Author Topic: unmeasurable particle created???  (Read 6093 times)

Golden Applesauce

  • Token Apologist
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 22325
  • Where does this text go?
    • View Profile
Re: unmeasurable particle created???
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2013, 10:02:12 pm »
Well, no one said the Universe had to play fair.

WE have to play fair.  It should, too.  This is BULLSHIT.  It's like letting the house use marked cards.

No, we ran the experiment proving the cards aren't marked. If they were marked then all the identity axioms explode.

There's only one card, but it's kind of in all the different suits and numbers all the space-times but not all combinations of all numbers, suits, and space-times.

Q: How regularly do you hire 8th graders?
A: We have hired a number of FORMER 8th graders.

Doktor Howl

  • SHIT FIXER
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 386329
    • View Profile
Re: unmeasurable particle created???
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2013, 10:03:10 pm »
Well, no one said the Universe had to play fair.

WE have to play fair.  It should, too.  This is BULLSHIT.  It's like letting the house use marked cards.

No, we ran the experiment proving the cards aren't marked. If they were marked then all the identity axioms explode.

There's only one card, but it's kind of in all the different suits and numbers all the space-times but not all combinations of all numbers, suits, and space-times.

:rogpipe:

Reginald Ret

  • 'Miserable Atrocianthrope'
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 38806
  • Interweb Gloryhole QC Inspector #23
    • View Profile
Re: unmeasurable particle created???
« Reply #32 on: May 29, 2013, 12:29:35 pm »
This book helped me wrap my head around it a bit.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8243716-how-to-teach-quantum-physics-to-your-dog

It's been a while since i read it though, so I can't remember the details except that it was fun and interesting.
Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Nigel saying the wisest words ever uttered: "It's just a suffix."

"The worst forum ever" "The most mediocre forum on the internet" "The dumbest forum on the internet" "The most retarded forum on the internet" "The lamest forum on the internet" "The coolest forum on the internet"

Cain

  • Alea iacta est
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 105044
    • View Profile
Re: unmeasurable particle created???
« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2013, 07:01:58 pm »
Did it show you how to teach QM to your dog?

Or, for no apparent reason, teach him to say "Chad Orzel"?

GrannySmith

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 2591
    • View Profile
Re: unmeasurable particle created???
« Reply #34 on: June 25, 2013, 11:06:49 am »
This is another good introduction, and it's free:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/

Not to get spooky, but when you get really fucking small, it's all clouds of probabilities.

This is a really GREAT link - i'm still enjoying it every now and then. The first time i clicked on it it led me to http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes - one of the best and funniest maths explanations i've ever read. Thanks for that LMNO!

But I'm more into Marburg's book at the moment and I can't let go (even the fonts look great to me in this book - it's quickly rising in my favourite books list). I'm at page 67 now where he finally starts explaining these "clouds of probabilities" mentioned above. He says

Quote from: Marburg's "constructing reality"
The probability aspect of the wave function is more general than the "wave-like" aspect. I wish we could replace the word "wave" with something else, like "information" or even "Born", as in "Born function," but this is not the worst etymological misfortune in quantum theory, and I simply warn you here once and for all that the word "wave" is misleading.

I assume that the worst etymological misfortune in quantum theory is "particle" then  :lulz:
So it's definitely not a particle, and not a wave. Until now, such unvisualisable objects existed for me only in hardcore set theory's extra large infinities. And they were the reason i felt that such abstract maths have nothing to do with reality - but behold! Wonderful abstract objects may exist in reality too! :D
  X  

GrannySmith

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 2591
    • View Profile
Re: unmeasurable particle created???
« Reply #35 on: June 26, 2013, 12:44:30 pm »
Uh, that last paragraph of mine barely makes sense... :eek:
what i wanted to say is that I'm falling for quantum theory. But this attitude that physicists have that (quantum) nature is impossible to visualise is bothering me somewhat, especially since i thought that if i can't visualise it, or even draw something, anything that is supposed to represent it, then i don't understand it. They also say that nature is thus not intuitive - but intuitions come from knowing and understanding something really well. For example, the extra large infinities of set theory are unintuitive, surprising, and confusing in the beginning, but after a certain amount of working on them, one gets intuitions about them, as in sombunall fields of science. Of course theoretical maths are easier - we make up what's true, we make up the rules, and we play. Physics has to explain the experimental results - and that's the fun in it. But if we assume that these experiments measure things in the real world, then we and our brains are also parts of this real world. I can't see any reason why not, after a certain amount of work, we cannot "visualise" the quantum realm and have intuitions about it.

Any attempts in describing the quantum reality will be much appreciated!!

(What about these three dimensional standing waves thing? Can't seem to find enough information on that... or maybe i should just go back to reading marburger...)
  X  

Reginald Ret

  • 'Miserable Atrocianthrope'
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 38806
  • Interweb Gloryhole QC Inspector #23
    • View Profile
Re: unmeasurable particle created???
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2013, 02:16:53 pm »
Did it show you how to teach QM to your dog?

Or, for no apparent reason, teach him to say "Chad Orzel"?
It alternates serious chapters each about one aspect of quantum physics with silly chapters where the dog tries to cheat reality by trying to apply that aspect. Mostly to catch squirrels.
It first gives your brain information in a high density, and then relaxation while still staying on topic. It is a great way to learn things.

Ooooh linky!

Each chapter is built around a conversation between Chad Orzel, a physics professor at Union College, and his dog Emmy, the Queen of Niskayuna, in which Emmy seizes upon some aspect of quantum mechanics as a way to obtain doggy goals-- using her wave nature to surround bunnies, using quantum tunneling to pass through the fence to the neighbor's yard, using quantum teleportation to surprise squirrels in the back yard. Each conversation is followed by a more detailed explanation of the real phenomena at the heart of quantum physics (with occasional interjections from Emmy).

Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Nigel saying the wisest words ever uttered: "It's just a suffix."

"The worst forum ever" "The most mediocre forum on the internet" "The dumbest forum on the internet" "The most retarded forum on the internet" "The lamest forum on the internet" "The coolest forum on the internet"

Prelate Diogenes Shandor

  • Promotor Fidei
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 17456
  • Behold! The Yellow Sign of Dobbshead
    • View Profile
    • Yiffstar User Profile
Re: unmeasurable particle created???
« Reply #37 on: November 21, 2014, 02:53:04 am »
Well, the last years, science news are becoming more and more science fiction but THIS.........!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829160.300-nothing-to-see-the-man-who-made-a-majorana-particle.html
Quote
What is a Majorana fermion?
It is named for the physicist Ettore Majorana, who found that a particle could be its own antiparticle. If a particle has properties with values unequal to zero, then its antiparticle has the opposite values. What that means is that all the properties of a Majorana fermion, the charge, energy, what have you, it's all zero. It is a particle, but it doesn't have properties that we can measure. :eek: :eek: That makes it very mysterious. It also makes it difficult to find.

sometimes it seems that soon there might be nobody left who can understand science anymore...

I think a lot of the incomprehensibility of this comes down to that particular article being rather poorly written. In the quoted passage for example, either there are one or more sentences missing between the second and third sentences, or else the author does not understand how antimatter works.
Praise NHGH! For the tribulation of all sentient beings.

a plague on both your houses -Mercutio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrTGgpWmdZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVWd7nPjJH8

It is an unfortunate fact that every man who seeks to disseminate knowledge must contend not only against ignorance itself, but against false instruction as well. No sooner do we deem ourselves free from a particularly gross superstition, than we are confronted by some enemy to learning who would plunge us back into the darkness -H.P.Lovecraft

He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster -Nietzsche

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

You are a fluke of the universe, and whether you can hear it of not the universe is laughing behind your back -Deteriorata

Don't use the email address in my profile, I lost the password years ago

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: unmeasurable particle created???
« Reply #38 on: November 21, 2014, 03:09:13 am »
Well, the last years, science news are becoming more and more science fiction but THIS.........!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829160.300-nothing-to-see-the-man-who-made-a-majorana-particle.html
Quote
What is a Majorana fermion?
It is named for the physicist Ettore Majorana, who found that a particle could be its own antiparticle. If a particle has properties with values unequal to zero, then its antiparticle has the opposite values. What that means is that all the properties of a Majorana fermion, the charge, energy, what have you, it's all zero. It is a particle, but it doesn't have properties that we can measure. :eek: :eek: That makes it very mysterious. It also makes it difficult to find.

sometimes it seems that soon there might be nobody left who can understand science anymore...

I think a lot of the incomprehensibility of this comes down to that particular article being rather poorly written. In the quoted passage for example, either there are one or more sentences missing between the second and third sentences, or else the author does not understand how antimatter works.

New Scientist.

So, the latter.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


The Invisible Man

  • gives people the beeps
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 29947
    • View Profile
Re: unmeasurable particle created???
« Reply #39 on: November 21, 2014, 05:33:40 pm »
What's the story with New Scientist? Jive?

Reginald Ret

  • 'Miserable Atrocianthrope'
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 38806
  • Interweb Gloryhole QC Inspector #23
    • View Profile
Re: unmeasurable particle created???
« Reply #40 on: November 22, 2014, 12:08:30 am »
I've heard things like it a lot, but I also go out of my way to expose myself to those things. And I still don't get it. Like, at all. I think it's the kind of thing you can beat your head against your whole life and still never really understand it.

The main problem is that, like LMNO said, you can't really picture it since picturing things puts it in the larger than atoms level of reality where shit like that can't happen. I'm hoping that whatever math classes I take will help me understand it a bit better, but I'm thinking of teaching myself calculus and such anyway even if I don't have to take it.

I still stare of at nothing every now and then, just trying to imagine it... i gotta start reading that math!

This is another good introduction, and it's free:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/

Not to get spooky, but when you get really fucking small, it's all clouds of probabilities.

GREAT link, thanks again!! :D

probabilities - luckily i'm a statistician at the moment! :) the clouds part might take a while to get though... :?



So to anyone with math issues who reads: I offer online math help for free (sombunall undergraduate level maths)
Well, can you imagine a cloud with differing densities of water drops depending on where you are in the cloud?
If you can, the density is the probability of the potential interaction (usually called particle) in that place in the cloud. The sum of the densities a.k.a. probabilities must of course be 1. The cloud is the probability distribution. (at least, I think that is how it works. I might very well be wrong.)

I see no reason to limit the cloud to only three dimensions, but that is a question for the physicists. I haven't a clue how to start figuring that one out.
Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Nigel saying the wisest words ever uttered: "It's just a suffix."

"The worst forum ever" "The most mediocre forum on the internet" "The dumbest forum on the internet" "The most retarded forum on the internet" "The lamest forum on the internet" "The coolest forum on the internet"

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: unmeasurable particle created???
« Reply #41 on: November 22, 2014, 12:26:40 am »
What's the story with New Scientist? Jive?

It's like a science tabloid, basically. The writers often don't understand the science they're reporting on, frequently seem to have no idea how to gauge scientific import or credibility, and habitually overstate the implications of the research, or simply veer off into wild speculation presented as fact. And then there's the not-science that they publish as science. It's kind of like if P3nt was writing his own science magazine, with Holist as a guest columnist.

“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”