Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Furry_sl said:

He is correct though. Randomness is because we don't know or control all variables. Take a coin flip. Just flip a coin and it seems random. Build a machine to flip the coin the same way in the same environment every time, and something that was random becomes controllable. What Rhuma is arguing is that in nature, any place where we see randomness isn't truly random, it just appears to be that way because we don't know all the conditions.If we could control the environment and experiment completely, we would stop getting random results.

Click to expand...

What proof of this do you have because nothing in nature or math tells us this is the case, which is probably why you hate QM so much.

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:

You? Yes. You have proven yourself a moron time and time again. Please enlighten me how randomness is not real.

Click to expand...

Drop something. Same effect, every time. If randomness was real, sometimes it might just fly up in the sky.



This is an example that is put forth in defense of chaos theory being a thing. My argument is self explanatory, when you refresh the image, given the exact conditions the same chaos will reproduce itself and isnt random.

Furry_sl said:

He is correct though. Randomness is because we don't know or control all variables. Take a coin flip. Just flip a coin and it seems random. Build a machine to flip the coin the same way in the same environment every time, and something that was random becomes controllable. What Rhuma is arguing is that in nature, any place where we see randomness isn't truly random, it just appears to be that way because we don't know all the conditions. If we could control the environment and experiment completely, we would stop getting random results.

Click to expand...

That would mean I could build a computer big enough to simulate EVERYTHING that makes you, you and predict what bullshit you're gonna spew out next. Unfortunately it seems I can't; unless they figured out already when an atom is gonna decay or any other example of indeterminism.


edit : this covers a lotBell test experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vvoid_sl said:

Man, I sure could use a dose of Lumie and garlic right about now.

Click to expand...

Fury is playing the part of crazy retard for Lumie and Rhuma is about as smart as garlic.

Furry_sl said:

To say it as simply as possible.

The view taken by QM is that nature can ignore the laws of physics unless humans are looking. .

Click to expand...

Wait, what? I know that's how it's explained in those 2 minute videos, and I don't have anything more than a college physics class, so take that how you will. However, it was my understanding that QM wasn't based on "our observation" but rather that unless elementary particles interact with other objects, they exist only as a probability. The reason we tie this to "our observation" is because our observationsdependon interaction (Photons, electrons ect bounding off things, things hitting other objects--we detect through interaction).

This is different than an observation effect because it happens if we observe or not, all it requires is that the Quantum particle interact with some other object and it will define it's location. But if there is no interaction, the location never becomes defined. It has nothing at all to do with us physically looking at it, we don't matter--it's only a correlation to us because we actually need interaction to observe things and thus whenever we observe we induce this effect (Hence why we only see the QM weirdness when we don't observe directly but instead look at after effects).

Other than that, I'm pretty sure most QM scientists believe QM is an incomplete theory, it explains the how and why in relation to ourselves but not the overall why in relation to the universe. That's why there are all these theories floating around about extra dimensions in string theory, quantized space time ect. These are all supposed to be frameworks for explaining what we observe in QM, no? But none of that makes QM "wrong", it's like describing a dice roll in probabilities. It's not wrong to do so even if you could technically predict the roll with far more information. That's how I've always looked at it.

Furry_sl said:

light and microwaves are both electromagnetic radiation. The only difference is frequency. They are both governed by the exact same equations, and they both do the exact same things.

Click to expand...

I think it's funny the way people keep acting like you are the dumbass.

Furry_sl said:

The QM explanation essentially boils down to their belief that its okay for nature to violate the laws of physics as long as we don't look. The act of looking forces it to cooperate. You can see this belief referenced continually thorughout QM labeled typically with the word 'choice', that basically nature chooses how it is when given a choice (enforced by humans), and this is the core belief that I detest.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's what I'm saying; it's not "us" who forces the choice. It's interaction with another object. It just so happens that in order for us to measure things, we need to perform that interaction. So "we" don't really have anything to do with it--it just so happens that our observations require the mechanic that forces the particle to "choose" it's location. No?

The Bell experiment stuff is way over my head, so maybe I'm missing something. But essentially it seems like measurement is just another name for interaction--and the theory is that in the quantum world it's possible for a particle to not interact with anything else, and during those times of non-interaction it's a wave of probability. Once it actually moves through something else, it becomes a finite measurement. Until that happens though, it technically does not exist in any one space? (Is this right to anyone with an actual physics degree?)---if so, we don't really matter. What matters is the interaction (We just happen to use interaction to observe.)