[url="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140827-quantum-imaging-cats-undetected-photon-science/"]National Geographic[/url]
[t]http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/830/cache/quantum-cats-1_83007_990x742.jpg[/t]
[quote]Like twins separated at birth who are later reunited, two laser beams revealed invisible objects in a display of their weird quantum connection, researchers reported on Wednesday.
The images, of tiny cats and a trident, are an advance for quantum optics, an emerging physics discipline built on surprising interactions among subatomic particles that Einstein famously called "spooky."
A conventional camera captures light that bounces back from an object. But in the experiment reported in the journal Nature, light particles, or photons, that never strike an object are the ones that produce its picture.[/quote]
[img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-ghost.gif[/img] spooky
Einstein also said that Quantum Mechanics was a joke.
[b]Edit:[/b]
Because people are boxing me:
[quote]"Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn't play dice." - Albert Einstein[/quote]
Imagine how much more shit kids are going to have to learn in school in 20 years, now I understand what my parents meant when they said the same thing to me
[quote]In medicine, for instance, doctors might probe tissues using invisible wavelengths of light that won't damage cells, while simultaneously using entangled visible light beams to create clear images of the tissues.[/quote]
[quote]In particular, the experiment's approach could create images in visible light of objects that normally can be seen only under infrared light[/quote]
[quote]The team passed the red light beam through etched stencils and into cutouts of tiny cats and a trident, about 0.12 inches (3 millimeters) tall. The yellow beam traveled on a separate line, never hitting the objects. What's more, the etched shapes were designed to be invisible to yellow light.[/quote]
this is really cool, they're entangling a visible light beam with an infrared beam and using the infrared beam to detect something that the visible light cannot, but because the beams are affected by quantum entanglement the detection is shown on the visible light beam
essentially like seeing through the eyes of another person who can also see things that you can't
[editline]31st August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;45851465]Einstein also said that Quantum Mechanics was a joke.[/QUOTE]
a lot of jokes in physics are ironically true like schrodinger's cat and the behavior of subatomic particles (the analogy was intended to ridicule, hence a fucking cat in a box), and the big bang (the name was intended to be comical and silly because the theory was thought to be silly by the physicist who coined it)
[QUOTE=3Dprinter;45851472]Imagine how much more shit kids are going to have to learn in school in 20 years, now I understand what my parents meant when they said the same thing to me[/QUOTE]
It's unfortunate.
We're already far past the point where you can't master a science anymore. Even if we're standing on the shoulders of giants, every new generation must learn the same things the previous generation did in order to advance. Compare the situation to e.g. the 1800s when you could honestly say that Gauss [i]knew[/i] math, because there was no mathematics he didn't know. Obviously as a collective we now know more than they ever did, and we do much more research than they did, but I bet that there's a lot of things we've missed because there is no person alive that could connect all the information we already have.
I believe that until computers are doing most of our research (and not just the number crunching), there won't be significant advances in human understanding of the universe.
[QUOTE=download;45851465]Einstein also said that Quantum Mechanics was a joke.
[b]Edit:[/b]
Because people are boxing me:[/QUOTE]
Almost all of the physicists at the time who helped develop quantum mechanics thought it was a bunch of shit (or rather, to be more specific, that certain interpretations of it are a bunch of shit - they could still clearly see the results it gave). Hell, Schrödinger himself only came up with the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment to highlight how nonsensical some interpretations of quantum mechanics were!
Quantum stuff is some grade-A insane shit
I wanna study that shit
[QUOTE=download;45851465]Einstein also said that Quantum Mechanics was a joke.
[b]Edit:[/b]
Because people are boxing me:[/QUOTE]
I boxed you not because I didn't know the quote you were referencing, I boxed you because Einstein's primary interpretation of QM has been experimentally disproven (the wavefunction is a physical description not a statistical calculation required due to missing variables/incomplete theory) and so the comment is a bit obsolete I feel. He was smart and right about a lot of things, but not everything.
EDIT: I think [url="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html"]this is[/url] one of the experiments demonstrating what I mean, though there have been more conclusive ones even this year that were published not too long ago I believe.
EDIT 2: A [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments"]wiki article[/url] on the matter
[QUOTE=ThePuska;45851554]It's unfortunate.
We're already far past the point where you can't master a science anymore. Even if we're standing on the shoulders of giants, every new generation must learn the same things the previous generation did in order to advance. Compare the situation to e.g. the 1800s when you could honestly say that Gauss [i]knew[/i] math, because there was no mathematics he didn't know. Obviously as a collective we now know more than they ever did, and we do much more research than they did, but I bet that there's a lot of things we've missed because there is no person alive that could connect all the information we already have.
I believe that until computers are doing most of our research (and not just the number crunching), there won't be significant advances in human understanding of the universe.[/QUOTE]
That's generally why researchers stick to specific topics for years. We end up with hundreds of people that know almost everything about a specific topic, and then they network together for a broader understanding. But an all knowing research super computer would be pretty cool.
rattle me bones.
[QUOTE=AXidenT;45852259]I boxed you not because I didn't know the quote you were referencing, I boxed you because Einstein's primary interpretation of QM has been experimentally disproven (the wavefunction is a physical description not a statistical calculation required due to missing variables/incomplete theory) and so the comment is a bit obsolete I feel. He was smart and right about a lot of things, but not everything.
EDIT: I think [url="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html"]this is[/url] one of the experiments demonstrating what I mean, though there have been more conclusive ones even this year that were published not too long ago I believe.
EDIT 2: A [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments"]wiki article[/url] on the matter[/QUOTE]
Einstein's interpretation hasn't really been disproven yet. Yeah, the evidence is pretty strong that we can't preserve everything that Einstein wanted in a theory, but there are still some pretty big loopholes in Bell's theorem. Even some damn good quantum physicists are pushing for theories that exploit the loopholes (e.g. 't Hooft seems to be very into superdeterminism right now).
And of course many-worlds preserves almost all the features Einstein wanted, just in a non-obvious way. It's becoming quite popular being a very philosophically attractive interpretation (and it's possibly falsifiable!).
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;45852575]Einstein's interpretation hasn't really been disproven yet. Yeah, the evidence is pretty strong that we can't preserve everything that Einstein wanted in a theory, but there are still some pretty big loopholes in Bell's theorem. Even some damn good quantum physicists are pushing for theories that exploit the loopholes (e.g. 't Hooft seems to be very into superdeterminism right now).
And of course many-worlds preserves almost all the features Einstein wanted, just in a non-obvious way. It's becoming quite popular being a very philosophically attractive interpretation (and it's possibly falsifiable!).[/QUOTE]
True but my point is to not dismiss QM because Einstein wasn't happy with it - the evidence we have at the moment more strongly than not suggests he didn't have the right interpretation. The more these experiments are done the less likely it is seeming. That being said I should avoid using an absolute word like disproven - that was me being lazy. :p
[QUOTE=AXidenT;45852651]True but my point is to not dismiss QM because Einstein wasn't happy with it - the evidence we have at the moment more strongly than not suggests he didn't have the right interpretation. The more these experiments are done the less likely it is seeming. That being said I should avoid using an absolute word like disproven - that was me being lazy. :p[/QUOTE]
no one was dismissing QM
i think the real discovery here is that cats are more prevalent in quantum mechanics than we previously thought
[QUOTE=Sableye;45852901]i think the real discovery here is that cats are more prevalent in quantum mechanics than we previously thought[/QUOTE]
This isn't really new information. Cats have been well-known to be very prevalent in QM ever since Schrodinger demonstrated that any box in a thought experiment contains at least 2 cats.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;45851561][img]http://cnet2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/07/28/4f496ed5-a6c3-42be-8005-69df0fd5399e/resize/770x578/6c0493b053e858a801ac5ed35b5e767e/space-skeleton.jpg[/img]
[b]QUANTUM SPOOKING[/b][/QUOTE]
The skeleton is both spooky and unspooky at the same time.
[QUOTE=ZombieWaffle;45853070]The skeleton is both spooky and unspooky at the same time.[/QUOTE]
The spooky paradox
[QUOTE=download;45851465]Einstein also said that Quantum Mechanics was a joke.
[b]Edit:[/b]
Because people are boxing me:[/QUOTE]
Everyone knows that because whenever quantum physics is brought up in any way people point out Einstein like he was some god damn supreme being who knew everything.
[QUOTE=download;45851465]Einstein also said that Quantum Mechanics was a joke.
[b]Edit:[/b]
Because people are boxing me:
[quote]"Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn't play dice." - Albert Einstein[/quote][/QUOTE]
Well, that's why religion fails when it meets science. This is just another god of the gaps argument.
[QUOTE=Explosions;45853625]Well, that's why religion fails when it meets science. This is just another god of the gaps argument.[/QUOTE]
I mean I don't see why bringing it up though, he was wrong when he said that "God doesn't play dice" simply because what we know now is that Quantum physics has proven that some things are indeed just "Random".
Assuming we could bring back all the evidence we have now, I'm very sure he would accept it as theory, he isn't trying to make an argument of the gaps, just criticize what he feels isn't a sound theory.
Furthermore, yeah I posit that religion fails when it meets science, but Einstine has said his opinion about god.
[quote]My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and enoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.[/quote]
Which is I think a rather elegant way of saying "I don't know about God, but he seems like a dick, and people who need punishment looming over their heads to not do bad things are sad".
[QUOTE=ThePuska;45851554]
I believe that until computers are doing most of our research (and not just the number crunching), there won't be significant advances in human understanding of the universe.[/QUOTE]
You can't really believe that, can you? We are learning better ways to teach material, and students are learning faster. I really can't foresee a significant slow down in scientific discovery over the next 50 years.
calcium
[QUOTE=AXidenT;45852259]I boxed you not because I didn't know the quote you were referencing, I boxed you because Einstein's primary interpretation of QM has been experimentally disproven (the wavefunction is a physical description not a statistical calculation required due to missing variables/incomplete theory) and so the comment is a bit obsolete I feel. He was smart and right about a lot of things, but not everything.
[/QUOTE]
No shit, Sherlock.
No reason to box me though.
[editline]1st September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=AXidenT;45852651]True but my point is to not dismiss QM because Einstein wasn't happy with it - the evidence we have at the moment more strongly than not suggests he didn't have the right interpretation. The more these experiments are done the less likely it is seeming. That being said I should avoid using an absolute word like disproven - that was me being lazy. :p[/QUOTE]
I wasn't. I was just quoting Einstein.
Where did I say QM was wrong?
[QUOTE=Zombie_2371;45853522]The spooky paradox[/QUOTE]
The spooky superposition.
[QUOTE=Worre;45859271]The spooky superposition.[/QUOTE]
The spooker-pospooksition
I wish I was smart enough to understand what all this meant
I feel as if this is the same sorta beam splitting entanglement that was done in the "Cheshire Cat" story.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;45851554]It's unfortunate.
We're already far past the point where you can't master a science anymore. Even if we're standing on the shoulders of giants, every new generation must learn the same things the previous generation did in order to advance. Compare the situation to e.g. the 1800s when you could honestly say that Gauss [i]knew[/i] math, because there was no mathematics he didn't know. Obviously as a collective we now know more than they ever did, and we do much more research than they did, but I bet that there's a lot of things we've missed because there is no person alive that could connect all the information we already have.
I believe that until computers are doing most of our research (and not just the number crunching), there won't be significant advances in human understanding of the universe.[/QUOTE]
We'll just have to start training people to be mentats then, that or theoretical physics can just expand, the real problem with our current theories of the universe is that the science to test them has not caught up, kinda like how relativity couldn't be tested at first until telescopes and cameras caught up even then you couldn't really test it until the advent of atomic clocks and spacecraft some 70 years later
[editline]1st September 2014[/editline]
I doubt unless we develops true AI or some form of person-on-chip that we can teach a computer to abstractly observe the universe, its pretty clear though that a unified theory of physics is far off as every time we make a discovery in quantum physics and particle physics and astronomy we have to move the goal posts back another 10 yards
[QUOTE=download;45858791]No shit, Sherlock.
No reason to box me though.
[editline]1st September 2014[/editline]
I wasn't. I was just quoting Einstein.
Where did I say QM was wrong?[/QUOTE]
Your original post was saying QM was a "joke". I interpreted that as you saying "Einstein said QM was a joke therefore we shouldn't take the results of QM seriously" which I found dumb because QM has been experimentally verified extensively since then (as evidenced in this article for one) and that Einstein wasn't infallible (I don't like the idea of dismissing which is supported by evidence because someone 100 years ago partially disagreed with some aspects of it). I apologise if that wasn't the general jist of what you meant but that's how I interpreted it and I don't see what the point of your post was if that wasn't the case. Maybe provide some better context?
PS - Did Einstein ever actually call QM a "joke" like you originally said? I've never heard of him saying that specifically - the quote you provided doesn't really imply he thought it was a joke.
PSS - (Not actually trying to be snarky in my reply, sorry if it seems like that just justifying my position. :) )
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
