want to go through the effort of explaining what each symbol means? You can say what you mean in words without playing with words and being totally ambiguous. Are you folks really calling me "retarded"? Wow. Irony

The duck example I will write down of many I'm sure to come in the future of cases where you're being totally ambiguous to confuse.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:45:03 2015 No.7605286 >>7605283 This is standard symbology taught in any high-school level predicate logic class. ~ means not -> means implies You acting all high and mighty when you already told us you haven't finished high school is fucking retarded of you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:45:57 2015 No.7605287 >>7605279 It's basic programming.. if (99/70 == 2**2) { // 1 = 1; } else { //here, you need a course of action if it isn't true. And it isn't so what else do you have to say here? And what is your point that you're trying to make? }

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:47:31 2015 No.7605290 >>7605287 Top kek, you're actually serious This isn't programming bud, it's logic. P implies Q is a valid statement without regards to whether P or Q are true

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:47:34 2015 No.7605291 >>7605286 I don't think I ever said I never finished high school. You just assumed incorrectly, just like your entire method of reasoning. You just made me very comfortable in the idea that even with education, some still don't understand logic.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:48:40 2015 No.7605294

>>7605286
I don't think I ever said I never finished high school. Nor am I "acting high and almighty". You just assumed incorrectly, just like your entire method of reasoning. You made me very comfortable in the idea that even with education, some still don't understand logic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:49:17 2015 No.7605295 >>7605291 So you just didnt pay attention in class? What is it, why the FUCK dont you know predicate logic at whatever old you are and why the FUCK are you being so dense?

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:49:18 2015 No.7605296

>>7605287
This isn't a program numbnuts. Not to mention that it's perfectly possible to make a program with an if statement without an else statement:

If True = True
then bla bla bla

Besides the fucking entire analogy makes no sense. What is the problem with me arguing that if all swans are black some are black without talking about what is true if all swans are not black? That's not how arguments work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:49:27 2015 No.7605297 >>7605287 You must be a shit programmer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:52:49 2015 No.7605305 >>7604939 some people need structure and motivation but i agree.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:52:50 2015 No.7605306

>>7605296
Right, so if it isn't true, it just skips the entire if statement, so likewise, I'll skip everything you have to say because it's false.

A premise is simple: Its a statement from which you can conclude something else. To say that "All swans are black" and then conclude "some are black" and then say that this is proof that the premise is false, really makes me wonder what kind of a crowd I'm dealing with.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:55:14 2015 No.7605309

>>7605306
I'll try to repeat it once more.

If we assume "All swans are black" as a premise, then we can easily conclude "Some swans are black".

However, it happens that "All swans are black" is false, some are white. This doesn't invalidate the conclusion, "Some swans are black" happens to still be true, even if it can be concluded from a false premise.

This means you arguing that a false premise makes a result false is wrong.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:56:01 2015 No.7605311

>>7605306
>Right, so if it isn't true, it just skips the entire if statement, so likewise, I'll skip everything you have to say because it's false.
>because it's false
So you are saying that all swans white? You are contradicting reality.

if True = False
then this computer exists

Oh well I guess this computer doesn't exist. Stop typing on your keyboard because your computer doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:56:34 2015 No.7605312 >>7605306 >i am computer You don't actually know programming, your introductory python shit doesn't count, faggot

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:58:33 2015 No.7605313 >>7605306 if True = False then you are straight Look at that just "proved" you're a fag, because everything after a false premise is false.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 03:59:49 2015 No.7605316

>>7605309
Oh, so in this case we're saying that the premise is false. OK. It appears that you did say that so that was my fault for misreading.

That's actually a great one. But the problem here and especially in the case of physics is that you never want to start off with a false premise, because even if the conclusion coincidentally is true, it doesn't fully explain what is going on. Unless you were just pointing out that the general statement of "if the premise is wrong, so is the conclusion" isn't correct in all cases, I will then agree. I really just want to emphasize the importance of "if the premise is wrong, so is the conclusion" in physics, because the goal is to fully understand what's going on.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:00:27 2015 No.7605318 >>7605306 if True = True then you are a faggot hey i found an alternate proof. am i a logician now?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:01:38 2015 No.7605322 >>7605316 GUYS HE GETS IT WE DID IT EVERYONE GO HOME I CAN SLEEP

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:02:50 2015 No.7605324

>>7605003
I think a critical point youve missed here is the definition of observed.

In such an experiment, you cannot actually observe as in see with your eyes what is happening. In order to find out what is going on you have to interact with the particle, which collapses the wave function. This is the cause of the problems with measuring in QM.

For example, to measure a particle that hypothetically had zero temperature, you would have to apply a force to it to detect it, thereby giving it a temperature, so it would be impossible to measure it as zero from simple observation alone

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:02:51 2015 No.7605325 >>7605322 He's still going to post stupid shit. We merely filled in a crack in a dam of stupidity ready to burst.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:03:23 2015 No.7605326 >>7605322 So you understand what I'm trying to say though, right? Since then I can sleep happy as well. Can you agree that "if the premise is wrong, so is the conclusion" applies fully in physics?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:05:29 2015 No.7605330 >>7605326 >"if the premise is wrong, so is the conclusion" come on we just proved this is false. your idea is clear from post 1, just stop saying this

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:06:37 2015 No.7605333

>>7605322
>>7605316
Unfortunately he still doesn't get it.

Here's what you seem to be missing: JUST BECAUSE A PROOF OR ARGUMENT IS INCORRECT (EITHER UNSOUND OR INVALID, IT DOESN'T MATTER) DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT ARGUMENT IS FALSE OR INCORRECT.

ALL IT MEANS IS THAT THE PROOF IS WRONG, IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE CONCLUSION.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:09:51 2015 No.7605336

>>7605330
Why would you ever want to work with a false premise in physics? This is what I'm trying to say. If it is true that there is a logical reasoning behind the effects of the double slit experiment that we can intuitively and logically understand, why would you still stick with the previous notion of "it's magic that depends on statistics and whether or not you're observing it"?

I would like to know if there are any other examples of this rather than just toying with quantities, too, by the way. Are there any others?

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:16:05 2015 No.7605341 [DELETED]

>>7605333
No, I get it now. It was my fault for misreading.

It's also important to note that the logical way will most likely have a different conclusion than that which you'd get from "it's magic that depends on statistics and whether or not you're observing it". Do you really think it's possible to get the same conclusion from one premise which uses statistics and probability over the other which uses logic and predictability? If you say "who knows, since all swans are black is false, and some swans are black is true" we can end the conversation here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:23:03 2015 No.7605347 And then they walk away after the misunderstanding was cleared.. I guess they were just trying to prove that the phrase does not apply in all cases, rather than the just ones in physics in terms of finding what is true.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:30:37 2015 No.7605353

And then they walk away after the misunderstanding was cleared.. I guess they were just trying to prove that the phrase does not apply in all cases. It was my fault as well for not being explicit enough. I should have said that "if the premise is wrong, so is the conclusion" is wrong only when we're speaking of physics when you're trying to find the objective truth, because no one in their right mind would start an argument with a statement that, from the very start, is not true.

I also should have specified that the swan example is different because the opening premise could be true, but the premise I'm talking about here in physics is one which is either true or not, and not "could be true, it just depends on what you want to conclude".

Wow, all the blame is on me here! I wasn't specific at all. Sorry guys! Is there a term I can use in the dictionary for this example of confusion? They are both premises but different in nature.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:33:38 2015 No.7605354 >>7605353 A hypothetical premise! There we go!

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:41:51 2015 No.7605363

For any future readers that come, I just want to clarify what happened here:

An argument was made over a statement I made which was as follows:

"If the premise is false, so is the conclusion",

which was

"Premise: all swans are black
Conclusion: some swans are black"

The premise is wrong, but the conclusion is correct in this case, but this example is different from my context in that I was relating my statement to the hypothetical premise of quantum mechanics which sprouted the entire study and mathematics of it to what it is today. If the hypothetical premise is wrong, so is the conclusion, but if you're not making any leaps and assumptions in your premise such as "All swans are black", it could be false when the conclusion is true, it just depends on what you want to set the conclusion to.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:42:13 2015 No.7605364 >>7605333 y u mad tho

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:47:04 2015 No.7605369

>>7605353
>And then they walk away after the misunderstanding was cleared.. I guess they were just trying to prove that the phrase does not apply in all cases. It was my fault as well for not being explicit enough. I should have said that "if the premise is wrong, so is the conclusion" is wrong only when we're speaking of physics when you're trying to find the objective truth, because no one in their right mind would start an argument with a statement that, from the very start, is not true.

This is absolutely incorrect. Do you know what a proof by contradiction is? You start by assuming the opposite if what you want to prove, and show that it leads to a contradiction. Therefore the initial assumption must be false.

The original proof that sqrt(2) is irrational is an example of this if you want to check it out.

>I also should have specified that the swan example is different because the opening premise could be true, but the premise I'm talking about here in physics is one which is either true or not, and not "could be true, it just depends on what you want to conclude".

Any rigor that physics has comes from the formalism proffered by mathematics. A proof in physics is no different than one in maths. One of the major differences is that, as with any empirical science, we can the test our mathematical results with experimental data.

>Wow, all the blame is on me here! I wasn't specific at all. Sorry guys! Is there a term I can use in the dictionary for this example of confusion? They are both premises but different in nature.

No, a premise has a very specific meaning. It's alright to be wrong sometimes. We all are at some point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:48:18 2015 No.7605372 >>7605363 It also depends on whether or not your conclusion is a deduction of the premise. "Some swans are black" isn't a deduction from the false statement "All swans are black". It's a further realization after the premise was made.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:50:36 2015 No.7605375 >>7605369 But I'm trying to clear up the confusion here because as it stands now, there are huge differences between the two usages of "premise". One conclusion is a deduction from the premise, the other is not.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:52:55 2015 No.7605379 [DELETED]

>>7605372
>It also depends on whether or not your conclusion is a deduction of the premise.
Not really. His argument was a deductive one.

"Some swans are black" isn't a deduction from the false statement "All swans are black".
Yes it is.
If everything has a property p, then at least one thing has a property p is deductively valid in any non-empty interpretation.

It's a further realization after the premise was made.
You are conflating logic with reasoning.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:54:03 2015 No.7605380

>>7605372
>It also depends on whether or not your conclusion is a deduction of the premise.
Not really. His argument was a deductive one.

>"Some swans are black" isn't a deduction from the false statement "All swans are black".
Yes it is.
If everything has a property p, then at least one thing has a property p is deductively valid in any non-empty interpretation.

>It's a further realization after the premise was made.
You are conflating logic with reasoning.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 04:57:37 2015 No.7605383 [DELETED]

>>7605379
But the two examples don't follow the same format.

"Because we see the wave as a particle when we observe it, which also largely depends statistically where it will be, we can say that..."

"Because all swans are/are not black, some swans are black"

They do not align in context.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 05:09:02 2015 No.7605391 [DELETED]

>>7605383
The premise has to be assumed true before you can say it. Why the hell would you ever state that all swans are black when it isn't true? When in physics would you ever do this? It's the difference between:

>"Because we see the wave as a particle when we observe it, which also largely depends statistically where it will be, we can say that..."

>All swans are black. Actually, because some are black, and others are not, not all swans are black.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 05:25:02 2015 No.7605403

>>7605380
The premise has to be assumed true before you can say it. Why the hell would you ever state that all swans are black when it isn't true? When in physics would you ever do this? It's the difference between:

>"Because we see the wave as a particle when we observe it, which also largely depends statistically where it will be, we can say that..."

>All swans are black. Actually, because some are black, and others are not, not all swans are black.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 06:11:14 2015 No.7605448

>>7605403
>The premise has to be assumed true before you can say it. Why the hell would you ever state that all swans are black when it isn't true?

Did you completely ignore what I posted:
>>7605369
here?

There are plenty of reasons to assume premises you know or suspect to be false in many cases.

In fact, since you don't know what is true in many cases, it is often helpful to demonstrate that a premise or premises strictly implies some conclusion whether you know if the premise(s) is/are true or not.

Then, if you can narrow down what you are looking at to a simple case analysis, you can show that what outcomes there would be regardless of which case happens to be the case.

Also, if you can demonstrate that a premise implies a conclusion yet the conclusion doesn't hold, you can infer the premise does not hold. This is called proof by contraposition.

Furthermore, just because a proof relies on or is about statistics or probability does not mean it isn't a deductive proof.

For instance if I reduce both cases in a split probability to a dilemma, I can make sound deductive propositions based on stochastic systems in nature.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 06:30:24 2015 No.7605463

>>7604530
>How is it naturally possible?

Simulation hypothesis.

In a video game you apply frustrum culling to the virtual cameras so that the graphical content that isn't visible doesn't need to be rendered, the same for things too distant to be seen at all.

And things just sortof distant are reduced in complexity(LOD) and fine details are pruned.

More recently tesselation have been developed, which increases the mesh triangle count as you're nearby to something, with the right code you can then move closer and closer and closer to an object and it will continously reveal more and more and more detail.

A beach at a distance can be rendered as a flat surface with texture on it. And as you close in on it it becomes more bumpy, when you stand on it and crouch down it becomes granular. as you put your face towards it you see the grains. As you inspect the grain with tools and probes then molecular bonds are revealed and their mechanics are started to be simulated.

The issue here is that almost every grain of sand or soil or dirt or stone is never going to be inspected, so to keep their exact position and properties saved would be a waste of system resources. Especially when considering things on a grand galactic scale.

So what happens is that you have several different simulation codes on different scales, and you only run the finer grained one when needed. Which is why nanoscale beahviour is not the same as macroscale behaviour. The larger scales are simply derived approximatinos of smaller scales and the transitions occasionally shows some strange artifact like quantum eraser experiments.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 06:34:50 2015 No.7605466

>>7605463

Not all the simulations even need to run at the same speed due to the lightspeed delays and distances you can process data in an asynchronous manner without revealing any glaring errors and inconsistencies. The large scale surface texture generation simulation will generate consistent appearance of all planets even if the insect life simulation still have 20 planets to go through before it can create the fine-detail causal link that enables the green parts to exist on said planet. But the high level sim doesn't need that, it just uses a fancy noise algorithm.

Human innovation sim could also be pre-run into the future to forecast which fine grain simulations that need to be queued up and prepared, or even directly interfere to inhibit behaviour that would lead to runaway demand on high-demand simulation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 06:45:17 2015 No.7605471 >>7604557 Also why are there so many fucking lesbians?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 07:16:51 2015 No.7605505 >>7604530 how the fuck can you be a co-parenting single parent?

>>	H Wed Oct 21 08:51:34 2015 No.7605627 >>7604862 Nope, it's a webcomic about a genderfluid polyamorous AIDS factory.

>>	H Wed Oct 21 08:57:28 2015 No.7605645 >>7605225 1 = 2 implies that 10 = 10 (multiply by zero, then add ten!). The assumption is false, but the conclusion is not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 09:37:52 2015 No.7605719 >>7604530 /r9k/ permavirgin here. Is this how normal human relationships really work? It's more complicated than I could have ever imagined.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 10:53:59 2015 No.7605844

It's a mathematical system that doesnt fail to model small things while still being extensible to macrosystems. What is hard to understand about this? It was made to resolve some experimental results which violated classical models. In the 90 years its been in use there hasnt been a case where it has failed to predict experimental results so it actually works pretty well whether or not you believe it does.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 11:43:42 2015 No.7605916 >>7604530 Waves. Everything is waves.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 12:41:13 2015 No.7606039 ITT: Retards who don't understand the difference between heuristic truths and logical truths

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 12:47:39 2015 No.7606048

>>7605003
And here is your problem. You don't know slightest shit about what observation means (hint: it's not "you literally look at a thing and it becomes a particle"; it's more like: before the measurement, a closed system has several possible outcomes, each with a probability, the overall state evolving according to the Schrodinger Equation; when we start interacting such a closed system with open one - aka measurment - the system now has to take one of these outcomes), nothing about Bell Inequality (which rules out most hidden variable hypotheses), nothing about why the scenario without hidden variables is the best explanation, the list goes on.

The problem isn't experiment being wrong, it's perfectly valid.

The problem is that you jump to conclusions without knowing jack shit about the elementary quantum mechanics (google up "Theoretical Minimum" for a pretty good introduction to QM for amateurs; then study some mathematics and go read Landau & Lifshitz, if you want to know what QM is REALLY all about).

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 12:48:48 2015 No.7606052 >>7605719 no

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 12:54:26 2015 No.7606063

>>7606048
Also now as I see your other posts, OP please don't even go back to the thread, until you study real, mathematical quantum mechanics. Most of your "errors" are strawmans: quantum mechanics doesn't say what you think it says, but you couldn't know this, because the only things you are reading are watered-down, maths-free version of the real physics.

Please know exactly what you are talking about before trying to disprove it, OP.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 13:02:26 2015 No.7606080 >>7606039 >heuristic truths I don't think you have any room to be calling others retards, friend.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 15:54:26 2015 No.7606454
File: 247 KB, 720x1280, Screenshot_2015-10-21-15-47-47.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7604530
>spooks confirmed as being scientifically proven

>There has to be an underlying explanation that we haven't reached yet.
Oh, you mean like much of the scientific theories that have been discovered in the past couple of decades, and those to come?

>How is it naturally possible?
>Completely changes what we view as "possible"
>wow, how is this even possible

>It can't be.
Disprove it then, big guy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 15:56:05 2015 No.7606461 >>7604530 Its ok OP you are not smart enough to fully understand it, try again when your IQ is 152.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 16:10:17 2015 No.7606510

>>7606461
>high IQ dead person like einstein, but with amnesia so that he's psychologically stuck in the era before his death
or
>average IQ alive person who can go full STEM and learn about recent events and adapt his or her point of view to fit and even change the current scientific understanding of our world

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 16:21:01 2015 No.7606552

>>7606461
>thinking you need extraordinary IQ to grasp quantum mechanics

Maths isn't that hard, or at least not hard enough to not be able to be learned by an amateur. You just must have motivation to learn (the subject is utterly fascinating so I guess that's not a problem) and do a lot of work, but it's possible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 16:21:42 2015 No.7606554 >>7606552 Anon math is so hard that people with average IQs thinks its boring.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 21 20:39:03 2015 No.7607159 >>7605252 what if there are no swans? Then the statement becomes vacuously true.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 21:29:59 2015 No.7607271 [DELETED]

>>7606461
Remember, if the premise is wrong, so is the conclusion. This conclusion is a deduction from the premise, so in this case, if I don't side with the premise, I won't side with anything else quantum mechanics offers.

I'm amazed at how openly you guys throw around the word "retard". Take a look at yourselves before you say it. You clearly don't understand what 'premise' means in this context.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 21:35:26 2015 No.7607284

>>7605448
>Furthermore, just because a proof relies on or is about statistics or probability does not mean it isn't a deductive proof.

Did I say it was entirely dependent on that? I think I said for the example of swans that it simply is not a deductive conclusion. You assumed that all swans were black. When this was originally said, you assumed it true, but then you made a conclusion by retracting it and saying some swans are black, but not all are. Which then literally changed the premise from true to false AFTER the conclusion was made. That to me isn't much of a legitimate example. It is completely nullified if you change the result. Otherwise, the conclusion is wrong and must be changed to align logically the original premise. Likewise, if the conclusion of quantum mechanics doesn't align with the premise, you change the conclusion. If you discover the premise is wrong, toss all the books away and start over with your newfound knowledge.

Anonymous Wed Oct 21 21:43:37 2015 No.7607301

>>7606461
Remember, if the conclusion is a deduction of the premise, and if the premise is wrong, the conclusion is wrong too. When we reason in physics, a conclusion is a deduction from a premise, so in this case, if I don't side with the premise of quantum mechanics, I won't side with anything else quantum mechanics offers.

It's like saying "The sky is actually green but changes to blue when we view it" I could go on and on about all the mechanisms responsible for it, but if you know that the premise is wrong, why the hell would you follow the trail leading to the conclusion of "The world just isn't what it seems"? You wouldn't waste your time. Do you understand my point? At most what I'll do is start from the original experiment and work up my own thoughts on the matter until I find something that I'm satisfied with.

I'm amazed at how openly you guys throw around the word "retard". Take a look at yourselves before you say it. You clearly don't understand what 'premise' means in this context.

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

/sci/ - Science & Math