/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4100386
The article mentions that Oxford physicist Michael Sprague claimed that it could be used for information in the future.

Is he wrong, or is the idea he's going for different somehow? Serious question, I'm fuzzy on that issue.

Because all of matter and energy exists as particle-waves, and waves in a 3D perspective describe a spherical shape. The "sphere" is just a trend that matter follows, so as long as there are no interfering or opposing forces, matter takes the simplest shape that it can: a sphere.

When viewed from astronomic scales, gravity becomes so large that the other forces are negligible and will always try to form a sphere. Spin, however, can cause it to "stretch" out into disk shapes. But as long as the force from spinning is less than the force of gravity, the object will hold together. More or less, this describes why orbits also tend to form circles: Because the velocity of the planets is not enough to escape the pull of gravity, and they equal out.

>>4100286
I don't really think I've found a way.

But I'm still curious about why it's impossible. Why's that?

You get crushed on by yourself, or you just collide with yourself.

>>4100325
The portals in the OP are not the same portals from Portal. They are very similar, though, and run on all the same mechanics. However, the difference is that they are able to move.

Unfortunately, quoting the game makers on what they said about their own portals isn't useful, as they are not the same portals as these. They can only be used as reference for what potentially might happen.

Satisfied?

>>4100270
Continuing.

Now let's say that we attach a miniature camera that always rotates at the same rate as coin B, but we have another camera which does not rotate at all. Both coins are still the same coin, however, they are being viewed from different perspectives.

According Camera A, both Coin A and Coin B are spinning at the same (but opposite) rates. However, according to Camera B, the coin is not spinning at all. It just sits there.

So which camera is the reality? Unfortunately, each perspective is in itself skewed. We refer to this as "Observer effect", and because of observer effect, we end up with 2 completely contradictory results.

This, in essence, is what is going on with quantum entanglement. The method of observation we attempt is flawed in itself, which results in us not understanding what we are looking at. It is deemed as non-nonsensical or impossible, however, it is happening and we have no means to disprove it.

I've drastically simplified what is "really" going on here. However, it's not an exaggeration to say that those diamonds are "the same diamond". Or at least the parts that vibrate are.

>>4099909
I'm not wrong. I've just done a piss-poor job of explaining it.

Entanglement states that the momentums of entangled objects are always equal, but opposite. This translates, of course, to CW and CCW "Spin". The total momentum, however, is indefinite until measured.

The only thing that is changing in the measurements is the perspective itself. Particles are figuratively 2 sides of the same coin, and entanglement is like looking at both sides of the same coin at the same time.

I'll use this picture as an example. Now as you know, both coins are the same coin. Coin "A" is the coin viewed with A on the front. Coin "B" is the coin viewed with B on the front. Remember, both coins are the same coin, and aside from which coin is "front", they each share the same orientation.

Now if Coin A spins, Coin B must spin at an equal rate. However, for Coin B to be spinning at the same rate, it needs to spin in the opposite direction. Thus, coin A appears to spin clockwise, while coin B appears to spin counterclockwise. System is a closed system, and maintains equilibrium the whole time.

I'd probably pull up a lawn chair, watch, and see what they do first. Maybe pop open a can of beer even.

I mean, shit. If they're already willing to land in my back yard to begin with, then they've obviously got some sort of reason for being there. And even if they don't, what the fuck am I supposed to do anyway? So I'm just going to show no fear, and let them do what they want. C'mon, they're fucking aliens. If they've made it this far, what's going to stop them from getting into my house in the first place?

"What if they can't break through doors?"
"What if they want to kill you?"
"What if they are waiting for you to talk to them first?"
"What if you accidentally say something that is actually "offensive" in their language?"
"What if?"
"What if?"

Face it, I can imagine a million possibilities where something I do either isn't what they want, or just makes things worse. These are intruders I know nothing about, so as far as I'm concerned: If they want something from me, they can just come and get it themselves. In the meantime, I'm just gonna go back to doing what I originally planned on doing.

You know about the idea that 2 objects cannot exist in 1 spot at the same time? And that 1 object cannot exist in 2 spots at the same time?

Yeah. Turns out that's not actually true. Or to be more accurate, only one of those laws can be true. The only reason it seems like it's true, is because we've made scientific laws to say it will never happen.

Even if we DID observe it happen, our understanding of it would be "But those aren't actually the same object. 'Something else' is going on" or "That's not 2 objects in one spot. It's just a different object altogether."

I guess the best way to put it is that, yeah. Both erasers get affected, because there is only 1 eraser to begin with. Goddamn, this is hard to explain... I wish I could go into more detail, but I'd have to draw up images and shit. Just keep this things in mind:

1) Spin is the inherent "momentum" of a particle
2) Spin can be "negative", it just means that it's momentum is in the "opposite" direction.
3) When entangled, the Spin of one object changes inversely with the other.

Long story short, to go to your eraser example: If you kicked one eraser, what happens is the other eraser will go flying off in the exact opposite direction. The energy within the interaction is still in equilibrium, because the net force of the erasers, no matter how hard you kicked one, is still 0 (that is, if you chose for their initial momentum to BE 0).

>>4095884
>but instead of writing stuff you have to kill people and draw pentagrams and stuff.
I dunno.

There's a lot of people I know who become "invulnerable" just from saying the word "God". All of the physical limits of the universe seem to disappear at that point.

>>4095889
It's not a question of "What is wrong with physicists?"

It's a question of "What is wrong with the human mind?" It's pretty hard to deny that our perceptions of reality are pretty fucking far from what our eyes see and our brains tell us. That's when even "human perception" has to be taken into consideration: Because a model of the universe needs to also explain why we "see" it that way.

>>4094624
... While I'm thinking about it, I just might go into more detail.

Let's say that that the soft rock is now a rubber ball. You keep trying to smash the rubberball, however, it will not split apart. It's not because the rubberball is "harder": It's because not enough force was applied to the ball in order to split it.

When the forces interact, 1 of 2 things happen: Either the forces "reflect" each other, or one of them breaks. The reason for this is that chemical bonds are really the "stick and ball" models that you usually see. They actually look more like the pic on the right.

You can have a lot of very loose, but highly interwoven bonds, or you can have a few tight but simple bonds. Both of these can work for creating durability, and create the difference between a "break" and a bend". Having these chemical bonds collide is more or less how we "break/bend" things.

The bonds between the paper are not as strong as the bonds in the scissors.

It's kinda like you said with the paper getting "crushed". If you take a hard rock and you hit it against a soft rock, the soft rock will split into 2. And this all happens wherever the scissors and the paper are colliding.

>>4094532
It's more of a trend I noticed than anything else, honestly. Not just in regards to life, but everything in general. But I'll use life as an example, anyway. I'm using terms really broadly, but it's mostly to achieve an overarching concept.

"Life" starts. If life is capable of "evolution", it'll be more likely than life that is not capable of evolution. Life that is static will not adapt and will succumb to entropy. At this point, the trend has been set in motion where those that can adapt to their environment will overcome those that don't. It becomes a self-repeating trend that encourages itself, and eliminates all possibilities in the way. Most things that we consider "intelligent", though, are thing which are aware of their own "process".

Once "intelligence" is achieved, "evolution" itself must "evolve", or again, it succumbs to entropy. When I talk about singularity, it's not necessarily that I think life must rely on tools to survive. But I do think it should be both aware and able to modify itself so that it may continue the trend which bore it.

I can think of many forms of life that may or may not be like we describe it currently. But I can't imagine any form of life which would survive without following this trend in the long run, as the end of the trend means "death" itself. Singularity, to me, is the step beyond intelligence where the modifications are far quicker and much more deliberate.

I know this isn't the exact definition of singularity: but I don't imagine that the path singularity takes will be any different than this.

>>4094481
How does writing a post about how inconclusive the search for aliens is translate to me knowing I'm %100 convinced about anything? I don't get it.

Hot things get cold, cold things get hot.

Think in terms of a sponge. If a sponge is sitting next to an endless source of water, the sponge will eventually become (almost) entirely saturated. If you stick a sponge out in the open, eventually, it dries (almost) entirely out.

If you took that wet sponge and you stuck it next to the dry sponge, eventually, they will become (almost) equal. Whenever you think about heat distribution, think of it being like water in a sponge. That's the best way to imagine the model.

Chances are, any advance civilizations there are in the universe have achieved singularity before leaving their planet for other systems. The desire to "escape death" is very strong, and systems which do not perpetuate themselves, quite frankly, die.

Another likelihood is that they communicate via entanglement as opposed to lightspeed communications, so that we would never be able to detect they were there in the first place. It'd be much like a blind man and a deaf man trying to communicate with each other. Unless the blind man were lucky enough to bump into the deaf man, the blind man would never know he exists. And even then, he could just move out of the way.

Of course, these are just guesses. But the point is that there's so much in the universe that we don't understand, we can either pretend that all anomalies we see are aliens, or they are forces which we have yet to understand. Aliens, more or less, are the new "God". Which, ironically, might even be more apt than we guess.

Long story short, there's somewhere between 0 and infinity other civilizations out there in the universe. But we haven't shown that any exist, and we can't prove that they don't. Ultimately, there really is no way to know until we actually come across aliens.

Schrodinger's Catbox is a bitch.

>Does that make me any less intelligent in your eyes?
Who cares what /sci/ thinks? /sci/ has a lot of people with their heads so far up their asses that the only means of satisfaction for them is to show off what they know and tell anyone who disagrees with them that they are wrong.

This place may be intelligent, but that doesn't stop the people here from being belligerent assholes. As long as you're going about life in a way that doesn't come at the deliberate expense of other people, whatever you do is fine.

That said, don't give up entirely on science. Be careful with what you say and how much you claim to know, though. As long as you are constantly asking people on what they think and for their opinions, that'll get you far, no matter what career you're going into. And I warn you, that might not be easy with a career in media where your job is to proclaim an absolute truth.

tl;dr,
Don't sell yourself out, and you got my respect.

>>4094309
The portals we are describing are not the same portals from the game Portal. They are very similar, however, these portals are able to move. Using examples from the game doesn't really solve our problem unfortunately...

Honestly, OP, the point that you've described almost sounds like singularity. Or something that can only be achieved via singularity.

By this point, I'd be surprised if people didn't begin downloading themselves into "the system" or simply start dying off. Either way, I expect that shortly after, humanity itself "ends" along with nearly all forms of manual labor: When you think about it, almost all manual labor is a by-product of humanity in the first place. Machines don't need much to survive. Almost all material just goes straight into reproduction.

Another way to look at it is that people just simply don't starve. In a sense, once the elite are able to permanently detach themselves from the poor, they do, and you now have 2 separate systems: The robots, and the poor. Class warfare literally becomes man vs. machine, and it's not unreasonable to think that humanity will be wiped out as a result. After all, once a self-sufficient and self-repairing system is born, it rapidly becomes nearly impossible to kill. After all, life's start on our planet was not much different, and our chemical process has gone on for billions of years.

>>4094061
Oh yeah, I just remembered: The really funny part about the momentum of the box?

It just so happens that each perspective is the "negative" of the other. The box viewed from the "blue" portal will have a negative "spin" of the box viewed from the "orange" portal. Is that shit crazy, or what?

I wish I could only describe how warm and fuzzy inside that makes me feel.

>>4094108
Another thing I want to throw out there is that contrary to what most people would think, even Acceleration is relative. You just need the appropriate perspective.

Say there is a ball, floating somewhere in space. Suddenly, the ball unexpectedly and drastically accelerates in a random direction. The ball becomes distorted and elongated as a result.

There's 2 perspectives you can take: Some particle the ball is accelerating in the universe, or the universe is accelerating around that particle. If you pretend that every single other particle were to move at once, but that the attractive forces in the ball allowed it to only stretch and not escape entirely, you've just created a view in which infinite energy was applied to the system, but an infinite amount of energy minus the attractive forces withing the ball was applied in the opposite direction.

This means that each of these perspectives can contain the same momentum, despite their drastically different views. Now I know one of the biggest objections people will have is that I subtracted from infinity.

But frankly having closed system with no momentum suddenly gain massive velocity was just absurd in the first place. Whether you are subtracting from infinity, or if you are adding to zero, neither of these concepts actually work in real life unless we pretend they do (when we do that, we call them "closed systems").

Honestly, this is the biggest reason I think people struggle with higher math and quantum physics: They take everything that was once intuitive to us and shows how absurd it actually is.

>>4093728
>If you have two portals with rope inbetween and you stretch the rope with the portals what force is actually stretching the rope?
The forces of you stretching the rope is forced stretching the rope.

Whatever the tenacity of the rope is, that is exactly equal to how much force you need to apply to move the portals apart.

>>4093722
In a sense, yes. In another sense, no. It depends on which portal you look through. If you ever looked through a moving portal, it would look as though the entire universe itself was moving. Which is essentially what happens. Changing the momentum of a portal is, in essence, the same as changing the momentum of the universe itself.

Long story short, it's just like the boxes.

When you create the portals, either there is One portal and 2 universes, or there is One universe and 2 portals. And both of these view points are entirely correct.

>>4093928
>>4093941
These threads keep going because entanglement is a real property, not a fictional one. Portals are quantum physics exploded and applied to a newtonian level.

The difference, though, is that Newtonian physics and Quantum physics are the same form of physics, viewed from entirely different perspectives. One being a macroscopic perspective, the other being a quantum perspective. The serious difference is that quantum physics normally ignores gravitational forces and relies heavily on probability, so the ideas presented don't translate well into newtonian physics.

The concept of portals does NOT come from Portal. It's been around for a long time, and simply goes by many different names and with slight modifications. Regardless of what the producers of the game say, it is not ridiculous for portals to move. It simply makes the differences between Newtonian and Quantum physics and their approach just that much more apparent.

>>4093724
"Spin" is the inherent momentum of a particle, regardless of whether it is "moving" or not.

Quantum entanglement states that when 2 objects are entangled, their momentum changes based on the particle you are measuring. Quite literally, this is the exact same process the box is going through as you view it from the perspective of the blue portal, and from the perspective of the orange portal. The inherent momentum(spin) of the boxes remains the same from
both sides of the portal: However, the portal you are "viewing from" changes the momentum(spin) of the box. The only thing that has actually changed is that momentum is now newtonian property rather than a quantum property.


As I have said before, entanglement has everything to do with this problem. Don't underestimate me.