Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
Start date Dec 17, 2012

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!

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior

<Donor>

May 31, 2015

#3,061

My girlfriend talks constantly about the health benefits of tumeric and garlic and cinnamon and vinegar. It's all I can do not to ask her what a molecule of tumeric does once ot enters your stomach. Does it get broken down into constituent amino acids or sugars or emsulsified by bile salts or does it magically zap itself straight to your hair follicles and cast a Level 7 "No Grey Hair Spell"?

Of course, it's a very minor thing and at the end of the day she is doing no harm amd her food still tastes good so I say nothing. I do have scars on my tongue from biting it though.

Malakriss

Golden Baronet of the Realm

May 31, 2015

#3,062

Does she know about the miraculous healing and sexual prowess increasing properties of cinnamilk?

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor

May 31, 2015

#3,063

So back toQuantum Mechanics. Seems like the double slit experiment with a new twist? It's measuring the Wave/particle function of a whole atom and supposedly proves it does not exist as a discreet things until it's measured.

Atom goes through first grate. When a second grate isn't present, the atom acts as either a wave or particle, seemingly random.

When a second grate is present, atom is always a wave. This means it had to be a wave going through the first grate. But if it could be either when there was no grate, how did adding the second grate make it always a wave?

Someone explaining it concisely. In short, if there is only one interaction (Measurement); when measured again it can be a wave/particle. If they put the second one up, it becomes a wave all the time. The issue is, why? If we know from the random single measurement experiments it could be a wave or particle after the first measurement, why was it consistently a wave with two? You'd expect the same split.

I'm absolutely no physicist but someone in the original thread mentioned in order to get this result, the particle would have to "know" there was going to be a second random measuring device added, before it actually hit the device. Someone in the thread explained it as because the atom is moving at such a high rate of C, it's temporal velocity is very slow? And so the interaction for it's reference frame happens the moment the experiment begins--where in our reference frame it looks like a cause-->effect because we are moving far slower through time? I have no idea if this is bullshit or not, sounds cool though.

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior

<Donor>

May 31, 2015

#3,064

That's pretty easy to interpret Lith, not sure what the trouble is. I think it's pretty clear that the wave particle duality of love is manifest in the boundaries of superpositional isotopic emotional discrepancies.

Denaut

Trump's Staff

May 31, 2015

#3,065

Lithose_sl said:
I'm absolutely no physicist but someone in the original thread mentioned in order to get this result, the particle would have to "know" there was going to be a second random measuring device added, before it actually hit the device. Someone in the thread explained it as because the atom is moving at such a high rate of C, it's temporal velocity is very slow? And so the interaction for it's reference frame happens the moment the experiment begins--where in our reference frame it looks like a cause-->effect because we are moving far slower through time? I have no idea if this is bullshit or not, sounds cool though.

My understanding is that the flow of time; that there exists a beginning, middle, and end; is essentially an illusion. This conception of time describes it as just another point in the universe as if the universe were a map with spatial distances between events. This implies that everything that has happened and will happen is happening, and it only looks to us like time is "moving." The reason the electron "knows" the future is because it is simultaneously in the past, present, and the future.

I don't know how true any of this is (I tend to think the universe basically works like this).

These videos might help explain more.

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

<Gold Donor>

May 31, 2015

#3,066

Lithose_sl said:
...

Wheeler's experiment then asks -- at which point does the object decide?

An experiment mathematically designed to determine if something is a wave or particle. Instead of accepting an inconclusive result means its neither, THE UNIVERSE ITSELF MUST BE BROKEN.

That essentially sums up quantum mechanics in a nutshell.

Denaut

Trump's Staff

May 31, 2015

#3,067

Furry_sl said:
An experiment mathematically designed to determine if something is a wave or particle. Instead of accepting an inconclusive result means its neither, THE UNIVERSE ITSELF MUST BE BROKEN.

That essentially sums up quantum mechanics in a nutshell.

Alex

Still a Music Elitist

May 31, 2015

#3,068

Denaut_sl said:
My understanding is that the flow of time; that there exists a beginning, middle, and end; is essentially an illusion. This conception of time describes it as just another point in the universe as if the universe were a map with spatial distances between events. This implies that everything that has happened and will happen is happening, and it only looks to us like time is "moving." The reason the electron "knows" the future is because it is simultaneously in the past, present, and the future.

I don't know how true any of this is (I tend to think the universe basically works like this).

So...

true_detective_5.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg

K

Kedwyn

Silver Squire

May 31, 2015

#3,069

Discover magazine did a piece on Time last month I'll post the article shots. The concepts of time are incredibly interesting as are the consequences depending on what theory is correct. IIRC Einsteins equations and the work done since seems to indicate that time is only an illusion. When you start to delve into that there are some pretty interesting philosophical or even Religious implications depending on how you want to twist it. Naturally not everyone agrees.

khorum

Murder Apologist

May 31, 2015

#3,070

Lithose_sl said:
So back toQuantum Mechanics. Seems like the double slit experiment with a new twist? It's measuring the Wave/particle function of a whole atom and supposedly proves it does not exist as a discreet things until it's measured.

Atom goes through first grate. When a second grate isn't present, the atom acts as either a wave or particle, seemingly random.

When a second grate is present, atom is always a wave. This means it had to be a wave going through the first grate. But if it could be either when there was no grate, how did adding the second grate make it always a wave?

Someone explaining it concisely. In short, if there is only one interaction (Measurement); when measured again it can be a wave/particle. If they put the second one up, it becomes a wave all the time. The issue is, why? If we know from the random single measurement experiments it could be a wave or particle after the first measurement, why was it consistently a wave with two? You'd expect the same split.

I'm absolutely no physicist but someone in the original thread mentioned in order to get this result, the particle would have to "know" there was going to be a second random measuring device added, before it actually hit the device. Someone in the thread explained it as because the atom is moving at such a high rate of C, it's temporal velocity is very slow? And so the interaction for it's reference frame happens the moment the experiment begins--where in our reference frame it looks like a cause-->effect because we are moving far slower through time? I have no idea if this is bullshit or not, sounds cool though.

yah retrocausality is pretty hot right now. That experiment's been duplicated a few times this year and it's got some exciting implications for everything from astrophysics to control theory predictive heuristics.

T

The Ancient_sl

shitlord

May 31, 2015

#3,071

There is a lot I don't understand about this, but mainly what's bothering me is why does the movable detector on the right side influence the state of detection on the left, but not vice versa?

Denaut

Trump's Staff

May 31, 2015

#3,072

Kedwyn_sl said:
Discover magazine did a piece on Time last month I'll post the article shots. The concepts of time are incredibly interesting as are the consequences depending on what theory is correct. IIRC Einsteins equations and the work done since seems to indicate that time is only an illusion. When you start to delve into that there are some pretty interesting philosophical or even Religious implications depending on how you want to twist it. Naturally not everyone agrees.

I am, obviously, in no way qualified to comment on Ellis' published papers, I assume they are accurate. However, I can comment on his philosophy.

"he considers them dangerous because they rob us of free will and moral accountability."

To which I can say... so what? The universe has no obligation to our sense of ethics, and our desire for free will to be a fundamental aspect of reality has no relevance to whether it is or not. His reasoning is flawed, just because he doesn'tlikethe philosophical implications of reality doesn't mean it isn't reality. We don't know for certain of course, but he is starting from a point a priori of the evidence and searching for a way to reconcile the universe with the way the wants the universe to be (rather than the usual other way around). The fact the even modern experiments show that the past and the future interact is even further evidence that he is wrong.

Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne discussed the subject on a recent podcast;https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/...th-jerry-coyne

Denaut

Trump's Staff

May 31, 2015

#3,073

The Ancient_sl said:
There is a lot I don't understand about this, but mainly what's bothering me is why does the movable detector on the right side influence the state of detection on the left, but not vice versa?

Only guessing, but you can probably construct the detector tocollapse the wave functionbased on how far it is from the lens. Exactly how this is done I have no idea.

Valishar

Molten Core Raider

May 31, 2015

#3,074

The Ancient_sl said:
There is a lot I don't understand about this, but mainly what's bothering me is why does the movable detector on the right side influence the state of detection on the left, but not vice versa?

It does if you measure with that one first. It just leads to a less interesting result because the result doesn't seem to retroactively change things back in time.

iannis

Musty Nester

May 31, 2015

#3,075

That's making too much of it, I think.

The existence of cloning does not disprove the assertion we make about the fundamental sanctity of life. Likewise, the existence of an instance of retrocausality does not disprove the assertion we make about the fundamental expression of free will.

I hope instead the concern is that some minds could use either as an argument for such. But the minds who want to argue against the sanctity of life don't need cloning to do it. The minds that want to argue for predeterminism don't need a fancy double slit experiment to do so.

R

Running Dog_sl

shitlord

Jun 1, 2015

#3,076

Lithose_sl said:
So back toQuantum Mechanics. Seems like the double slit experiment with a new twist? It's measuring the Wave/particle function of a whole atom and supposedly proves it does not exist as a discreet things until it's measured.

Atom goes through first grate. When a second grate isn't present, the atom acts as either a wave or particle, seemingly random.

When a second grate is present, atom is always a wave. This means it had to be a wave going through the first grate. But if it could be either when there was no grate, how did adding the second grate make it always a wave?

Someone explaining it concisely. In short, if there is only one interaction (Measurement); when measured again it can be a wave/particle. If they put the second one up, it becomes a wave all the time. The issue is, why? If we know from the random single measurement experiments it could be a wave or particle after the first measurement, why was it consistently a wave with two? You'd expect the same split.
...

I think the point is, Quantum Mechanics wouldn't expect the same split. As the article says, "The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence."

The issue is if you don't accept QM as the way the world seems to work, which is fair enough because it's so weird, but on the other hand if you don't accept QM there's a lot of stuff that does work that would need explaining.

Dandain

Trakanon Raider

Jun 2, 2015

#3,077

So, I'm not sure if this is precisely related to the discussion at hand. However, I think it might be of interest to at least one person in the discussion. BBC did a Science of Dr. Who, and Brian Cox gives a lecture in a hall I should recall the name of but one that has stood for hundreds of years. His lecture is all about the nature of time and space and there are some really quality sections of the lecture that I completely enjoyed. His explanation of time and space, and the notion of ones time cone was particularly interesting to me. Look past the few pieces of Dr. Who flavor. It can be found on netflix streaming currently at least.

The Science of Doctor Who (TV Movie 2013) - IMDb

iannis

Musty Nester

Jun 2, 2015

#3,078

We all know it's a big ball of timey wimey... stuff!

R

Running Dog_sl

shitlord

Jun 3, 2015

#3,079

Quantum gravity (or the difficulty in finding evidence for it), with the holographic principle thrown in for good measure:

Within experimental limits, the researchers found no difference in the quasar and blazar numbers, meaning no sign of quantum gravity effects. Their data placed an upper limit on the size of the phase shift due to quantum foam.

Light from distant black holes doesn't surf on waves of quantum foam | Ars Technica UK

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider

Jun 3, 2015

#3,080

The Ancient_sl said:
There is a lot I don't understand about this, but mainly what's bothering me is why does the movable detector on the right side influence the state of detection on the left, but not vice versa?

Because the one on the right is being "measured " first. Once one part of a particle is measured, the other part collapses as well

Show hidden low quality content

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share: