he thinks in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 years or so in the degenerate era, our descendants are going to have to tunnel through to another universe to escape the heat death of this universe pretty based if you ask me
>>7775443 >an electron moves when you look at it, therefore random.
Or it was already going to move in a certain way because you looked at it? I don't understand this "randomness" meme. Just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it's random. It means out tools affect the measurement or our tools are complex enough nor eve will be.
How is this randomness meme even allowed to exist?
>>7775539 >Reality doesn't exist until it is measured >reality does not exist if you are not looking at it >The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence. >Quantum physics' predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness
>>7775691 hat effect you're referring to is the observer effect, wherein the act of observing something changes the thing we observe (and when used on people, interestingly, it's called the Hawthorne Effect -- but anyway).
But the uncertainty principle is a real thing that is apart from the observer's effect. No matter how good your technology is, the uncertainty principle makes it impossible to know both the position and momentum of your particle.
This is partly because your particle exists in a "cloud of probability." That is, there is actually no one specific point in which the particle (such an electron) exists. Rather, it exists in a distribution around the nucleus (for example). For every collection of points in space, there is a probability that is associated with the electron being present there.
The uncertainty principle makes it so that the more you know about the position of the electron, the less you know about the momentum, and vice versa. The act of knowing the position causes its momentum to be very uncertain. At the same time, the act of knowing the momentum makes its position very uncertain. It has nothing to do with observing it, though -- whether we observe it or not, it still acts in that way.
>>7775696 You might also want to look at wave-particle duality. It's a very poorly understood thing AFAIK, especially with these quantum particles. But an electron has both a wavelength, like a wave, and momentum, like a particle.
The crazy thing is, if you treat the electron as a particle, it acts like a wave. And if you treat it as a wave, it acts like a particle.
>>7775691 We can measure the position and the momentum of the electron and positron, and after accumulating a number of such interactions we will know the probability that a photon of this energy has to create an electron positron pair.
The difference with your statement lies in the domain of application of the word "measure".
If we want to go into dimensions much smaller than the micron measurement accuracies of a bubble chamber, then the uncertainty principle becomes important.
Δ(x)Δ(p)>ℏ/2Δ(x)Δ(p)>ℏ/2 with ℏ=1.054571726(47)×10−34Jsℏ=1.054571726(47)×10−34Js is satisfied macroscopically since ℏℏ is practically 00.
It is in the very small dimensions, less than picometers, of the elementary particle interactions where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle effect is significant and unavoidable.
In those dimension it has little meaning to visualize the electron as a small billiard ball. It is an elementary quantum mechanical entity whose domain is described by solutions of quantum mechanical equations. These solutions give the probability of finding the "particle electron" in a specific (x,y,z,t) and depending on the experiment and the boundary conditions, this probability displays a wave nature or a particle nature . In any case it obeys HUP because the HUP arises from the basic assumptions of the quantum mechanical formalism.
The "good enough technology" at those small dimensions has to follow the Quantum Mechanical solutions, so no, the better the position measurement,the worse the momentum knowledge is inevitable.
String theory is a bunch of bullshit. It's pure pseudo-science nonsense. Every time the theory breaks down, they alter constants so their precious meme theory goes back to working smoothly... until the next observation breaks the whole thing again... or they have to combine several completely different string theories together to make things work right.
The whole string of string theories more or less just looks like a goddamn mess. It's assumptions strung to assumptions that are altered on the fly or ignored so that the theory continues to... 'work'?
Don't forget that string theory has yielded nothing scientifically valuable since its inception in the late mid 40's. That's over 70 years of nothing. It has brought us no closer to explaining anything about the universe than before it was conceived, yet we have 'brilliant' scientists like Ed Witten pushing it like it's the only absolute truth in the universe. Each successive generation of scientists only makes the mess even messier as old theories continuously break in the face of empirical data and the theory as a whole can't accurately predict known events/forces correctly in most cases.
Because of the stringy mess that string theory really is, I move to rename it the Spaghetti Hypothesis.
>>7776098 >I, some random poster on 2chainz, the itchy hemorrhoid infested asshole of the Internet, move to change the name of a theory created and propagated by a subset of the scientific community who are well respected >Who let this guy in again? Someone call security please. Not saying Memestrings is right, but you sound fucking retarded.
>>7775695 >>7775715 >>7775730 Stop samefagging; he might be wrong be your criticism is retarded. You can measure the position, momentum etc. of an electron. >>7775700 No, it's very well understood. You treat particles as excitations of a quantum field, or in simple situations as a wavefunction. These can be localised (particle-like), and also spread out (wave-like). In reality, they are somewhere between the two called a wave packet. These waves always come in quantised chunks, and hence behave like particles, even when they are spread out like a wave. The last statement, >And if you treat it as a wave, it acts like a particle is just nonsense. You don't treat quantum particles as one or the other; in quantum mechanics particles are necessarily wave-like, and fields are necessarily quantised (in the situations we're discussing).
>>7775443 Certainty and uncertainty have nothing to do with free will. Uncertainty just means the outcome can't be predicted <with absolute precision>, but you are still about as much the thinker of your thoughts as a basket of eggs is a receiver of eggs.
>>7776193 >relativity Good golly, miss Molly! Here, maybe English isn't your first language : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
What you wanted to type was 'relatively', which would have actually made sense in that sentence.
But again, despite your gaffe, I counterpoint that just because a room full of old men that like to lick each others assholes and sniff up the ass gas of some other faggot that's contributed nothing useful to science over the course of their entire careers thinks that they're all 'respectable, actually doing something useful' scientists doesn't mean that I am obligated to respect them whatsoever.
I don't follow the labcoats around and lick their balls when they try to philosophically bullshit some dumb theory at me that has no basis in reality. When you don't just blindly believe every syllable of shit that rolls off of someone's tongue, I believe you can be accurately described as 'sapient', as in you possess the ability to think independently and form your own conclusions about your current understanding of reality.
>>7776283 Stay mad, dumbass. Everyone from creationists to flat-earthers "draw their own conclusions". Just because you spend time on /sci/ doesn't make your conclusion any more valid than people doing the actually experiments (whether they're actually right or not) and especially not when you're a dorito-cheese covered, mountain dew-drinking, basement-dwelling keyboard warrior.
Keep being mad that those with more drive than you are obtaining more recognition than you even though you supposedly have all this amazing ability to judge things you know nothing about.
Even if they are fundamentally wrong, you're still the nobody, not them.
Blah, blah, blah. Just because I browse 4Chan doesn't mean I'm a nobody. I just really fucking hate how smarmy and gay these guys get over a theory that has absolutely no basis in any actual science.
>>7776366 >didn't read the context of the post Okay, let's walk through that slowly so you can see what's going on, starting with the first grammatically incorrect sentence.
>It's called relativity friend. The sentence doesn't make a lick of sense to begin with. What's he replying to in my post? What's 'relativity' in this context? Relativity is a physics theory. Why is he even talking about that in this reply sentence?
First, fix the grammar: >It's called relativity, friend. It still doesn't make any sense. Is he trying to say that people who study string theory are adhering to the theory of relativity? Where did that come from?
To have this sentence make more sense, let's go ahead and replace 'relativity' with 'relatively'. It's pretty close to the spelling of the word he was trying to use and, when applied in this context, makes sense. So, with this word replacement, the sentence can be interpreted as:
"Relatively speaking, these scientists are well regarded in their fields of study."
Okay, that works. Now, for the second broken sentence: >They're certainly more respected in the community than say...you.
First, fix it: >They're certainly more respected in the scientific community than you are.
Sure, but again, do I want the recognition of people who have made careers out of theories that have not yielded a goddamn thing since the 40's? I'd honestly rather not be associated with these failures.
I hope you understand English slightly better after my short lesson. Jesus, I certainly fucking hope so. (Also, not to nitpick any further, but 'it's all relative' also doesn't work in the context of a reply to my post. What's all relative?)
>>7776603 >Just because I browse 4Chan doesn't mean I'm a nobody Yes, it does. You can't prove otherwise and I don't know why you would even want to. Cry about how gay everyone else some more. Yes, yes, we know how sad and pitiful these high powered physicists are for being on the front of countless magazines and the subject of too many interviews and just generally being a nuisance to you by being in a relatively public spotlight.
>More vapid bullshit Can you be any more retarded? I literally have assburgers and even I can tell that he meant that they're more respected relative to you. He's right. You'd know that if you weren't such a massive newfag who can't tell the difference between a thread with joke responses and a thread with bashing based on an incessant need to saitiate the inferiority complexes of mistake anons.
Your responses have done less than nothing to convince me that you're anything other than just another sad anon . The only new thing I've learned is that you have a compulsion to correct bad grammar (good!) but an inability to parse the context of individual sentences (bad!).
>>7776697 Alright, worship your gaylords. Meanwhile, I'll practice actual scientific methods and theory to knock em all down a few pegs.
>misses the entire point of the lesson Well, I can definitely tell you have legit assburgerrs, comrade. That original response was probably yours based on how mad you're getting at my nitpicking. Aren't you retard folk supposed to be gifted or something?
Have fun being gay, I'm gonna go jack off to some porn. Bye nigga!
Thread replies: 62 Thread images: 6
Thread DB ID: 403470
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.