If you are all going to insist on using Quantum Theory to back up your ill-concieved and fact-lite ideas about reality, lets actually make sure we all know what we are talking about first.
And I can think of worse ways to do that then with this guide http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2007/11/learn_quantum_theory_in_ten_mi.php
(http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk61/fnord_photo/quantumcat.jpg?t=1221202985)
More proof that Science Blogs is the best damn site on the internets.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 12, 2008, 10:56:43 AM
More proof that Science Blogs is the best damn site on the internets.
Yep, also proof that at it's simplest level, I still can't wrap my head around quantum physics.
"Oh boy"
/
(http://www.tvacres.com/images/bakula_pig.jpg)
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20080917.gif)
While we are at it, here's some Cancer 101:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/09/cancer_101.php
"And I tell you about my friend, Fufufu, who will do interesting things to your box."
Quote from: Jason Wabash on September 18, 2008, 01:11:03 AM
While we are at it, here's some Cancer 101:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/09/cancer_101.php
Who's "we" kemosabe?
And what does cancer have to do with quantum?
Quote from: Risus on September 18, 2008, 05:19:22 PM
Quote from: Jason Wabash on September 18, 2008, 01:11:03 AM
While we are at it, here's some Cancer 101:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/09/cancer_101.php
Who's "we" kemosabe?
And what does cancer have to do with quantum?
The OP featured a link to a Science Blog article about the simplification of a scientific subject and has the number 101 in the title. I decided to post another link to a Science Blog article about the simplification of a scientific subject and has the number 101 in the title. Here's another one on Creation Science 101:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/07/creation_science_101.php
Quote from: Vene on September 12, 2008, 03:02:28 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 12, 2008, 10:56:43 AM
More proof that Science Blogs is the best damn site on the internets.
Yep, also proof that at it's simplest level, I still can't wrap my head around quantum physics.
Lets try it on an even simpler level:
1) There is a minimum energy/mass things can have, everything can be measured in a multiple of this minimum.
2) Objects at this size, or close to it, don't have an exact position or velocity, so they look like waves in most experiments.
3) If you try to measure the location, they act more like particles, just to fuck with you, but the velocity gets more uncertain, also just to fuck with you.
Conclusion: God hates physicists.
I can do Heisenberg, just like I can wrap my mind around the quantum structuring of the atom. But that's about all the quantum physics I can digest.
Also, fuck photons.
*reads TFL*
Oh, he's talking about spin transforms.
Next time somebody tries to explain those to you, I reccomend smiling and nodding, then applying a hammer to your own skull.
Quote from: Requiem on September 28, 2008, 02:09:45 AM
Quote from: Vene on September 12, 2008, 03:02:28 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 12, 2008, 10:56:43 AM
More proof that Science Blogs is the best damn site on the internets.
Yep, also proof that at it's simplest level, I still can't wrap my head around quantum physics.
Lets try it on an even simpler level:
1) There is a minimum energy/mass things can have, everything can be measured in a multiple of this minimum.
2) Objects at this size, or close to it, don't have an exact position or velocity, so they look like waves in most experiments.
3) If you try to measure the location, they act more like particles, just to fuck with you, but the velocity gets more uncertain, also just to fuck with you.
Conclusion: God hates physicists.
It's only natural that solipsism gets a bad rep but the logical, all be it mindfucking conclusion ought be for the time that we are not autonomous from what we observe. I'm not talking strict solipsism, 'cause that's just silly. But some sort of of all inclusive cosmic parody.
Alternate conclusion: God's not up to the challenge of completely obliterating a self endowed sense of wonder.
Am I allowed to bump?
Even simpler:
When things get really small, we have to rely on machines to tell us what's happening.
If you set the machine to detect a wave, it will.
If you set the machine to detect a particle, it will.
You can't set it to detect both.
Here's more detail:
Quote from: John Marburger III, "Beneath Reality"The Schrödinger field pattern in position space determines where a detection event is likely to be found, and its pattern in wavelength space determines the momentum we associate with the object causing the event.
If the events are localized in a small region, the wave pattern will be localized but consequently it will contain many elementary waves – its momentum will not be well-defined.
Conversely, if the momentum detector clicks only for a narrow range of momentum values, the wavelength is well-defined, and the wave pattern must extend over many cycles – its location in space is not well-defined.
You can have waves with well-defined position or well-defined momentum, but not both at once. This is the true meaning of the uncertainty relation first enunciated in 1927 by Heisenberg.
The "Heisenberg uncertainty relation" emerged in an atmosphere of confusion from which it has never quite escaped. Much of the fault lies with Heisenberg himself who was not content with setting forth the bare theory, more or less along the lines I have described above (but in mathematical language), he also tried to make the result more comprehensible with suggestive physical arguments.
For example, he implied that the uncertainty has its origin in the inevitable disturbance caused by the measurement process (which is not inherently a quantum concept). Bohr objected to these explanatory efforts, convinced that the matter was deeper than Heisenberg made it out to be.
As I see it, most problems of interpretation are resolved by the simple fact that the microscopic theory does not refer to any physical waves or particles. It refers to well-defined detectors and unambiguous events of detection.
Accounts that ascribe position to particles and momentum to waves apply macroscopic language inappropriately to microscopic nature. You can set a detector to register an event with well-defined momentum, or you can set it to record an event with well-defined position. That does not entitle you to say that the event is caused by a "wave" or by a "particle."
That's a great description, LMNO.
Weirder than quantum theory is our need to mystify it even more. I don't think I've ever seen a documentary where it's presented as something which can be comprehended.
Quote from: LMNO on December 15, 2008, 02:34:59 PM
Even simpler:
When things get really small, we have to rely on machines to tell us what's happening.
If you set the machine to detect a wave, it will.
If you set the machine to detect a particle, it will.
You can't set it to detect both.
Here's more detail:
Quote from: John Marburger III, "Beneath Reality"The Schrödinger field pattern in position space determines where a detection event is likely to be found, and its pattern in wavelength space determines the momentum we associate with the object causing the event.
If the events are localized in a small region, the wave pattern will be localized but consequently it will contain many elementary waves – its momentum will not be well-defined.
Conversely, if the momentum detector clicks only for a narrow range of momentum values, the wavelength is well-defined, and the wave pattern must extend over many cycles – its location in space is not well-defined.
You can have waves with well-defined position or well-defined momentum, but not both at once. This is the true meaning of the uncertainty relation first enunciated in 1927 by Heisenberg.
The "Heisenberg uncertainty relation" emerged in an atmosphere of confusion from which it has never quite escaped. Much of the fault lies with Heisenberg himself who was not content with setting forth the bare theory, more or less along the lines I have described above (but in mathematical language), he also tried to make the result more comprehensible with suggestive physical arguments.
For example, he implied that the uncertainty has its origin in the inevitable disturbance caused by the measurement process (which is not inherently a quantum concept). Bohr objected to these explanatory efforts, convinced that the matter was deeper than Heisenberg made it out to be.
As I see it, most problems of interpretation are resolved by the simple fact that the microscopic theory does not refer to any physical waves or particles. It refers to well-defined detectors and unambiguous events of detection.
Accounts that ascribe position to particles and momentum to waves apply macroscopic language inappropriately to microscopic nature. You can set a detector to register an event with well-defined momentum, or you can set it to record an event with well-defined position. That does not entitle you to say that the event is caused by a "wave" or by a "particle."
Nicely stated, LMNO.
In fact, I'd argue that this is the most pertinent aspect of Quantum * in philosophy. It's a useful example of how the machine interprets the data... and a reminder that our neurological system is yet another machine interpreting data as its programmed to do (wave, particle, Holy Guardian Angel, Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate, visual evidence that the WTC was brought down by explosives...)
The difference being that in our case it's a hardware problem, while in the case of the machines it's a fundamental property of really small things, not an error.
I see no reason why a completely alien mind could observe macro events without interpreting them.
Quote from: GA on December 17, 2008, 04:28:58 PM
The difference being that in our case it's a hardware problem, while in the case of the machines it's a fundamental property of really small things, not an error.
Well, not exactly. If the machine is configured to measure things as waves, it can measure light as a wave. If its configured for particles it can measure as particles. The machine is assessing the measurements based on what input it has and how its designed to translate that input. Just like our neurological system.
Quote
I see no reason why a completely alien mind could observe macro events without interpreting them.
Maybe... it could be that for some alien mind, the map is the territory... but I'm not sure I can currently conceive of a mind that would be able to process ALL available data without any interpretation and still have the ability to function in any meaningful way.
Thanks LMNO, now i finally have an answer to the people who use quantum theory to prove retarded stuff.
"Stop applying macroscopic language to microscopic subjects!"
or for those who nitpick:
"Stop applying the language used for objects bigger then an atom to the objects that are smaller then an atom!"
I really hate the "it changes when you measure it!" crowd.
But not as much as the "it changes when you look at it!" spags.
I honestly attempted to understand the article in the OP but I failed.
LMNO's "When things are really small or really big they act different from each other" has always worked for me, and I don't feel the need to confuse myself further.
Since biology is an emergent system in the macrorealm quantum physics isn't particularly useful for me.
i just realized that participating in an active forum such as this one.
with such reality building dough packed into it.
so much shit to wrap my mind around.
im gonna be in one of those constantly programming modes all the time.
this is interesting.
i feel i have been lacking in ontological contemplations lately.
Quote from: nuclearcabbage on February 12, 2010, 11:29:27 AM
i just realized that participating in an active forum such as this one.
with such reality building dough packed into it.
so much shit to wrap my mind around.
im gonna be in one of those constantly programming modes all the time.
this is interesting.
i feel i have been lacking in ontological contemplations lately.
Don't worry, you'll soon get over it and revert back to typical monkey behavior.
Quote from: nuclearcabbage on February 12, 2010, 11:29:27 AM
i just realized that participating in an active forum such as this one.
with such reality building dough packed into it.
so much shit to wrap my mind around.
im gonna be in one of those constantly programming modes all the time.
this is interesting.
i feel i have been lacking in ontological contemplations lately.
You have to be careful with that stuff, though. Trust me on this, if you never trust me on anything else.
Who trusts a mad scientist, anyway?
Quote from: LMNO on February 12, 2010, 02:15:44 PM
Who trusts a mad scientist, anyway?
Fucking nobody, that's who.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 12, 2010, 02:10:40 PM
Quote from: nuclearcabbage on February 12, 2010, 11:29:27 AM
i just realized that participating in an active forum such as this one.
with such reality building dough packed into it.
so much shit to wrap my mind around.
im gonna be in one of those constantly programming modes all the time.
this is interesting.
i feel i have been lacking in ontological contemplations lately.
You have to be careful with that stuff, though. Trust me on this, if you never trust me on anything else.
i know what you mean actually..
it helps to remember all that mumbo jumbo about MAPS and MENUS and shit though.
The map is not the menu.
theres a map behind the menu
order something or gtfo
Never before have I so thoroughly looked forward to a post count.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on February 13, 2010, 05:56:41 PM
Never before have I so thoroughly looked forward to a post count.
wat
It means lurk moar. Probably.
hm....?
ok, so it was directed at me,
but...
eh?
(truly confussed)
Don't worry, no-one pays any attention to Enki anyway.
oh...
snap.
what do you mean by coming singularity?
Quote from: nuclearcabbage on February 15, 2010, 08:15:47 PM
what do you mean by coming singularity?
(http://namcub.accela-labs.com/pics/globalbrain.jpg)
Quote from: nuclearcabbage on February 15, 2010, 08:15:47 PM
what do you mean by coming singularity?
?? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ejaculation_educational_ani_short.gif (NSFW)
gotcha :wink:
Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 15, 2010, 08:53:55 PM
Quote from: nuclearcabbage on February 15, 2010, 08:15:47 PM
what do you mean by coming singularity?
?? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ejaculation_educational_ani_short.gif (NSFW)
GOD DAMNIT WHAT THE :crankey:
:lulz:
Comments are good, too :)
You could try Robert Gilmore's Alice In Quantumland. That's about as easy as I've ever heard it explained.
Or you could try George Gamow's Mr. Tompkins In Paperback, which was the original attempt to explain how basic quantum theory worked in simple language. It also has a great drinking song going from the beginning to the end of creation in ten verses.
Quote from: Cain on September 10, 2008, 11:11:29 AM
If you are all going to insist on using Quantum Theory to back up your ill-concieved and fact-lite ideas about reality, lets actually make sure we all know what we are talking about first.
And I can think of worse ways to do that then with this guide http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2007/11/learn_quantum_theory_in_ten_mi.php
very interesting, good info
The shortest summary of quantum mechanical reality I know of would be this: The dimensionality of the wave packet is not always negligible, although it often is.
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:44:38 AM
The shortest summary of quantum mechanical reality I know of would be this: The dimensionality of the wave packet is not always negligible, although it often is.
Filthy heathen. Quantum mechanics is when God
cheats.
And an excuse for physicists to kill cats. Like they needed one.
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:44:38 AM
The shortest summary of quantum mechanical reality I know of would be this: The dimensionality of the wave packet is not always negligible, although it often is.
That's not a summary, that's someone pretending they know what the hell they're talking about by using big words they found in some book.
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:44:38 AM
The shortest summary of quantum mechanical reality I know of would be this: The dimensionality of the wave packet is not always negligible, although it often is.
Wrong. The shortest summary of quantum mechanical reality is:
"When shit gets really small, shit gets
really weird."
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on May 04, 2011, 08:06:47 AM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:44:38 AM
The shortest summary of quantum mechanical reality I know of would be this: The dimensionality of the wave packet is not always negligible, although it often is.
That's not a summary, that's someone pretending they know what the hell they're talking about by using big words they found in some book.
Someone's in a mood...
Yes, that is a summary of how quantum mechanics relates to the reality we perceive. When the dimensionality of the wave packet is negligible you get the special case of quantum mechanics known as classical mechanics... Or as LMNO just stated:
"When shit gets really small, shit gets really weird."
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:43:58 PM
Yes, that is a summary of how quantum mechanics relates to the reality we perceive. When the dimensionality of the wave packet is negligible you get the special case of quantum mechanics known as classical mechanics... Or as LMNO just stated:
Hold on... You're saying that as if there are two separate mechanics. There aren't. There is
only QM. That is the only level of reality. All others are approximations brought on by the limitations of our own perceptions. In other words, the "dimensionality of the wave packet" is
never negligible. You just can't tell the difference.
Don't personalize QM. It doesn't care.
I think he wanted to say "when wavepacket-blah is negligible, classical mechanics is a sufficient description [in the context where the wave-blah is negligible]"
Yeah, that works. But now I'm realizing that his definition doesn't suit the purpose of explaining QM; it explains when NM (Newtonian Mechanics) can be substituted for QM.
Another semi-snarky but completely true definition: "QM is non-intuitive."
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 04, 2011, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:43:58 PM
Yes, that is a summary of how quantum mechanics relates to the reality we perceive. When the dimensionality of the wave packet is negligible you get the special case of quantum mechanics known as classical mechanics... Or as LMNO just stated:
Hold on... You're saying that as if there are two separate mechanics. There aren't. There is only QM. That is the only level of reality. All others are approximations brought on by the limitations of our own perceptions. In other words, the "dimensionality of the wave packet" is never negligible. You just can't tell the difference.
Don't personalize QM. It doesn't care.
It seems like one hell of an assumption to claim that anything is "the only level of reality." Prior to the 1900's Newtonian mechanics was considered a complete description. QM showed that this classical mechanics was only a special case of a more complete description. Why assume that QM is complete when it could just as likely be another special case of an even more complete description?
QM accurately describes phenomena that the classic mechanics fails to describe. Before the atomic revolution we simply lacked the ability to observe such phenomena and thus failed to recognize the failings of our physics. As we continue to observe more and more fundamental levels of reality we may well begin to observe phenomena that QM in its current state fails to accurately describe.
Well, you can certainly say that QM may not be the final level of reality, but it's the most fundamental we know of right now.
And the most fundamental level is the level that "is" reality. NM has been found to be incomplete, and therefore
not what reality "is".
Reality doesn't exist on multiple levels. It exists on one level.
This (http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/) might help explain what I'm talking about, especially this (http://lesswrong.com/lw/pc/quantum_explanations/), and specifically this:
QuoteThe classical world is strictly implicit in the quantum world, but seeing from a classical perspective makes everything bigger and more complicated. Everyday life is a higher level of organization, like molecules versus quarks - huge catalogue of molecules, six quarks...I am going to talk as if the quantum world is the really real and the classical world something far away. Not just because that makes it easier to be a native of a quantum universe, but because, at a core level, it's the truth... I am going to take a strictly realist perspective on quantum mechanics - the quantum world is really out there, our equations describe the territory and not our maps of it, and the classical world only exists implicitly within the quantum one.
Oh, the ownage.
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:43:58 PM
Someone's in a mood...
Someone's setting themselves up for a shitty time here at PD...
he really does sound like another Requia ...
hey ch3mist, if you want to stick around here, try less of the pedantry. I already believe you're smart. Ish. No need for it.
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:43:58 PM
Someone's in a mood...
Someone's given me just about all the data I need to conclude he's a misogynistic little prick.
I like model dependent realism.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 05, 2011, 02:30:12 AM
I like model dependent realism.
Yup. That's where I got the inspiration for my political philosophy. I call it "rational self-interest".
Whatever works, as they say. I'm not interested in stories about metaphysics, I only care about the theories that fit the data.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 05, 2011, 02:44:00 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 05, 2011, 02:30:12 AM
I like model dependent realism.
Yup. That's where I got the inspiration for my political philosophy. I call it "rational self-interest".
I call mine "Stick your head in and see what happens".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 05, 2011, 03:10:27 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 05, 2011, 02:44:00 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 05, 2011, 02:30:12 AM
I like model dependent realism.
Yup. That's where I got the inspiration for my political philosophy. I call it "rational self-interest".
I call mine "Stick your head in and see what happens".
I personally like the "Get someone to poke it!" philosophy.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 05, 2011, 03:10:27 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 05, 2011, 02:44:00 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 05, 2011, 02:30:12 AM
I like model dependent realism.
Yup. That's where I got the inspiration for my political philosophy. I call it "rational self-interest".
I call mine "Stick your head in and see what happens".
:lmnuendo:
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on May 05, 2011, 03:53:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 05, 2011, 03:10:27 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 05, 2011, 02:44:00 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 05, 2011, 02:30:12 AM
I like model dependent realism.
Yup. That's where I got the inspiration for my political philosophy. I call it "rational self-interest".
I call mine "Stick your head in and see what happens".
I personally like the "Get someone to poke it!" philosophy.
:lmnuendo::lmnuendo:
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 01:47:07 AM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:43:58 PM
Someone's in a mood...
Someone's given me just about all the data I need to conclude he's a misogynistic little prick.
What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
Quote from: ch3mist on May 05, 2011, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 01:47:07 AM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:43:58 PM
Someone's in a mood...
Someone's given me just about all the data I need to conclude he's a misogynistic little prick.
What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
Not a whole hell of a lot... at least not until they unwire your jaw.
Asshole.
Quote from: ch3mist on May 05, 2011, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 01:47:07 AM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:43:58 PM
Someone's in a mood...
Someone's given me just about all the data I need to conclude he's a misogynistic little prick.
What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
"Were you able to dump his body in the harbor?"
Quote from: ch3mist on May 05, 2011, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 01:47:07 AM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:43:58 PM
Someone's in a mood...
Someone's given me just about all the data I need to conclude he's a misogynistic little prick.
What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
"Oh god, I'll never do it again, please, PLEASE don't stick that up m-OHMYGODOHMYGODAHHH AHHHH AHHHH AHHHHHH!"
Quote from: ch3mist on May 05, 2011, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 01:47:07 AM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:43:58 PM
Someone's in a mood...
Someone's given me just about all the data I need to conclude he's a misogynistic little prick.
What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
I don't really ever say this to people who come here, but I think it'd be best if you logged off and didn't return.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 06, 2011, 03:08:32 AM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 05, 2011, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 01:47:07 AM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:43:58 PM
Someone's in a mood...
Someone's given me just about all the data I need to conclude he's a misogynistic little prick.
What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
I don't really ever say this to people who come here, but I think it'd be best if you logged off and didn't return.
^This
And go fuck yourself, but, you should be used to doing that already though.
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on May 06, 2011, 02:31:09 AM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 05, 2011, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 01:47:07 AM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:43:58 PM
Someone's in a mood...
Someone's given me just about all the data I need to conclude he's a misogynistic little prick.
What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
"Oh god, I'll never do it again, please, PLEASE don't stick that up m-OHMYGODOHMYGODAHHH AHHHH AHHHH AHHHHHH!"
:fap:
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 06, 2011, 03:29:51 AM
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on May 06, 2011, 02:31:09 AM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 05, 2011, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 01:47:07 AM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:43:58 PM
Someone's in a mood...
Someone's given me just about all the data I need to conclude he's a misogynistic little prick.
What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
"Oh god, I'll never do it again, please, PLEASE don't stick that up m-OHMYGODOHMYGODAHHH AHHHH AHHHH AHHHHHH!"
:fap:
I guess if red hot pokers are your thing. :lol:
Quote from: ch3mist on May 05, 2011, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 01:47:07 AM
Quote from: ch3mist on May 04, 2011, 02:43:58 PM
Someone's in a mood...
Someone's given me just about all the data I need to conclude he's a misogynistic little prick.
What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
"Looks like a clear-cut case of self defense, ma'am. The meat wagon will be around shortly to haul his carcass off. You have a good night, now."
Also, fuck off and die, Ch3mist.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 04:33:44 AM
Also, fuck off and die, Ch3mist.
Eventually sweetie-pie, eventually.
Hey, look who just got put into "ignore mode".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 03:25:11 PM
Hey, look who just got put into "ignore mode".
I'd call poptard, but this guy seems smarter than poptard, even if he's just as socially retarded.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 03:48:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 03:25:11 PM
Hey, look who just got put into "ignore mode".
I'd call poptard, but this guy seems smarter than poptard, even if he's just as socially retarded.
Reminds me of... oh shit, what was that guy's name? The one in Seattle? Oh yeah, DK.
Quote from: Nigel on May 06, 2011, 03:50:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 03:48:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 03:25:11 PM
Hey, look who just got put into "ignore mode".
I'd call poptard, but this guy seems smarter than poptard, even if he's just as socially retarded.
Reminds me of... oh shit, what was that guy's name? The one in Seattle? Oh yeah, DK.
Well, so far, he hasn't actually advocated rape as a sacred right of the male, so I'm not willing to make a call yet. Ch3mist is quite obviously a misogynist
1, but DK was on a level all his own.
1 Over the top jokes are okay
if they're funny, otherwise I just lump the joke-teller in with the actual knuckle-draggers, for simplicity's sake.
I think it's a new one, but he can be expressed as a linear combination of a couple of previous ones.
Apparently, we've reached the point where our previous trolls form orthogonal bases that span Trollspace.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2011, 01:07:37 AM
I think it's a new one, but he can be expressed as a linear combination of a couple of previous ones.
Apparently, we've reached the point where our previous trolls form orthogonal bases that span Trollspace.
There are only so many breeds of troll, I suppose... And the brighter ones know better than to fuck around here, apparently.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2011, 01:07:37 AM
I think it's a new one, but he can be expressed as a linear combination of a couple of previous ones.
Apparently, we've reached the point where our previous trolls form orthogonal bases that span Trollspace.
Either that, or we're experiencing
troll emergence.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2011, 01:07:37 AM
I think it's a new one, but he can be expressed as a linear combination of a couple of previous ones.
Apparently, we've reached the point where our previous trolls form orthogonal bases that span Trollspace.
:lulz:
To bring this back to quantum mechanics, here's a nice video from sixtysymbols (great science youtube channel!) on the topic of quantum mechanics interpretations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y
He's sort of complaining that the physicists don't agree, but in the procedure explains a bit what some of these interpretations are. I understood something from it i think, so maybe you like this too.
i wouldn't know which interpretation to choose to be honest, i know way too little about quantum theory, despite the course in quantum computation. it makes sense from a totally formalistic point of view but to apply it to reality.........!
Quote from: GrannySmith on April 28, 2013, 09:39:36 AM
To bring this back to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y
i did click Zac but it just told me to click here
to download. i do not want to dowload Flash.
i want to upload chat / not in the northern hemisphere though :
Quote from: hirley0 on May 03, 2013, 01:39:28 AM
Quote from: GrannySmith on April 28, 2013, 09:39:36 AM
To bring this back to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y
i did click Zac but it just told me to click here
to download. i do not want to dowload Flash.
i want to upload chat / not in the northern hemisphere though :
That's strange, it never asks me to download anything when i click to youtube links.... search "Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment) - Sixty Symbols" on youtube? unless you don't have any flash at all, then i have no idea how you could watch youtube...
Before I read this my only idea of quantum physics was shroedingers cat. This explains ir so much better!
Quote from: Epic Programmer on April 02, 2015, 01:46:02 PM
Before I read this my only idea of quantum physics was shroedingers cat. This explains ir so much better!
I know, right!?
Have you looked into the history of the schroedinger's cat story? It's not what you think!
Quote from: Reginald Ret on April 02, 2015, 08:13:25 PM
Quote from: Epic Programmer on April 02, 2015, 01:46:02 PM
Before I read this my only idea of quantum physics was shroedingers cat. This explains ir so much better!
I know, right!?
Have you looked into the history of the schroedinger's cat story? It's not what you think!
Lot of dead cats in that history. :sad:
But to be fair, only half as many as there could have been.
Quote from: Reginald Ret on April 02, 2015, 08:13:25 PM
Quote from: Epic Programmer on April 02, 2015, 01:46:02 PM
Before I read this my only idea of quantum physics was shroedingers cat. This explains ir so much better!
I know, right!?
Have you looked into the history of the schroedinger's cat story? It's not what you think!
That is the most clickbait-y way I've ever heard to break the horrible truth to people.
I love it.
10 FACTS MILLENIALS WILL HATE ABOUT QUANTUM PHYSICS (AND SCHROEDINGER'S CAT IS ONLY AT #6!)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 02, 2015, 09:25:28 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on April 02, 2015, 08:13:25 PM
Quote from: Epic Programmer on April 02, 2015, 01:46:02 PM
Before I read this my only idea of quantum physics was shroedingers cat. This explains ir so much better!
I know, right!?
Have you looked into the history of the schroedinger's cat story? It's not what you think!
That is the most clickbait-y way I've ever heard to break the horrible truth to people.
I love it.
Vote Regret: Tricking people into researching their own pet subjects since 2015!