Science, it definitely still works bitches. - The Bear and Badger

LazyGunn

I find that if someone cannot perceive something that doesnt make sense to how their senses define the universe, they think it's a load of rubbish

Universe doesn't give a fuck about your perceptions whatsoever

adkm1979

I wish I could remember half the stuff I was taught, because then I could back up my argument with facts. Â

Rev

Universe seems to roll on just fine without being jotted down as theories. Â

Can I be excused please, I've just Wikied some of this stuff and my brain is now full.

LazyGunn

adkm1979 wrote:

I wish I could remember half the stuff I was taught, because then I could back up my argument with facts. Â

The ones that contradict the facts on the previous page? Didn't you just say you STARTED it and then gave up cause you thought it was rubbish? Shouldn't you be able to back up an argument before even starting one?

Alright well there's my contribution, carry on!

Rev

I understand the basics of stuff. Â In fact I understand quite a bit because I studied chemistry at uni.Â

But some of these guys just take it too far. Its hypothesis based on theory based on another theory based on one that can be proved. Â As far as I can see.

adkm1979

Yes, I started off with it, nd did a year and a half of it. Â Obviously I'd learned a lot less than others, but figuring in CSYS Physics, I'd been studying quantum mechanics and the accompanying mathematics for two and a half years. Â I was doing very well at it, there was no failure to grasp the theories and follow them through to their conclusions. Â The problem is that assumptions are made for theories to 'work', then further theories are made assuming that the first is sound, and so on, and there were logical fallacies in the base assumptions. Â At this point I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and shout, "LA LA LA."

Rev

Like religion then. No direct proof of some things. Just an idea based on something, based on something else we can grasp.Â

*runs away from the thread as quickly as possible and logs off the forum just in case*

Blue Swirl

Some_Guy wrote:

Explain the theoretical reason for the results of the double slit experiment as put forward in mainstream QM and explain how it is valid, and then provide empirical evidence that demonstrates that the theory is sound.

Double slit experiment just demonstrates that thinking of light as waves or particles isn't really what's happening. They're just models that we use to help our poor monkey brains. Think about it, light can't really be a wave, as it doesn't travel in a medium. We just use the wave model to help predict what'll happen, say, when light hits a mirror.

They've already constructed the first building blocks of a quantum computer, and IIRC have also managed to quantum entangle two separate particles. Quantum mechanics works. It's just that the results* are counter-intuitive.

The great thing about the Copenhagen interpretation is that the Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment was designed to show how it's bullshit - Schroedinger was a bit surprised when quantum physicists turned around and said "yeah, basically, just like that".

* Particles with spin 3/2, say. A particle with spin 1/2 will look the same as itself after being rotated through 180 degrees (think: a diamond). A particle with spin 1 will look the same as itself after being rotated through 360 degrees (think: a tear drop). A particle with spin 3/2 will only tesselate with itself after being rotated through 540 degrees. Which is just brilliantly head bending. Quantum mechanics makes no sense because it's something that we have no direct experience of, unlike say Newtonian mechanics. The results have already been applied to the real world, however, so you can dislike it as much as you want - it's here to stay!

[Deleted User]

The results of the ds experiment can currently explain all observed physical phenomena apart from gravity and a few loose ends from nuclear physics. It's the most successful theory ever. I wouldn't say it's like religion in the slightest.

Some_Guy

monkey wrote:

Some_Guy wrote:

Explain the theoretical reason for the results of the double slit experiment as put forward in mainstream QM and explain how it is valid, and then provide empirical evidence that demonstrates that the theory is sound.

Copenhagen interpretation => quantum entanglement => Bell Test Experiments. It's sound in as much as it produces a way of predicting and working with quantum phenomena. It doesn't need to be definitive.

Reality is what reality is, regardless of any theory created to understand our perceptions of it, or how comfortable one may feel about it. As far as I can tell, the Copenhagen interpretation offers no quantifiable rational explanation for the results of the double slit experiment, only a probabilistic way to determine what the outcome could be, which I don't have a problem with at all; I'm actually in agreement with Gazelle most of the time. What I asked you for is the theoretical reason for the results, not how to determine what the results might be. Can you tell me what some physicists have proposed in regard to that question?

I will give you a clue, it has to do with whether wave functions are real entities or not.

monkey

Why am I supposed to be answering a question you already know the answer to?

[Deleted User]

If you believe as I do, that the Universe is actually made out of mathematics, these anxieties simply dissolve in the blink of a Universal Constant.

LazyGunn

monkey wrote:

Why am I supposed to be answering a question you already know the answer to?

i'd like to know please!

i don't know a hell of a lot about any of this, my knowledge of maths is bad, my knowledge of physics is bad and i tend to have problems comprehending some of the language used, however one of my main bugbears is people saying what reality is based on what they see. if the intent of these branches of science is to understand totality, i can be sure i have to appreciate discourse about things that i can only relate to theoretically. so i'm interested in all this a lot!

Some_Guy

monkey wrote:

Why am I supposed to be answering a question you already know the answer to?

Well, I'm not sure how to spell this out basically and not come off as condescending, but considering you opened with three posts answering a question I didn't ask and addressing objections I didn't make, the reason for answering this question that was asked of you in my first post would not be to explain my position to me, but to demonstrate that you also understand what I am talking about and what I am asking of you.

Little Franklin

I just assume all this stuff makes sense on a mathematical level that I'm too lazy and stupid to understand.

Mod74 wrote:

Very simply, Amps are the speed at which energy moves through a wire and Volts are the power of the energy.

I guess I like to visualise things, I imagine a flow of electrons as beingÂ equatableÂ to aÂ liquid and can'tÂ reallyÂ imagine how Amps and Volts fits in to that. Something like pressure and speed maybe?

Some_Guy

SpaceGazelle wrote:

If you believe as I do, that the Universe is actually made out of mathematics, these anxieties simply dissolve in the blink of a Universal Constant.

This is where we diverged in out thinking last time, and I still am of the opinion that your statement is nonsense, but I'm happy to discuss why.Â What do you suppose mathematics is?

monkey

Some_Guy wrote:

Well, I'm not sure how to spell this out basically and not come off as condescending, but considering you opened with three posts answering a question I didn't ask and addressing objections I didn't make, the reason for answering this question that was asked of you in my first post would not be to explain my position to me, but to demonstrate that you also understand what I am talking about and what I am asking of you.

Actually my posts were in response to your statements that anything that didn't make sense to you was a bag of shite. Now since very little of QM makes sense, its fair to interpret your statement as pretty wide ranging. Hence my posts.Â
Â
If you're trying to limit or clarify your original assertion of the shite being 'the bits that don't make sense' to simply the 'certain areas that are currently theoretical', you can. That's not a problem.Â

Setting me exam questions in the middle of a working day is not the way to go about it though.Â

That God thread must be great fun if this is the shit you get up to in there.Â

Rev

god thread is the yorkie bar of threads.

monkey

revelthedog wrote:

god thread is the yorkie bar of threads.

Then my theory is that god is shit. This is based on the provable theory that yorkie bars are shit.

adkm1979

Based on the same logical fallacy, Yorkie bars only exist in the heads of mentalists.

[Deleted User]

When phone repair man stops looking confused and starts actually doing something I may rejoin this discussion.

Some_Guy

monkey wrote:

Actually my posts were in response to your statements that anything that didn't make sense to you was a bag of shite.Â Now since very little of QM makes sense, its fair to interpret your statement as pretty wide ranging. Hence my posts.Â Â If you're trying to limit or clarify your original assertion of the shite being 'the bits that don't make sense' to simply the 'certain areas that are currently theoretical', you can. That's not a problem.Â Setting me exam questions in the middle of a working day is not the way to go about it though.Â That God thread must be great fun if this is the shit you get up to in there.Â

I never made any mention of what makes 'sense to me', I specifically pointed out that the logically inconsistent parts of QM are nonsense.Â I can quote myself if it helps you:
"I suspect that QM is not all bunch of shite, just the bits that don't actually make logical sense given how that are talked about."
Ideas are either logical or they are not, regardless of what I believe.Â Ideas that are not logical cannot be true.Â I'm happy to clarify more if you like, because I'm really not sure how you are interpreting 'ideas that don't make logical sense' as 'certain areas that are currently theoretical'.Â Perhaps you should reread my posts when you are not so err, busy. Â Then if it still interests you you might like to answer the only question I have asked of you, if only for the novelty.

monkey

Well we're at a bit of an impasse here. I'm not going to answer your question as you've already said its simply a way to test my knowledge, and not to actually advance the debate.Â I've already told you what my limited credentials are.Â I'm not playing the game of trying to meet some intellectual prerequisite you've decided upon before you explain what these logical inconsistencies are. Sticks in the craw I'm afraid.Â

Obviously while I continue to not provide an answer, it casts doubt on whether I can provide one, but fuck it. Anyone interested can simply google it. It's well-documented.

Mod74

Little Franklin wrote:

I just assume all this stuff makes sense on a mathematical level that I'm too lazy and stupid to understand.

Mod74 wrote:

Very simply, Amps are the speed at which energy moves through a wire and Volts are the power of the energy.

I guess I like to visualise things, I imagine a flow of electrons as beingÂ equatableÂ to aÂ liquid and can'tÂ reallyÂ imagine how Amps and Volts fits in to that. Something like pressure and speed maybe?

Here's a water analogy

Another analogy - You have a big vat full of water. At the bottom is a valve that is closed. The water represents a potential to do work or the voltage. As you open the valve a little bit some water flows out. This represents current. How much the valve is open represents resistance - the smaller the opening the greater the resistance. Now if you had a water wheel near the valve and the outflow of the vat caused the wheel to turn; and if the wheel were connected to a generator you would have a miniature hydroelectric system and could get some work done.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_amps_and_volts#ixzz20PsbS5wR

Or a bread van one which sort of works better

Here's a good analogy, say the wire is a road, the battery a bread factory and the light a super market, the current would therefore be the rate at which the vans leave the factory, and the voltage would be the amount of bread their carrying (the energy). so amps are the rate at which energy is moved and volts are the actual level or intensity of that energy.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_amps_and_volts#ixzz20PubIdOo

[Deleted User]

Does the light sell Yorkie Bars?

Rev

Don't be stupid, where would it keep its change?

Some_Guy

Monkey,
Debates cannot advance until participants agree to talk about the same subject, so I'm not sure how you expect me to advance my own position without asking you if you also understand what theories have been put forth to explain the results of the DS experiment. It is only for this reason that I ask you to demonstrate your knowledge, regardless of how intelligent you may or may not be. I want to know if we are starting with the same broad knowledge, or if we need to spend time establishing the hypothesis. Surely it would be more condescending of me to assume you had no idea what they were, than simply to ask you what the general hypothesis is? Asking what you know about does not equate to testing intelligence.

As for your annoyance, you may not like my approach, but considering you misread my question and instead enthusiastically answered a question I didn't ask with multiple posts implying how I was wrong on a position you had invented for me, and consequently had three back-and-forths with me establishing what you could have gleaned from a more careful reading of what I wrote in the first place, it would seem you don't have much grounds for refusing to answer my question because of it's irrelevance, or any evidence for me testing you for an intellectual prerequisite that you could be annoyed by. Perhaps I'd have better grounds for being annoyed at irrelevance, and being treated like an intellectual inferior, no?

In any event I cannot make you, nor am I interesting in making you answer questions. Your contribution and cooperation is up to you. In the interests of furthering the debate, I suppose I will take your word for it that you know there are speculative hypothesis in QM to explain the results of the DS experiment, none of which are backed up by empirical evidence and some of which do not even make sense.

There are three ideas in particular I'm thinking of, that show up in more than one interpretation:

-Many worlds

-Wave function collapse as a real phenomenon

-Observer induced wave collapse

Do you have any objections to that?

Lord_Griff

You missed out, magic.

Facewon

I think the DS experiment requires Magic +5, FYI.

Meanwhile, the interesting thing out of the exchange for me so far is the distinction between "makes sense/doesn't make sense" and "Makes sense/doesn't make sense to me."

Monkey totally just added to "to me/you" to SG's sentence and it twisted things right up. However, to an extent I don't even blame monkey for that, I think there's definitely some slippage and some differences in the way people use "make sense" etc. Casually, I think it frequently has "to me" implied on the end, and I also think that when people use it they frequently assume that there is something to make sense of. ie Whatever is in question doesn't make sense because they lack the required info to make it make sense. But the other way of using make sense, and what SG was meaning, is a much more objective turn of phrase. The thing in question doesn't make sense, not through a lack of understanding, but through a lack of internal logic or contradiction. Which I guess is where things kick off again with the discussion of QM, as I understand the argument: Some people saying "I know it doesn't make sense but it works" And others saying "That doesn't make sense, there is a gap in our knowledge/model/whatevs."

Anyhoo, carry on.

Some_Guy

*Also, magic.

lol Thanks Griff.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories