Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • 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!
T

Troll_sl

shitlord
1,703
7
Iannis_sl said:
No, because the entangled state does not break causality. For whatever reason, and there are apparently 2-3 theories about why it doesn't.

But if you measure the one of the pair, call it A, you know what B must be. But B does not know what yours is until theirs is also measured. So it's actually sort of useless in that regard. It's not entirely communication. And I think measuring breaks the entanglement to boot so it's not like you can switch them back and forth for faster-than-electricity communication. You could create another pair I guess, A2 and B2, but then you'd just have to send B2 back to A1. And if you're gonna do that you might as well write a letter. And you still won't know what A2 is until you measure it, and that'll fuck it up.

I'm sure there's a zillion neat ways to exploit that feature of particles, but communication is probably not one of them.
Click to expand...
It actually may be exploitable with multiple-particle entanglements. We're finding they do weird things as we try to introduce more into an entangled system.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,885
28,606
Tuco_sl said:
Furry, why is qe unprovable? If qe works can't they use it to communicate over long distances without an electrical connection?
Click to expand...
Let me explain QE and the concept behind it in as layman's terms as I can surmise before answering your questions. there's a very long standing idea behind physics that the existence of light speed proves that something has to move faster, we just don't know what it is. QE actually arose as a segment of this string of thought. Field equations in general represent concepts which ignore the speed of light's propagation within them. QE is in essence and attempt to prove this concept by stretching a field to immense size and then show it is still coherent. The fundamental flaw in this approach is you can't know if the coherence is actually the field or an artifact of our earlier manipulation to expand it.

Thus, every single version of this experiment has a loophole which can not be closed without violating the uncertainty principle.

If QE worked, it could be used for FTL communication, but I'm a strong believe that it doesn't. That said, I DO believe in the concept that stuff can be FTL, I just don't think QE is it.
 
Merrith

Merrith

Golden Baronet of the Realm
18,414
7,126
Furry_sl said:
Let me explain QE and the concept behind it in as layman's terms as I can surmise before answering your questions.
Click to expand...
the existence ... proves that something ... we just don't know what it is.
Click to expand...
is in essence and attempt to prove this concept ... and then show it is still coherent. The fundamental flaw in this approach is you can't know if the coherence is ... Thus, every single version of this experiment has a loophole
Click to expand...
I feel like if we made a rerolled dating website...Furry and Dumar would get matched up instantly.

We wouldn't even need to ask why or how.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,885
28,606
Merrith_sl said:
I feel like if we made a rerolled dating website...Furry and Dumar would get matched up instantly.

We wouldn't even need to ask why or how.
Click to expand...
Depends on what his favorite animal is.

As for your broken quotes. I agree completely that this is not valid science. Why the fuck do you think I have so much hatred for it?
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
Furry_sl said:
there's a very long standing idea behind physics that the existence of light speed proves that something has to move faster, we just don't know what it is. QE actually arose as a segment of this string of thought. Field equations in general represent concepts which ignore the speed of light's propagation within them. QE is in essence and attempt to prove this concept by stretching a field to immense size and then show it is still coherent. The fundamental flaw in this approach is you can't know if the coherence is actually the field or an artifact of our earlier manipulation to expand it.

Thus, every single version of this experiment has a loophole which can not be closed without violating the uncertainty principle.

If QE worked, it could be used for FTL communication, but I'm a strong believe that it doesn't. That said, I DO believe in the concept that stuff can be FTL, I just don't think QE is it.
Click to expand...
Don't even know where i'd start with the counterargument. it's all so perfectly wrong.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,885
28,606
I only make one factual statement in my post, one that I have repeatedly asked anyone on this forum to disprove, and nobody has managed to do it. It's a simple and direct fact that should be extremely easy to call me on.

1. Quantum entanglement is completely unproven.

Can you prove my statement wrong? Any peer reviewed and excepted paper that proves QE to the scientific standard of 5 deviation will be accepted by me. Any Loophole that invalidates the results will cause it not to be accepted. If QE is so real, prove it.

Everything else is natural philosophy, where the musing of any person are just as worthless as the next. That said, I don't even agree with the content of my post. I constantly rail about how stupid these theories are, and my ability to explain the mainstream belief of how QFT and QE relate does not mean I endorse that idiotic line of thought. If you are interested in the natural philosophy involving why people think these things, have an interesting read in reference to what I said earlier. It's far more technical than what I said, but essentialy shows some differing viewpoints. Natural philosophy is only useful in pointing us in the right direction for experimentation. It is not useful for actually explaining the universe, and its disgusting that some branches of science believe it is.http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/fa...mannsSocks.pdf
 
Skanda

Skanda

I'm Amod too!
6,662
4,506
I stopped taking furry seriously as soon as he admitted he's a yiffer. I advise the rest of you to follow suit.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
If we disqualified people based on how atrociously fucked up their fetishes are, we'd never talk to anybody!

Freak and let freak. I can only imagine that the insides of those suits start to smell horrendous pretty quick. And how do you even feel anything? Do the suits come with buttflaps, like toddler pajamas?
 
Skanda

Skanda

I'm Amod too!
6,662
4,506
Iannis_sl said:
If we disqualified people based on how atrociously fucked up their fetishes are, we'd never talk to anybody!

Freak and let freak. I can only imagine that the insides of those suits start to smell horrendous pretty quick. And how do you even feel anything? Do the suits come with buttflaps, like toddler pajamas?
Click to expand...
I didn't say don't talk to, just don't take seriously. I can't get the picture of some guy in a Disney costume standing here trying to sound smart out of my head.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,358
80,736
Iannis_sl said:
No, because the entangled state does not break causality. For whatever reason, and there are apparently 2-3 theories about why it doesn't.

But if you measure the one of the pair, call it A, you know what B must be. But B does not know what yours is until theirs is also measured. So it's actually sort of useless in that regard. It's not entirely communication. And I think measuring breaks the entanglement to boot so it's not like you can switch them back and forth for faster-than-electricity communication. You could create another pair I guess, A2 and B2, but then you'd just have to send B2 back to A1. And if you're gonna do that you might as well write a letter. And you still won't know what A2 is until you measure it, and that'll fuck it up.

I'm sure there's a zillion neat ways to exploit that feature of particles, but communication is probably not one of them.
Click to expand...
So you're telling me the Quantum Entanglement communicator that Martin Sheen put on my space ship is bullshit? I reject your reality and substitute my own.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,885
28,606
Iannis_sl said:
...
Click to expand...
Strategically placed hole.

And I'll be happy if nobody can argue against me based on science. I just like to come in here and remind people from time to time that QE has less science behind it than fursuit making.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
Are you arguing that QE doesn't exist, or that it can't be used as a means of transmitting information FTL?
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,885
28,606
Ambiturner_sl said:
...
Click to expand...
You're post makes it absolutely clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Your supposed 'proof' was something I talked about earlier objectively, and you already claimed it to be wrong.

ambutturner_sl said:
Don't even know where i'd start with the counterargument. it's all so perfectly wrong.
Click to expand...
Read my response, it was a later article written by the same man on the same subject. He's more willing to admit his mistakes and counter arguments in that one, though he is a preacher of QE, so he won't fully admit his weaknesses. Essentially, the problem comes with the fact that mathematical proofs are not scientific proofs. They can and frequently are wrong, especially in theoretical fields. They are more akin to mathematical 'theories'. His use of math in the in the paper you linked is entirely correct, but what can be brought into question is the warrants of his argument, and discussion of that enters the natural philosophy realm, and I do not consider that an acceptable level of proof for anything.

I laid out what I consider acceptable proof earlier in this thread. It is the level of proof that is accepted by all science. 5 standard deviation. Come at me bro.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
You seem to understand that scientific proofs and mathematical proofs are not the same, yet expect the scientific proofs to be at the level of the mathematical proofs. That is just a fundamental lack of understanding of science.

All you ever say is that everyone else is wrong and you won't be satisfied until they can prove a negative. Why don't you let us in on your grand theories since general relativity and quantum mechanics aren't real? And what's up with the double-slit experiment? It seems to show wave particle duality but we all know that's BS, amiright?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.