I just finished up Quantum Psychology and I really enjoyed RAW's illustrations on non-locality. I'd like to get a wider perspective on this subject so would anyone please describe this idea and it's inverse, locality, in their own terms?
(http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/5665/einsteinonguitar.jpg)
um, wtf is non locality?
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on September 13, 2009, 02:30:34 AM
(http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/5665/einsteinonguitar.jpg)
So you're saying there's a Hidden Variable or what?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 13, 2009, 04:29:51 AM
um, wtf is non locality?
That's what I'm asking?
Quote from: wikipediaIn physics, the principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings. Experiments have shown that quantum mechanically entangled particles must violate either the principle of locality or the form of philosophical realism known as counterfactual definiteness.
Quote from: wikipediaIn physics, nonlocality is a direct influence of one object on another distant object, in violation of the principle of locality.
To me this, to a degree, sounds like:
Quote from: meB̖̭̼͖͈̫̤̱͉̪͖̍ͨ̓̓͋̾̽ͧ̌̏ͫ͐̕Lͩ́̇͂͒ͮͮ̑̾ͪ̑̋̿̚҉҉̴̵͚̯͇̗̞̫̹̫̥͍̞̯ͅĄ̧̱͔̞̜̭̖͖̯̣̋̐ͥ͆̅̒ͯ̓̽͆͌̈́̔͑̓ͥͦR̛̮͍̣͈͑ͪ̾̄ͣͨ͊͘͠͞͝G͕̼̖̭̖̦͙̥̱̩͕͔̫̾̈ͥ̏̇ͨ̌̍̎ͩ̽̕H̸̸̨̩̟̼͈̞̻ͪ̈̉͑̀͟ͅB̛̞̝̪͎̝̯̣̙̯͍̭̱̭͇̰̒ͧ͒͊̇̄ͧͩͫ͗̆̚͝À̴̧̡̗̝̙̥͔̲̞̘̦̲͉̩̣̺̺ͤ͒̆ͣ͑͋͜Ľ̫͖̩͔͚͓̖̘̭̰͚̰̻̜̣͊̈̏̀̓̀̑̿́͜ḫ̲͎̩̞̭͍̰̻̣̬͇̹̠̉̎̏͂̋̅ͬ̃̚͞͡I̛͈̣͕̮̻͕͓̳̭̲̟̰̠̪͗̅ͯ́A̐ͬͫ̓̉̽̐ͬ̒͛ͬ̒̑̔̏ͩͦ̚͏̢̰̘̳̞̼͔̳͇̗ͅB̵̨͙̘̭͚̣̯̝̜͙̤̗̣͕̯͖̥̮͗̋̏̌̔͗̄̓ͬ̉́͞͡B̡̪͕͓͇̜̩͕̪̳̗̫̐̍͒̆̒̒͋͆̍͊̅̈ͩ̋̾̎̀͜͟͞L̟͇̫̝ͧ̋̒͋ͮ͋͛̾ͧ͊̎́͌́͘̕͢A̿́́ͬͫͮ̋ͤ̔̓̐ͯ̾ͧͮ̉̉ͦ҉̙̦̟̮͍̺͠͠ͅH͎̜̰̮̩̒͋̌ͦͧ̚͠B̵̸̩̩̹̭͚͌ͥͨ̓̃͐̚͢ͅA̛̙̻̞̙̯͖̪͙͈̙͔ͥ̊͌ͥ̂̍ͥͨ̋̄͛̀̕͠͡H̷̡̢̫͇̝̙͕ͩ̒̋̋̊̑ͪ͒̅̍́ͫ̌͐ͮ̐͟Ļͯ͛̀̎̍̅ͣͨͭ͏̟͇͉͖̻͍͔͚̼̟̥̤ͅÃ̹͉̼̫͍̥̥͔ͥ̋̆̍͋̑ͦ̊͘͞L̵̸̡̉̉̉ͨ̉̚͏̴͖̞̥̤͓͉͖͙̮̤͕̗͉̲H̷̙͎̖̪͈͕͙̹͇̭̟͇͎͔̫̪͔ͣͩͯͫ̊ͥ͂ͮ͂̊̋̊̾̂́ͧ̀̚͟B̧̢̧̘̖̻̦̻̝̣̩̙͉͆ͪ̍̉͋̀̿ͤͨͬͣ̈́̿̄̆ͬ̇́͢͜A͈̦͔̲̤ͮ͑̇̓͑̽̽̌͜͢L̷̳̫̤̘͔͎͎̰̩͇͕̗͚͔̘ͤ̓̊̉́ͪͭ̀̊̉ͫ̚͘͢͞͡H̶ͩ̏̇̅ͭͪ̈́͏͎̱̮̗͇̝B̴̷̷̨̡̖̳̹̥̥̫͓̝̼͊ͫ̏ͩͨͭ̓́ͮͤͪ̑̎̔ͫ̓̓ͅĄ̸̶͈̱̜̟͈̲̝͓̱͕̱̩͍̖̜̖̞ͨͥ͒̊̓ͫ̓͐ͤ̏ͤ͒ͨ̑̉͆͟͞L̍ͥͤͣ͆̇̾̀ͩͬ̽͑̊͞͞҉͇̗̦̼̟̼̩Ȟ̸̴̴̻͕̩̩̰̭̻̦͌̉ͭ̏̈́̐ͨ̄̈͐ͧ͞A̵̳̙͍̤̘̣͚͎͈̼̳ͬ̈́̊̓͆̀̕͢H̢̨̯̪̘̟̬̯̺̯̐̈́̅̆̑̈́̀A̷̰̰̹̤̮̦ͬͤ́̓͌͛ͬ͂ͬ̀̇̾ͬ̑̓͌͊ͫ͢Bͤ͋͒͌̿̍ͨ̇̑͂͌̾͐̃͏̢̝̙͔͚͎͉͔͓̤̣͉̝̩̪͙͔̯̀͞A̵̧̲̼̬̦̠̟̱̣̓ͯ͆̋ͮ͛̒ͦͯ̊́̀͊̀ͮͩͮ̀̋L̸͛̊͛̅̓ͮ̽͋̽ͬ̉͏̴̨̛̩̠̗̘̯̰̞͙̙̮̼͙Y̢͂́̓̅̏̇͑̅̉̓͛̎͝҉̜̜̮̘̠̤̬̰̦̠̳̤̣͞A̧̝̞͚̤͚̥͗ͪ̓͋̐̍̾̕͘͞A̴̛̞͓̼̯̫͔͍̭̣͋́͐̆͌͑͂ͣ̒̾ͫ̈́͆̚.̶̘͙̰̘͖ͬ̂̐ͭ͌̆̊͆̇̆ͦ̚̚͘ͅ.̷͓͔̳͍̯̥̲ͪ͛͆͌̅ͯ͒ͨͣ̋͌̉ͩ̏̃̏ͯ͊͢ͅ.̴̴͎̳̤͐ͥ̋͐̎̒̂̑ͫͧ͆ͧ̃͛̏̉.̷̨̯̫̲͓̱̗͉͍̖̹̼͚̻͎̬̺̳͕̞̏ͣ̄̍ͧͥ̈́̀́.̡̨̲̣̦̞̣̹͒͌̋ͨ̔̍ͭ̒̉̃̒̓̃ͅ
i thought non-locality was when you had to dial a "1"
:mullet:
Note: The following is wrong in several ways. But it should be good enough to get an intuitive understanding of the terms, though not their actual application.
Locality: You touch the rock, you push, the rock moves back. You had to touch it to get it to move.
Non-Locality: You wave your hands. Without any other interaction (no wind, touching of the rock, etc) the rock moves. Some things in quantum mechanics seem to do this.
The EPR paradox is a classic example of non-locality: Two physicists entangle two particles (decay a spin-zero particle into two spin-one-half particles that don't interact with each other after the decay). Since the spins must add up to 0 (spin is conserved) one spin will be +1/2, the other -1/2. Until they are measured quantum mechanics says they are in both states. EPR thought that, since measuring collapses the superposition, then measuring either particle would collapse the superposition of the other, causing it to be set to a given state. Since that could go faster than light it would violate relativity, and thus be wrong. They, however, were wrong, since no actual information is transmitted, and the second observer has no way to know if he was actually the second observer and not the first. They can't even tell if there was an initial superposition.
since most of "reality" is empty space, couldn't you argue that all actions are a mix of local and non-local (mostly non-local)
Quote from: PeregrineBF on September 13, 2009, 09:17:06 AM
Note: The following is wrong in several ways. But it should be good enough to get an intuitive understanding of the terms, though not their actual application.
Locality: You touch the rock, you push, the rock moves back. You had to touch it to get it to move.
Non-Locality: You wave your hands. Without any other interaction (no wind, touching of the rock, etc) the rock moves. Some things in quantum mechanics seem to do this.
The EPR paradox is a classic example of non-locality: Two physicists entangle two particles (decay a spin-zero particle into two spin-one-half particles that don't interact with each other after the decay). Since the spins must add up to 0 (spin is conserved) one spin will be +1/2, the other -1/2. Until they are measured quantum mechanics says they are in both states. EPR thought that, since measuring collapses the superposition, then measuring either particle would collapse the superposition of the other, causing it to be set to a given state. Since that could go faster than light it would violate relativity, and thus be wrong. They, however, were wrong, since no actual information is transmitted, and the second observer has no way to know if he was actually the second observer and not the first. They can't even tell if there was an initial superposition.
Wouldn't it be that they are not actually in both states but until we measure we can't tell what state they are in?
Kai,
Once again thinks that the "schrodinger's cat" argument is complete bullshit.
No, its actually both states. Um, I'm not sure how to explain it for spin, but I can explain it for position.
If you send photons at a plate with two slits, it'll make a pattern on the other side in accordance with wave mechanics. This happens even if you send one photon at a time through, which means the photon has to pass through both slits, like a wave would.
If you try to measure which slit the photon passes through, then A) you can tell it only passes through one slit, and B) the pattern on the other side is a particle pattern. This happens with anything sufficiently small as well. So these wave particles actually exist in a kind of haze, which is quite big (macroscopic even, though barely), until they can't anymore, and then they act like particles.
The same general thing applies to spin states (LMNO may be able to fill you in on how the experiment is done for spin states).
the cat thing *is* bullshit though, the cat has a *lot* of atoms in it, all of which will gleefully measure the position of their neighbor, so the cat is in a known state, even if it never interacts with anything outside the box.
The thing to remember is this is the normal way of the universe. All this being in one place at a time and being in one state at a time thing cats and ping pong balls do it an aberration brought on by having too much stuff in one place.
I'm throwing up my hands and knowing that although I'll never really understand this in any manner that makes sense, neither will any other person. Its all placing terms and metaphors to activities which defy human ability to place terms and metaphors. I mean, what it really comes down to is that photons are energy and we only describe them as particles and waves because we can't possibly come up with any other way to picture and describe energy except by how it seems to interact with so called matter.
Which gets to the point where I'm not sure anything really exists at all in this reality that it seems to be and I'm just fooling myself to avoid barstools.
"Schrödinger's cat" was an argument Schrödinger made to disprove QM. Quantum mechanics is highly unintuitive. There is some agreement on how to interpret the math, but it's not 100%.
The math works out that it's in both states, and the math is incredibly accurate, and it's impossible to measure that it's in both states since doing so collapses it.
Quote from: rongsince most of "reality" is empty space, couldn't you argue that all actions are a mix of local and non-local (mostly non-local)
Not so much. See, it may be empty space but the fields (EM, gravitational, strong & weak nuclear) can interact through it. Non-locality comes into play only when the two things can't possibly interact, e.g. 2 photons moving straight away from each other can never interact, since they travel at the speed of light & nothing can get from one to the other.
Not all interpretations of QM require superpositions. Many Worlds, for example, just says that when something would be in a superposition there are really multiple universes created, one in each possible state. Measuring something in a superposition simply tells you which of those universes you are in, and you can never access any of the others.
Kai, I call that the argument of convenience. It's convenient to believe that reality is real, since even if everything is an illusion being hit with a barstool still hurts. Thus, believe reality is real.
Kai - physicists used to just take the position that arguing over where a particle was before it was measured was just philosophical wankery, since by definition, you can't tell where something is before you measure its position. So one group claimed that the particle really was at point A before you observed it at point A, another that it was distributed probabilistically over an area and the measurement somehow caused the wavefunction to collapse to point A (Copenhagen Interpretation) and the rest just refused to answer.
Then John Bell came along and showed that it makes a testable, measurable difference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_Theorem) whether Theory 1 or the Copenhagen interpretation was correct, and that experiments actually supported the Copenhagen Interpretation over the idea that the particle was really there all along.
Sorry, I'm only in the 2nd week of my QM course so I don't really understand it that well either.
Okay, when you say "distributed probabilistically over an area" I visualize a fuzzy ball similar to an electron cloud probability field, that the energy is in this fuzzy sphere, and that the measurement causes that fuzzy sphere to collapse to a point.
Thats how I'm visualizing it. Fuzzy spheres of gray light that collapse to a point when interacting with other fuzzy spheres of gray light.
Its exactly like an electron cloud. (literally the same thing) You have the right idea.
That's pretty much how I visualize it as well. With the double-slit experiment the fuzzy sphere passes through both slits, and thus creates an interference pattern with itself, which can be seen when the light strikes the sensor/wall after the slit.
(http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~umallik/adventure/quantumwave/02kumar_yds.jpg) (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-02/1077201223.Ph.2.jpg)
When one of the slits is closed after the photon is fired but before it reaches the double-slit, the sensor/wall shows only a dot of light.
oh god that makes perfect sense, both visually and aesthetically.
So sosososo......how big is this photon probability cloud when it hasn't collapsed to a point. I mean, as far as comparison to other probability fields like the electron cloud of a hydrogen atom?
Thanks, Kai, for running with this. :) I've learned a bit since the beginning of this thread and I think it's because you're asking the right questions.
Quote from: Kai on September 14, 2009, 02:43:59 AM
oh god that makes perfect sense, both visually and aesthetically.
So sosososo......how big is this photon probability cloud when it hasn't collapsed to a point. I mean, as far as comparison to other probability fields like the electron cloud of a hydrogen atom?
i think, technically, probability clouds (in this sense) are infinitely large. i.e. there is a chance (albeit small) that a given photon could be *anywhere*
to bound the size of the cloud, you'd probably (hehe probably) wan't to throw some sort of upper limit at the probability curve - i.e. how big of a cloud has a 99.9999% chance of containing the photon. to do that requires a function that i don't know - but maybe someone else 'round these parts does.
A photon's "size" depends purely on its wavelength, and therefore can be arbitrarily large. My friend does research on high energy* cosmic particles that hit our atmosphere all the time, when a cosmic particle hits some other particle in the high atmosphere it creates a chain reaction of all sorts of subatomic shizzle, which due to directional magnetic forces in the atmosphere separate into a positive and negative charged region, creating a current (?) between them and this generates an electromagnetic wave that can be several meters in size.
the question is not so much how big a photon can be, but more whether you still want to call it a photon if it's that big, or something.
*moar high than the stuff the LHC generates, btw.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 14, 2009, 08:44:55 AM
A photon's "size" depends purely on its wavelength, and therefore can be arbitrarily large. My friend does research on high energy* cosmic particles that hit our atmosphere all the time, when a cosmic particle hits some other particle in the high atmosphere it creates a chain reaction of all sorts of subatomic shizzle, which due to directional magnetic forces in the atmosphere separate into a positive and negative charged region, creating a current (?) between them and this generates an electromagnetic wave that can be several meters in size.
the question is not so much how big a photon can be, but more whether you still want to call it a photon if it's that big, or something.
*moar high than the stuff the LHC generates, btw.
Sure, I'll call it a photon. Like I said, the image of a photon as like an electron cloud works so much better for me than as a discrete unit visually, because a photon is really just a vector of electromagnetic force, which to me doesn't make any sense to imagine as a little pebble zipping through space. Asking how big it is just means I get an idea of the scale, and that it can be variable in size means the scale depends on the context. So, radio photons are bigger than xray photons, due to the longer wavelength? That makes sense. :)
yes.
except it's not an "electron cloud", cause electrons are particles in themselves. it's an electromagnetic wave. why or how this is different, i dunno.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 14, 2009, 01:45:38 PM
yes.
except it's not an "electron cloud", cause electrons are particles in themselves. it's an electromagnetic wave. why or how this is different, i dunno.
As like an electron cloud, a field of probability. A simile, if you will. I understand electrons protons and neutrons are highly compacted energy ( matter) and are more discrete than photons. :)
ok, I dont actually "understand", except that photons are this vague "thing" not made up of anything.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 14, 2009, 02:20:23 PM
ok, I dont actually "understand", except that photons are this vague "thing" not made up of anything.
think fantasy. Think about the idea of nebulous energy balls. Sorta like that, except this photon is this little fuzzy package of energy that increases in size depending on its wavelength (which depends on its energy level).
Or something like that. Definitely thinking of them as these fuzzy balls of energy has made it possible to understand the double slit experiment. here I was thinking of them as more discrete. Now it makes sense.
Are we talking about non-locality, or Heisenberg? Choose one.
Quote from: JHM III, "Beneath Reality"
Quantum weirdness appears where the external world joins our perception of it. And it appears most dramatically in apparatus with two or more detectors. By choosing what to look for at one, you seem to influence what happens at the other through what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance."
The thorny issue here is not that measurement influences events, but that the influence seems to extend everywhere instantly and therefore "unphysically." Einstein had shown in his earliest work on relativity that the order of separated events is ambiguous if they follow each other too quickly to be connected by a light ray.
This is the case with the correlated detector events in the EPR setup. Seen from different moving frames of reference a click at B could appear before, after, or at the same time as a click at A. In some frames the detector at B seems to "know in advance" how we would tune the detector at A. Even if we perceive this mysterious correlation through an autopsy of the data long after they are collected, it is still unsettling. It suggests a kind of pre-wiring of events at the microscopic level that vaguely conflicts with our notion of free will. How did B know to click exactly in the opposite channel of a detector at A even when we set the angle of A at the very last instant before hearing A's click? We can freely tilt A, but events at the distant B seem to know our choice immediately – even, in some relativistic sense, before we ourselves knew how we would set A.
The issue is much broader than merely a subtle correlation in a highly contrived experimental setup. Microscopic nature does not need observers or their experiments to trigger a mouse-trapping registration. Everything we can survey with our gross instruments as "the real world" is an aggregation of Standard Model pieces that fell into place in a process similar to the act of measurement.
Each large-scale object we examine can be regarded as a collection of Nature's own detectors. The vast number of particles, the randomness of their arrangement, and the complexity of their histories obscure any peculiarity that might have come from entanglement among the parts of the quantum wave function that described their genesis. But entanglement there must have been, given the origin of all material excitations in the strongly interacting environment of the Big Bang.
Mystics have expounded on this subtle connectedness among events, and compared it with an attitude toward reality found in some Asian cultural traditions. Nothing in those traditions, however, is comparable to the subtle machinery of quantum theory. Awareness of Asian philosophy does not help us understand the quantum behavior beneath reality, or vice versa.
Quote from: Kai on September 14, 2009, 04:13:41 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 14, 2009, 02:20:23 PM
ok, I dont actually "understand", except that photons are this vague "thing" not made up of anything.
think fantasy. Think about the idea of nebulous energy balls. Sorta like that, except this photon is this little fuzzy package of energy that increases in size depending on its wavelength (which depends on its energy level).
Or something like that. Definitely thinking of them as these fuzzy balls of energy has made it possible to understand the double slit experiment. here I was thinking of them as more discrete. Now it makes sense.
yeah that's how I think of them too. I kind of hesitate to call it "understanding" though :)
Quote from: LMNO on September 14, 2009, 04:55:06 PM
Are we talking about non-locality, or Heisenberg? Choose one.
I chose Heisenberg, but then the question changed. :sad:
It's because you tried to find out how fast it was going!
:argh!:
Quote from: LMNO on September 14, 2009, 08:22:33 PM
It's because you tried to find out how fast it was going!
:argh!:
You have to find out what's under the hood.
But you aren't allowed to look.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 14, 2009, 01:45:38 PM
yes.
except it's not an "electron cloud", cause electrons are particles in themselves. it's an electromagnetic wave. why or how this is different, i dunno.
Its not a particle, its the weird half particle/half waveform, same as a photon.
It is a particle, but the QM definition of "particle" is completely unrelated to the OED definition of "particle".
Quote from: LMNO on September 14, 2009, 08:29:57 PM
It is a particle, but the QM definition of "particle" is completely unrelated to the OED definition of "particle".
Are you arguing with Requiem?
She's an expert. On everything.
In before wavicles?
Quote from: LMNO on September 14, 2009, 08:29:57 PM
It is a particle, but the QM definition of "particle" is completely unrelated to the OED definition of "particle".
Still the same general behavior as a photon (except the negative charge thing).
Edit: Oh and mass.
You're both missing the point, and taking the metaphor literally.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 14, 2009, 08:51:25 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 14, 2009, 08:50:29 PM
In before wavicles?
In before collapse.
So my posting in the thread is not fatal to a waveform?
We haven't yet reached an eigenstate?
so my friend told me last week that actual "quantum" theory, the way it was originally stated is actually kind of dated. according to him, the current running theory in physics is something called "path integral formalism" (I might have remembered the term wrong but it was something like that).
so anyway (regardless of whether this is correct), I say we move in before the new age hippies do, and start marketing things like "Path Integral Formalism Healing TM" and "Path Integral Formalism Touch TM".
have you had your ePIFany yet?
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 15, 2009, 08:10:41 PM
so my friend told me last week that actual "quantum" theory, the way it was originally stated is actually kind of dated. according to him, the current running theory in physics is something called "path integral formalism" (I might have remembered the term wrong but it was something like that).
so anyway (regardless of whether this is correct), I say we move in before the new age hippies do, and start marketing things like "Path Integral Formalism Healing TM" and "Path Integral Formalism Touch TM".
QM is a constantly revised term, much like "physics" soesn't much represent the
Principia Mathematica anymore.
There's no need to re-name it, unless the basic principles have totally changed. "String Theory" comes to mind in that respect.
Still, I like your idea about claiming the term before the hippies get there.
It seems to me that Path Integral Formulation just SOUNDS a lot cooler than 'quantum'. Which is, of course, the point; vaguely associating something with a cool sounding term that is 'scientific'. I figure that if we were to do such a thing, we could mine the cool terms from all over science. Observe:
Delta-Epsilon Psychology: The Mathematical Science of Mental Health
Agglutinative Healing: The Power of Spoken Word
Interrupt Vector Tables: The Hidden Power of Mapped Functioning
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 15, 2009, 02:08:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 14, 2009, 08:51:25 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 14, 2009, 08:50:29 PM
In before wavicles?
In before collapse.
So my posting in the thread is not fatal to a waveform?
We haven't yet reached an eigenstate?
There are no Eigenstates, from this moment forward. The universe WILL fucking PICK a result, and it will STICK WITH IT.
You fuckers hear me? Quantum mechanics is now OVER. :crankey:
Quote from: LMNO on September 14, 2009, 04:55:06 PM
Are we talking about non-locality, or Heisenberg? Choose one.
Sorry, got carried away in trying to understand wave/particle form, and how to visualize a photon.
I'm a little operator, short and stout
here is my eigenfunction,
here is my eigenvalue.
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2009, 01:15:20 AM
Quote from: LMNO on September 14, 2009, 04:55:06 PM
Are we talking about non-locality, or Heisenberg? Choose one.
Sorry, got carried away in trying to understand wave/particle form, and how to visualize a photon.
remember the bit with the rope and the colored filters?
That.
Quote from: LMNO on September 16, 2009, 02:42:59 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2009, 01:15:20 AM
Quote from: LMNO on September 14, 2009, 04:55:06 PM
Are we talking about non-locality, or Heisenberg? Choose one.
Sorry, got carried away in trying to understand wave/particle form, and how to visualize a photon.
remember the bit with the rope and the colored filters?
That.
Thats really nice for some parts of it, but it doesn't help me understand how photons interact with, say, the double slit experiment.
Thinking of a photon as this probability cloud of energy is much more helpful.
and by understand, I mean I can see the cause/effect connections. And not just be able to say a rote statement about it.
So, let's introduce some further brain-hurt to this discussion:
Creating a Quantum Superposition of Living Things
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/11/1457200/Creating-a-Quantum-Superposition-of-Living-Things
They want to put a virus into a state of superposition......
"They point out that after creating the superposition, scientists will be able to perform the Schrodinger's Cat experiment for the first time, which should be fun (but less so for the virus)"
:asplode:
Quote from: Telarus on September 16, 2009, 04:41:07 AM
So, let's introduce some further brain-hurt to this discussion:
Creating a Quantum Superposition of Living Things
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/11/1457200/Creating-a-Quantum-Superposition-of-Living-Things
They want to put a virus into a state of superposition......
"They point out that after creating the superposition, scientists will be able to perform the Schrodinger's Cat experiment for the first time, which should be fun (but less so for the virus)"
:asplode:
I'm just curious how they're going to cool complex proteins and D/RNA down to a ground state without breaking any of it. And I don't really see what this would accomplish - the Shrodinger's Cat paradox is a thought experiment, not something that actually tests anything. Running it wouldn't result in new knowledge, although simply creating and observing large objects in superposition might.
The cat is dead. DEAD.
TGRR,
Added a little something to the experiment, just to end this assfuckery.
But Schrödingers cat was named Elvis.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 16, 2009, 07:17:53 PM
But Schrödingers cat was named Elvis.
So make blue suede shoes out of him.
Quote from: Burns on September 13, 2009, 04:48:51 AM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on September 13, 2009, 02:30:34 AM
(http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/5665/einsteinonguitar.jpg)
So you're saying there's a Hidden Variable or what?
No, that's just Einstein playing the blues because Hidden Variables lack Evidence. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyYgo0VMPjE)
You cannot observe anything in a superposition. This should be obvious.
That's assuming that the act of observation causes the destruction of the superposition. Not everyone believes that. For example, Roger Penrose says it happens under the influence of gravity, when an object becomes larger than a certain characteristic size.
Quote
If a dust speck is in two locations at the same time, each one should create its own distortions in space-time, yielding two superposed gravitational fields. According to Penrose's theory, it takes energy to sustain these dual fields. The stability of a system depends on the amount of energy involved: The higher the energy required to sustain a system, the less stable it is. Over time, an unstable system tends to settle back to its simplest, lowest energy state—in this case, one object in one location producing one gravitational field. If Penrose is right, gravity yanks objects back into a single location, without any need to invoke observers or parallel universes.
Taken from this article: http://timfolger.net/penrose.PDF
Quote from: Igor on September 20, 2009, 02:56:04 PM
That's assuming that the act of observation causes the destruction of the superposition. Not everyone believes that. For example, Roger Penrose says it happens under the influence of gravity, when an object becomes larger than a certain characteristic size.
Quote
If a dust speck is in two locations at the same time, each one should create its own distortions in space-time, yielding two superposed gravitational fields. According to Penrose's theory, it takes energy to sustain these dual fields. The stability of a system depends on the amount of energy involved: The higher the energy required to sustain a system, the less stable it is. Over time, an unstable system tends to settle back to its simplest, lowest energy state—in this case, one object in one location producing one gravitational field. If Penrose is right, gravity yanks objects back into a single location, without any need to invoke observers or parallel universes.
Taken from this article: http://timfolger.net/penrose.PDF
My cousin is a total tit about these things, though.
:eek: You're related?
Quote from: Igor on September 20, 2009, 05:10:18 PM
:eek: You're related?
Marginally. He's like a 3rd cousin or some shit.
You know, I wondered about that .. is he the same guy that thought up the pentagonal tiling of the plane? (that's some latent discordianism at least :) )
Yeah that's him. It was the only way of tiling the plane that has fivefold rotational symmetry that he found. Also did some very early work on black holes with Stephen Hawking and conjectured the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis.
Pretty cool guy, eh invents twistor theory and doesn't afraid of anything.
Okay, so minor threadjack time: given that some people in here appears to know something about quantum mechanics... I have been reading the book "The Dancing Wu-Li masters". It appears to be about the history of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics. Can anyone here tell me whether or not it is more or less accurate? There were supposed to be HEP people reading it and making footnotes, but the book was written in the seventies and also I would prefer to have a second opinion outside the text itself.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 21, 2009, 01:53:34 AM
Okay, so minor threadjack time: given that some people in here appears to know something about quantum mechanics... I have been reading the book "The Dancing Wu-Li masters".
HAHAHAHAHA!
It's absolute shit. I bounced a copy off the wall back in the 80s. It's pseudo-physics all globbed up with Eastern bullshit hippy religion.
I thought that was The Tao of Physics (which I also own)...
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 21, 2009, 02:16:18 AM
I thought that was The Tao of Physics (which I also own)...
Same crap. From 1972-1980 or so, it became very fashionable to put Eastern garbage into physics, because to an idiot, they look similar.
Yeah, it's basically using metaphors to make metaphors out of metaphors.
Quote from: LMNO on September 21, 2009, 01:40:49 PM
Yeah, it's basically using metaphors to make metaphors out of metaphors.
I prefer to use the word "smurf".
Quote from: LMNO on September 21, 2009, 01:40:49 PM
Yeah, it's basically using metaphors to make metaphors out of metaphors.
So it is a meta-pataphor?
Though, I am not against reading meta-pataphors, I would question their capacity for any form of accuracy as first-order metaphors. As far as I've read, the guy hasn't mentioned eastern philosophy except to say that he won't mention it, but I'm only on the second or third chapter.
I'd like to see a ban on philosophizing about quantum until we figure out what the fuck is going on down there. Among other things, we still don't know how gravity works.
Quote from: GA on September 21, 2009, 06:20:12 PM
I'd like to see a ban on philosophizing about quantum until we figure out what the fuck is going on down there. Among other things, we still don't know how gravity works.
A ban on philosophizing? Okay. We should also ban religions until we know for sure what any possible afterlife is like. And the trains will all run on time.
metaphoria: the excitement felt by acid heads over the creation of elaborate metaphors that are only meaningful to the acid head that created them while under the influence of acid
metaphoria: the excitement felt by acid heads ( and new age physicists) over the creation of elaborate metaphors that are only meaningful to the acid head (new-age physicist) that created them while under the influence of acid (or new-age thinking)
I suggest a pentition to ban history until we can invent a time machine and figure out what really happened back then. Or, :?
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 21, 2009, 10:12:07 PM
I suggest a pentition to ban history until we can invent a time machine and figure out what really happened back then. Or, :?
pention.
Doin' it wrong.
Quote from: LMNO on September 21, 2009, 01:40:49 PM
Yeah, it's basically using metaphors to make metaphors out of metaphors.
Its metaphors
all the way down.
Well, to talk about a concrete thing we use a general language, which could be argued to be a system of static and accepted metaphors. So, we are using a metaphor for a metaphor in order to phrase a metaphor in a system of metaphors in order to explain a metaphor for something that is probably a concrete phenomenon, but is unobservable except through another metaphor expressed in a different system of metaphors.
Or, not.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 22, 2009, 01:52:00 AM
Well, to talk about a concrete thing we use a general language, which could be argued to be a system of static and accepted metaphors. So, we are using a metaphor for a metaphor in order to phrase a metaphor in a system of metaphors in order to explain a metaphor for something that is probably a concrete phenomenon, but is unobservable except through another metaphor expressed in a different system of metaphors.
Barstool, please.
Hey, Enki...this is precisely why you will die a virgin. Just saying.
TGRR,
Likes to help people.
Sex and precise language don't mix?
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 22, 2009, 11:29:40 AM
Sex and precise language don't mix?
"Hey, baby, I want to do something with my thinger in the vicinity of your thinger something approximately in the futurish. Maybe."
"I'd verb her noun."
"Hey baby, wanna come back to my place and see my metaphor?"
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 22, 2009, 11:29:40 AM
Sex and precise language don't mix?
Sex and pretentious, pedantic fuckholery don't mix. Also, the inability to write a concise statement != "precise language".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 04:45:17 PM
"Hey baby, wanna come back to my place and see my metaphor?"
"What's a metaphor?"
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 04:46:19 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 22, 2009, 11:29:40 AM
Sex and precise language don't mix?
Sex and pretentious, pedantic fuckholery don't mix. Also, the inability to write a concise statement != "precise language".
Okay, let me rephrase in small words: Since language itself is a metaphor system, the level of abstraction on each of the above operations needs to be incremented.
I think my original statement was easier to parse, though.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 22, 2009, 05:24:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 04:46:19 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 22, 2009, 11:29:40 AM
Sex and precise language don't mix?
Sex and pretentious, pedantic fuckholery don't mix. Also, the inability to write a concise statement != "precise language".
Okay, let me rephrase in small words: Since language itself is a metaphor system, the level of abstraction on each of the above operations needs to be incremented.
I think my original statement was easier to parse, though.
Neither one is clearly written. It isn't the size of the words, it's the fucking stew you keep making out of them.
Made perfect sense to me. Is that bad?
Help! I accidentally a whole Enki's post!
Quote from: GA on September 22, 2009, 06:57:47 PM
Made perfect sense to me. Is that bad?
Yes. It implies that you speak Spag. HEAR THAT, ENKI! YOU'VE FOUND YOUR DREAM WOMAN!
Quote from: GA on September 22, 2009, 06:57:47 PM
Help! I accidentally a whole Enki's post!
Well, first you have to and then the whole thing!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:02:55 PM
Quote from: GA on September 22, 2009, 06:57:47 PM
Made perfect sense to me. Is that bad?
Yes. It implies that you speak Spag. HEAR THAT, ENKI! YOU'VE FOUND YOUR DREAM WOMAN!
Quote from: GA on September 22, 2009, 06:57:47 PM
Help! I accidentally a whole Enki's post!
Well, first you have to and then the whole thing!
I AM NOBODY'S WOMAN :argh!:
Quote from: GA on September 22, 2009, 07:42:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:02:55 PM
Quote from: GA on September 22, 2009, 06:57:47 PM
Made perfect sense to me. Is that bad?
Yes. It implies that you speak Spag. HEAR THAT, ENKI! YOU'VE FOUND YOUR DREAM WOMAN!
Quote from: GA on September 22, 2009, 06:57:47 PM
Help! I accidentally a whole Enki's post!
Well, first you have to and then the whole thing!
I AM NOBODY'S WOMAN :argh!:
You're his
special girl, now, GA! He can serenade you about metaphors of metapors!
:lulz:
TGRR,
Too fast to live, too dumb to die.
psst - it turns out that GA = dude (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18632.msg621001#msg621001)
:lulz:
Quote from: Cramulus on September 22, 2009, 07:55:25 PM
psst - it turns out that GA = dude (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18632.msg621001#msg621001)
:lulz:
Lies. GA is a 50 year old fat chick who runs a phone sex operation out of Panama City, and is probably the heart of corruption for that benighted city. She rules the slums with an iron hand, and is the very antithesis of the madam with heart of gold.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:44:32 PM
You're his special girl, now, GA! He can serenade you about metaphors of metapors!
You realize I'm not single, right?
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 22, 2009, 09:59:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:44:32 PM
You're his special girl, now, GA! He can serenade you about metaphors of metapors!
You realize I'm not single, right?
Got lucky at the glory hole, did you?
I don't think so. I don't think I've ever been to one.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 22, 2009, 10:29:16 PM
I don't think so. I don't think I've ever been to one.
You mean you don't KNOW? :lol:
I am guessing that 'glory hole' is a term for either a type of bar, a type of sex establishment, or a bodily orifice. If it is one of the above, then the answer is 'no'.
I can't think of a plausible interpretation of the statement that would be factually correct, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible that you mean something that happens to be true.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 22, 2009, 10:47:44 PM
I am guessing that 'glory hole' is a term for either a type of bar, a type of sex establishment, or a bodily orifice. If it is one of the above, then the answer is 'no'.
I can't think of a plausible interpretation of the statement that would be factually correct, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible that you mean something that happens to be true.
Yeah. :lulz:
Its a hole in the wall through which people (usually gay men) have oral and other sex.
Oh. Then, no. And, I have never seen one of those.
I love threadjacks... We managed to get from quantum mechanics to the location of glory holes in like five pages.
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 11:38:55 PM
Its a hole in the wall through which people (usually gay men) have oral and other sex.
Why, Kai? :sad:
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 23, 2009, 01:58:02 AM
I love threadjacks... We managed to get from quantum mechanics to the location of glory holes in like five pages.
Fuck, you busted me.
Quote from: Burns on September 23, 2009, 03:35:28 AM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 23, 2009, 01:58:02 AM
I love threadjacks... We managed to get from quantum mechanics to the location of glory holes in like five pages.
Fuck, you busted me.
I was THIS close to getting Enki to believe he had, in fact, been to a glory hole.
KAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII! :argh!:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 03:55:08 AM
Quote from: Burns on September 23, 2009, 03:35:28 AM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 23, 2009, 01:58:02 AM
I love threadjacks... We managed to get from quantum mechanics to the location of glory holes in like five pages.
Fuck, you busted me.
I was THIS close to getting Enki to believe he had, in fact, been to a glory hole.
KAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII! :argh!:
I am a bad bad Hominidae. 8)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 03:55:08 AM
Quote from: Burns on September 23, 2009, 03:35:28 AM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 23, 2009, 01:58:02 AM
I love threadjacks... We managed to get from quantum mechanics to the location of glory holes in like five pages.
Fuck, you busted me.
I was THIS close to getting Enki to believe he had, in fact, been to a glory hole.
KAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII! :argh!:
You weren't. You would have had to give a false definition that happened to be correct (for instance, 'the campus police station') and then redefine 'getting lucky' (for instance, 'eating peppermint drops').
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 23, 2009, 11:02:59 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 03:55:08 AM
Quote from: Burns on September 23, 2009, 03:35:28 AM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 23, 2009, 01:58:02 AM
I love threadjacks... We managed to get from quantum mechanics to the location of glory holes in like five pages.
Fuck, you busted me.
I was THIS close to getting Enki to believe he had, in fact, been to a glory hole.
KAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII! :argh!:
You weren't. You would have had to give a false definition that happened to be correct (for instance, 'the campus police station') and then redefine 'getting lucky' (for instance, 'eating peppermint drops').
And?
Hold on a second...
Enki was eating peppermint drops at the campus police station?
Fucking freak.