Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Looking at the videoHank ScorpioElon Musk released about this, they camereallyfucking close to making it work:
Last-second hydraulic failure, apparently.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 46,364
- 98,427
Elon Musk on Twitter:
Also:all - Jiffier gifs through HTML5 Video Conversion.
He does play KSP, incidentally.
Also:all - Jiffier gifs through HTML5 Video Conversion.
ShakyJake
<Donor>
- 7,911
- 19,955
Have they considered that they are not actually two separate particles but, instead, just one? From our perspective theyappearto be two separate particles, but we're simply observing two sides of the same coin. If one side is heads then you know the other is tails.
Burnem Wizfyre
Log Wizard
- 12,307
- 21,329
Yes they know that is not the case, the example Einstein used was a pair of gloves in that you shouldn't be surprised to see the left glove over here when you turn over the right glove over there. Bell proved this to not be the case, regardless of what dumb fucks like fury try to claim.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,879
- 28,595
Its proven! Even though the scientists who made these experiments say its not proven, which thus means it must be proven. (burnem logic)
ShakyJake
<Donor>
- 7,911
- 19,955
Out of curiosity, I did some Google'ing around and apparently this has been posited before (not that I for one second thought I was the only one to suddenly think of this). But the general consensus appears to be that if they are the same particle then it opens up a whole new can of worms and they don't wanna go there.
I think it was Hugh Everett (to answer the question of why all electrons had the same charge) suggested that they all had the same charge because they were all the same electron.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,879
- 28,595
Correct. Quantum mechanics willfully ignores this problem with its existence, and unfortunately the entire argument against it is summed up with what you said 'it makes them uncomfortable.' I believe it's more specifically called the unknown local variable loophole- the appearance of non-locality could be an artifact of an unknown local variable. EG: We could be seeing two halves of the same particle that is reliably splitting producing the appearance of correlation. There are other alternative versions, all of them viable and none excluded scientifically. It's the main reason I find quantum entanglement to be entirely bunk piece of science.
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
If I owe you an apple, I do not have -1 apples.
That's some banker logic up in here.
Seriously though, I do think Furry raises a few credible and interesting points. But I also think that he's not the only one, and those points both have been addressed and are continuing to be addressed.
I think it's just nipping on the edges of what we can observe and quantify for now so there's always going to be some cause for incredulity. Rightfully and usefully. It's always possible that there's an experiment that cums out of the Large Hardon next year that makes the academic physics community go "Oooooooooooh".
That's some banker logic up in here.
Seriously though, I do think Furry raises a few credible and interesting points. But I also think that he's not the only one, and those points both have been addressed and are continuing to be addressed.
I think it's just nipping on the edges of what we can observe and quantify for now so there's always going to be some cause for incredulity. Rightfully and usefully. It's always possible that there's an experiment that cums out of the Large Hardon next year that makes the academic physics community go "Oooooooooooh".
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
I think Furys problem is the following.
Lets start with that are 3 different possible theoretical solutions to the problem of quantum entanglement.
Option 1 does not break the rest of well established and tested set of rules.
Options 2 and 3 completely destroy our current understanding of the universe.
All three options are currently untestable beyond the shadow of a doubt. So all three are valid academically.
However the reason option one is accepted, is not because is more right. But because it breaks less. In fact it doesn't break anything else in our known testable universe.
This is what fury has a hard time with. Accepting the option that it breaks less. It is OK to know the limitations of our current understanding, and some times we have to chose the option that the outcome is not " information travels faster than the speed of light". Because nothing travels faster than the speed of light in our current set of rules.
Lets start with that are 3 different possible theoretical solutions to the problem of quantum entanglement.
Option 1 does not break the rest of well established and tested set of rules.
Options 2 and 3 completely destroy our current understanding of the universe.
All three options are currently untestable beyond the shadow of a doubt. So all three are valid academically.
However the reason option one is accepted, is not because is more right. But because it breaks less. In fact it doesn't break anything else in our known testable universe.
This is what fury has a hard time with. Accepting the option that it breaks less. It is OK to know the limitations of our current understanding, and some times we have to chose the option that the outcome is not " information travels faster than the speed of light". Because nothing travels faster than the speed of light in our current set of rules.
What I've read Furry as saying is that Option 1 shouldn't be treated as proven theory the way some people do, not that option 1 doesn't work.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
You are being overly generous. Calling something an entirely bunk piece of science is far more definitive than saying we shouldn't treat it as proven.
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
So far we haven't found anything contradictory with the results provided with option one. So while it is not proven, because they are really out of the realm of our current technological or even mental/physical capacity, it remains the leading candidate by far. And it should be treated as the right one, until new data comes along that disproves it.
Option 2 and 3, really break everything, and we have no data to backup the theory. Only that it is within the realm of possible , not plausible.
Also it is very different saying. "Quantum Theory is a bunch of BS", vs saying "i don't agree with the current leading theory explaining Quantum entanglement".