PD.com: Better than a xylophone made out of live kittens that you play with a tazer.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It's gpu output. Not even rendered. Just capped in medium. ...
So this odd thought keeps wandering through the back of my mind. How many Americans thought ...Not at first. After being "woke" in this reality, yes.
So was Armageddon on the back of ballot in flaming letters?
This seems to imply the information was destroyed, not occluded. I think of it as all quanta being Janus-like, or two faced. If you chose to look at one face, you are doing so from a particular POV, say the front, so then of course the other side is hidden. I otherwise don't complain about not being able to see the back of someone's head when looking at them in the face?
No analogy is perfect. I just wanted to post something about chainsawing open elephants, tbh.
Yeah. Metaphors are fluttering balls of fragrant screaming pus -- they only work for specific situations, in specific contexts, and if you don't understand the underlying analogy, fairly meaningless.
Not all math is for describing physical behaviour, right? "Pure" maths is about entirely abstract/ideal concepts. Still working on the difference between tools and equipment (maybe a similar distinction?)To complement the above, the "paradox" mainly stems from the math. The particle* has position, and has velocity. That's not arbitrary. We have to choose which one we measure; the math doesn't allow for both.
This doesn't mean the universe is weird -- it means our tools to understand it aren't always up to the task.
Wait, I didn't think it was a matter of tools (scientific equipment), I thought this was somehow the way information about quanta was fundementally organized. That is, to the best of our understanding, the maths /always/ conceals one when the other is revealed. Or, an increase in accuracy for one probability measurement MUST result in decreased accuracy of the other. I even got a sense that we dont have reason to believe the maths is going to go about changing that - that it is fundamentally not up to task, that the universe /is/ weird.
I suppose this is where we reiterate "less mysterious more interesting"?
Not all tools are equipment. Language is a tool for describing things. Math is a language for describing physical behavior.
On the subject of people misunderstanding Quantum. The author is usually good on science, but if there's something off it's better to tell me now than after I've made an ass of myself.
I think this paragraph in particular from the above-linked article might be helpful:QuoteAlso in 1927, Heisenberg made another major contribution to quantum physics. He reasoned that since matter acts as waves, some properties, such as an electron's position and speed, are "complementary," meaning there's a limit (related to Planck's constant) to how well the precision of each property can be known. Under what would come to be called "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle," it was reasoned that the more precisely an electron's position is known, the less precisely its speed can be known, and vice versa. This uncertainty principle applies to everyday-size objects as well, but is not noticeable because the lack of precision is extraordinarily tiny. According to Dave Slaven of Morningside College (Sioux City, IA), if a baseball's speed is known to within a precision of 0.1 mph, the maximum precision to which it is possible to know the ball's position is 0.000000000000000000000000000008 millimeters.