Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,698
28,229
valishar_sl said:
Forget negative numbers, most real numbers don't exist either, or more specifically they are completely based on human conceptions. The whole thing is philosophical.

For example lets take 0.5. There isn't really anything in nature which is a half, the idea of having a half of something is a human conception. You can't have half an apple without first defining what an apple is (which is arbitrary because no two apples are exactly the same), and even if they are exactly the same they are still composed of just a multitude of littler carbon/hydrogen/oxygen atoms. And if you go down to the fundamental particles which are not arbitrary, they are fundamental and can't be divided in half. So fractions don't actually exist, just like negative numbers, or complex numbers. But that's a distinction only a philosopher would care about.
Click to expand...
Correct. Only positive integers truly exist in nature. Even fractions are indicative of a human frame of reference. It's a basic concept, but one you have to understand if you want to correctly interpret results of equations. The many forms of numbers, including negatives and fractions all have uses, because everything people do has a frame of reference they unwittingly use, but it's always a huge mistake to assume your frame of reference confines or defines nature in any way.

Take the concept of half lives. The human reference that is typically taken is that the atom has a chance to stay together that decreases over time. An alternate way of thinking about it would be that a particle has a chance of freeing itself from the system that increases over time. It converts a negative decay into a positive action, and though both equations would be completely correct, one would be more proper to use mathematically in either system, due to the fact that negative results can lead to irrational answers (Negative numbers are not real), whereas, positive numbers are real, even if they are fractions so long as they can be written in the form of an integer.
 
Valishar

Valishar

Molten Core Raider
766
424
An atom doesn't have a chance to decay that changes over time. It has a chance (probability) to decay at ANY point in time, that probability is a constant. Half-life is the total amount of time where it's total probability of decaying during that amount of time is 50%. Or macroscopically, if you had a mass of a radioactive substance after this amount of time half of that substance would be decayed.

If I had an atom of Cesium 137 which is straight out of the nuclear reactor, or an atom of Cesium 137 which is 30 years old. They have exactly the same chance to decay in the next minute.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,698
28,229
valishar_sl said:
An atom doesn't have a chance to decay that changes over time. It has a chance (probability) to decay at ANY point in time, that probability is a constant. Half-life is the total amount of time where it's total probability of decaying during that amount of time is 50%. Or macroscopically, if you had a mass of a radioactive substance after this amount of time half of that substance would be decayed.

If I had an atom of Cesium 137 which is straight out of the nuclear reactor, or an atom of Cesium 137 which is 30 years old. They have exactly the same chance to decay in the next minute.
Click to expand...
correct, but the chance that it has decayed in the previous time frame increases with time, even if the the chance at any one point is exactly the same.

In both scenarios, someone with a QM mind would say that the decay is simply determined by chance, whereas einstein, and I, argued that we don't know why it decayed, the chance is just our best explination until we figure out the exact explanation on why particles decay. If we understood why, would be able to predict more accurately when they would decay.
 
Valishar

Valishar

Molten Core Raider
766
424
Furry_sl said:
correct, but the chance that it has decayed in the previous time frame increases with time, even if the the chance at any one point is exactly the same.

In both scenarios, someone with a QM mind would say that the decay is simply determined by chance, whereas einstein, and I, argued that we don't know why it decayed, the chance is just our best explination until we figure out the exact explanation on why particles decay. If we understood why, would be able to predict more accurately when they would decay.
Click to expand...
Furry_sl said:
but it's always a huge mistake to assume your frame of reference confines or defines nature in any way.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to believe one way or the other that nature is not totally probabilistic at it's core.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Information theory does sound like a fair bit of hokum however. I mean that you can abstract out salient patterns, sure 100%. But then to take this observation and attribute it to a fundamental property.

I dunno. Sounds kinda natural philosopher-ey. Kinda like anthromorphising an abstract concept because it's useful, and then calling that truth.

But maybe the Hindus are right. Maybe this is all just the self realization of Brahmin and nothing less.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,698
28,229
blueguy_sl said:
There is no reason to believe one way or the other that nature is not totally probabilistic at it's core.
Click to expand...
I agree that I don't know and don't presume to know. That sums up my stance, and I only argue against people or theories that presume to know something that they don't.

BurnemWizfyre_sl said:
Made even more ridiculous by the fact that Bell's Theorem proved Einstein wrong in one of his attempts to disprove QM.
Click to expand...
Bell's theorem has never been experimentally verified. Saying it proved anything wrong is pretty ridiculous.

someone_sl said:
What an absolutely ridiculous appeal to authority.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of Einstein. I have often said I don't like his work and that I think he was often a thief of greater minds (lorentz especially). I just mentioned that we agree on this situation because some people here regard him highly. I don't. To me it's more of a novelty that someone I think was wrong about a lot of things was in complete agreement with me on this one.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
And gravity existed before we were able to write it down on mathematical terms.

QM explains several effects that occur in nature. Do you know about quantum tunneling, and it's uses on electronic, and on the fusion on stars?
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Furry_sl said:
In both scenarios, someone with a QM mind would say that the decay is simply determined by chance, whereas einstein, and I, argued that we don't know why it decayed, the chance is just our best explination until we figure out the exact explanation on why particles decay. If we understood why, would be able to predict more accurately when they would decay.
Click to expand...
I don't get this. What does being able to predict when a particle decay have to do with understanding why a particle decays? It's like saying since we do not have the computational abilities to measure all variables that effect a dice roll to calculate the outcome, we don't know why, which is completely false.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
lendarios_sl said:
And gravity existed before we were able to write it down on mathematical terms.

QM explains several effects that occur in nature. Do you know about quantum tunneling, and it's uses on electronic, and on the fusion on stars?
Click to expand...
how do we know T. rex was even named that? Did he have a tattoo?!
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,698
28,229
lendarios_sl said:
Explain this with classic physics.
Quantum tunneling on the kitchen table - YouTube
Click to expand...
Quantum tunneling was a theory developed as part of nuclear physics and later claimed as part of quantum mechanics. Somehow saying it proves QM to any degree is pure ignorance and un worthy of any legitimate response.

On top of that, that experiment has nothing to do with tunneling what so ever. It appears to be some sort of refraction experiment. It probably confirms malus's law to some degree or something similar. It only shows that no focused energy can make it through two refracted surfaces that end up to far apart. I'd venture a guess that the formula for detection strength is something similar to the square of malus' law.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Refraction... Behind the first wall? Are you serious? They placed the first wall, then the waves bounced to the second receptor. Then they placed the second obstacle not touching the first one, and some the waves magically ignored the first wall. That is not refraction, as the second obstacle was behind the first one. Under Classic physics refraction would have made the initial detector still receive almost no waves as now two objects are on the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.