Schrodinger's Box, and why you should scare people with too much time on their hands.
226 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186038]LOL, this would mean the entire universe is in superposition then, because we're a single container cut off from any outside influence, and us observing doesn't count. buuuullllllshiiiiit.[/QUOTE]
String Theory.
I already mentioned exactly what you just said.
Also, wait a minute, if a superposition can be inside another superposition, how can something become well defined inside a sueprposition?
Hey guys my arm is in superposition, I can no longer type, it's particles are acting like a wave.
Do you see what's worng with this?
Jawalt: Those physicists espousing one of the best verified series in the entire history of science are just as bad as the religious they have no idea what they are talking about, I, a person without a physics background who does not understand the Schrodinger's cat experiment, am clearly more qualified to judge it than they.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32186069]Also, wait a minute, if a superposition can be inside another superposition, how can something become well defined inside a sueprposition?[/QUOTE]
You are asking for explanations on a subject that currently has no explanation.
All we know is that this shit happens. We know next to nothing else about it.
[editline]8th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186074]Hey guys my arm is in superposition, I can no longer type, it's particles are acting like a wave.
Do you see what's worng with this?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Your brain is currently in a superposition, simultaneously existing in a state of intrigue and a state of belligerency and ignorance.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32186075]Jawalt: Those physicists espousing one of the best verified series in the entire history of science are just as bad as the religious they have no idea what they are talking about, I, a person without a physics background who does not understand the Schrodinger's cat experiment, am clearly more qualified to judge it than they.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't take a physics background to think logically. if Shrodinger's Cat were true, it'd mean EVERYTHING is in superposition.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186117]It doesn't take a physics background to think logically. if Shrodinger's Cat were true, it'd mean EVERYTHING is in superposition.[/QUOTE]
Quantum Physics is not logical.
WELCOME TO STRING THEORY, THE LIFE YOU PERCEIVE IS JUST ONE OF MANY LIVES THAT YOU ARE LIVING SIMULTANEOUSLY.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32186154]Quantum Physics is not logical.
WELCOME TO STRING THEORY, THE LIFE YOU PERCEIVE IS JUST ONE OF MANY LIVES THAT YOU ARE LIVING SIMULTANEOUSLY.[/QUOTE]
[quote]In the mid 1990s a unification of all previous superstring theories, called M-theory, was proposed, which asserted that strings are really 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane vibrating in 11-dimensional spacetime.[/quote]
Yeah about string theory....
Also quantum physics has to be logical, or logic would not hold true on a higher level. You can't have deterministic logical things in a non-logical world.
When is the last time an opcode went to your cpu and the outcome was an unexpected one? Never.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186117]It doesn't take a physics background to think logically. if Shrodinger's Cat were true, it'd mean EVERYTHING is in superposition.[/QUOTE]
Schrodinger's cat IS true. I have personally witnessed its consequences via experiment.
You're try to apply basic everyday common sense to quantum mechanics. That is about the worst thing you could possibly attempt to do.
[editline]8th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186206]Yeah about string theory....
Also quantum physics has to be logical, or logic would not hold true on a higher level. You can't have deterministic logical things in a non-logical world.
When is the last time an opcode went to your cpu and the outcome was an unexpected one? Never.[/QUOTE]
Hey guess what, quantum physics doesn't apply in the classical macroscopic size limit.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186206]When is the last time an opcode went to your cpu and the outcome was an unexpected one? Never.[/QUOTE]
When I put it inside a Schrodinger Box.
Shit is not logical because our logic is Earth logic. You are thinking with an Earth Brain, developed on Earth for Earth and almost entirely incapable of understanding shit that does not have some relevance to Earth.
You need to ask yourself: Is quantum physics wrong, or is your logic wrong?
It only happens for an instant, the cat being a duality that is.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32186216]Schrodinger's cat IS true. I have personally witnessed its consequences via experiment.
You're try to apply basic everyday common sense to quantum mechanics. That is about the worst thing you could possibly attempt to do.
[editline]8th September 2011[/editline]
Hey guess what, quantum physics doesn't apply in the classical macroscopic size limit.[/QUOTE]
Well since quantum physics in the end MAKE UP the macroscopic physics, it HAS to.
You can not have a set of non-deterministic rules and then have a set of deterministic rules carried out using said set, -it doesn't work- think about it.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32186242]When I put it inside a Schrodinger Box.
Shit is not logical because our logic is Earth logic. You are thinking with an Earth Brain, developed on Earth for Earth and almost entirely incapable of understanding shit that does not have some relevance to Earth.
You need to ask yourself: Is quantum physics wrong, or is your logic wrong?[/QUOTE]
Quantum physics is wrong.
All of those experimental verifications are wrong because I can't reason out why this should work.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32186216]Hey guess what, quantum physics doesn't apply in the classical macroscopic size limit.[/QUOTE]
In short:
We have monkey brains that are only good at finding bananas a fucking other monkeys. Our logic has developed in the world we inhabit. It is not currently adept to reconciling for shit like Quantum Physics.
Well, hold on a minute there. it has to be. And I mean the formal logic crap. I mean, I can understand how formal logic says nothing about the movement of particles. But it sure as hell can't make
A -> B
A
B
false, right?
[QUOTE=Lankist;32186242]When I put it inside a Schrodinger Box.
Shit is not logical because our logic is Earth logic. You are thinking with an Earth Brain, developed on Earth for Earth and almost entirely incapable of understanding shit that does not have some relevance to Earth.
You need to ask yourself: Is quantum physics wrong, or is your logic wrong?[/QUOTE]
So now you're claiming the logic and mathematics that physics is based upon is wrong and EARTH logic, and EARTH mathematics.
Lol.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186273]So now you're claiming the logic and mathematics that physics is based upon is wrong and EARTH logic, and EARTH mathematics.
Lol.[/QUOTE]
No he's not, he's claiming that's what YOUR logic is. "This isn't what I see everyday hence it is not true."
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32186265]Quantum physics is wrong.
All of those experimental verifications are wrong because I can't reason out why this should work.[/QUOTE]
I am not claiming quantum physics is wrong, I am claiming that our understanding of it has to be deeply flawed.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186273]So now you're claiming the logic and mathematics that physics is based upon is wrong and EARTH logic, and EARTH mathematics.[/QUOTE]
When it comes to Quantum Theory?
Yes.
Our Laws of Physics only explain the things we see, not the things we are incapable of seeing. At some point we'll figure out the constants for quantum physics as well, but not today.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186258]Well since quantum physics in the end MAKE UP the macroscopic physics, it HAS to.
You can not have a set of non-deterministic rules and then have a set of deterministic rules carried out using said set, -it doesn't work- think about it.[/QUOTE]
Hey what do you think Einstein spent the entire second half of his life trying to do? He tried to find a bridge between our conventional macrophysics and the quantum physics. He wasn't able to find a unifying theory.
We simply have ideas to explain these two. We don't know everything, but that's not an excuse to simply throw out the entire idea of quantum physics. Just because it doesn't make sense with the information we have doesn't mean the stuff we know is inherently wrong. We may be wrong about everything we know, but to simply assume we are wrong because we don't know everything is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186302]I am not claiming quantum physics is wrong, I am claiming that our understanding of it has to be deeply flawed.[/QUOTE]
No one here has claimed we understand it. In fact, essentially every scientist on earth claims NOT to understand it. It's been mentioned several times before that this is how nature works and we haven't the slightest clue why.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;32186319]Hey what do you think Einstein spent the entire second half of his life trying to do? He tried to find a bridge between our conventional macrophysics and the quantum physics. He wasn't able to find a unifying theory.
We simply have ideas to explain these two. We don't know everything, but that's not an excuse to simply throw out the entire idea of quantum physics. Just because it doesn't make sense with the information we have doesn't mean the stuff we know is inherently wrong. We may be wrong about everything we know, but to simply assume we are wrong because we don't know everything is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Hey guys I don't understand how to do calculus.
Calculus is wrong.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;32186319]Hey what do you think Einstein spent the entire second half of his life trying to do? He tried to find a bridge between our conventional macrophysics and the quantum physics. He wasn't able to find a unifying theory.
We simply have ideas to explain these two. We don't know everything, but that's not an excuse to simply throw out the entire idea of quantum physics. Just because it doesn't make sense with the information we have doesn't mean the stuff we know is inherently wrong. We may be wrong about everything we know, but to simply assume we are wrong because we don't know everything is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
It is grounds to not base any of your beliefs on any of the current quantum physics models, and no it's not wrong to assume we're wrong because we have TONS of question marks all over the place.
[editline]8th September 2011[/editline]
If someone explained to me half of the proof behind the pythagorean theorem, I would not believe them.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186359]It is grounds to not base any of your beliefs on any of the current quantum physics models, and no it's not wrong to assume we're wrong because we have TONS of question marks all over the place.
[editline]8th September 2011[/editline]
If someone explained to me half of the proof behind the pythagorean theorem, I would not believe them.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand what science [I]is.[/I]
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186359]If someone explained to me half of the proof behind the pythagorean theorem, I would not believe them.[/QUOTE]
That is not even close to analogous. It would be more like if they proved that the Pythagorean theorem worked in all cases but admitted to having no idea why.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186302]I am not claiming quantum physics is wrong, I am claiming that our understanding of it has to be deeply flawed.[/QUOTE]
Hey it could be wrong, it is just our mathematical interpretation of the universe, but my god to make claims like that with no true knowledge of quantum physics. Before you make an outrageous claim you should learn about the quantum universe you need to know the maths such as 'abstract mathematics: infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces, projection operators unitary matrices' and so forth.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32186393]That is not even close to analogous. It would be more like if they proved that the Pythagorean theorem worked in all cases but admitted to having no idea why.[/QUOTE]
Or rather like discovering the Pythagorean theorem under a rock, figuring out that it works invariably, but having no proof for it.
Alternatively, knowing that the set of Prime Numbers is infinite, but having no idea what all of the Prime Numbers are.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186359]It is grounds to not base any of your beliefs on any of the current quantum physics models, and no it's not wrong to assume we're wrong because we have TONS of question marks all over the place.[/QUOTE]
It's perfectly fine to assume you might be wrong. It makes for good discussion which leads to more investigation, but it's entirely different to outright throw out an entire system of physics because we have holes in certain spots.
Like the periodic table. We filled in the elements we knew and left out the ones we didn't In some cases we discovered certain elements with higher atomic numbers before we found out some of the lower ones. With physics it's obviously more complex than that since things are related, but just because we don't understand all the principals doesn't mean all our science is wrong.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32186393]That is not even close to analogous. It would be more like if they proved that the Pythagorean theorem worked in all cases but admitted to having no idea why.[/QUOTE]
I would not believe that either, because it's impossible to prove the output of a 'black box'. You'd have to prove that for EVERY input it gave a correct output.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32186273]So now you're claiming the logic and mathematics that physics is based upon is wrong and EARTH logic, and EARTH mathematics.
Lol.[/QUOTE]
"We're not at the center in this theory and I don't understand it must be wrong"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.