Physics anyone?

Off Topic (Everything besides dubstep)
Forum rules
Please read and follow this sub-forum's specific rules listed HERE, as well as our sitewide rules listed HERE.

Link to the Secret Ninja Sessions community ustream channel - info in this thread
User avatar
kay
Posts: 7343
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:50 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Physics anyone?

Post by kay » Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:18 pm

Write-up on a new take on parallel universes being the reason behind quantum mechanics' fuzziness:
http://theconversation.com/when-paralle ... born-32631

User avatar
kay
Posts: 7343
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:50 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Physics anyone?

Post by kay » Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:58 pm

More quantum bizarreness, this time physicists think they might have shown that an electron's wave function can effectively be divided into smaller pieces, ie the chances of finding an electron at a given location can be divvied up into bubbles of probability.

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-function-electron.html

rickyarbino
Posts: 4508
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:07 pm
Location: Eternity

Re: Physics anyone?

Post by rickyarbino » Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:05 pm

Almost seems as if it'd certainly be in one place.
magma wrote:It's a good job none of this matters.

SignalRecon
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Physics anyone?

Post by SignalRecon » Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:02 am

New baryons found at Large Hadron Collider predicted by Canadian physicists. Because theres nothing Phigure hates more than Canadians or me, and me talking about physics.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/new-s ... -1.2840199
Image

User avatar
_ronzlo_
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:29 pm

Re: Physics anyone?

Post by _ronzlo_ » Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:36 pm

nowaysj wrote: ...But the chick's panties that you drop with a keytar, marry that B.


User avatar
kay
Posts: 7343
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:50 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Physics anyone?

Post by kay » Thu Dec 25, 2014 12:11 pm

Oh, they weren't already linked? What the hell have quantum physicists been up to all these years???

User avatar
LeanSound
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Physics anyone?

Post by LeanSound » Thu Dec 25, 2014 12:35 pm

kay wrote:Write-up on a new take on parallel universes being the reason behind quantum mechanics' fuzziness:
http://theconversation.com/when-paralle ... born-32631
This almost seems like a get-out clause to some quantum physics behavior we don't quite understand.... blame it on the parallel universes!!!
Cool publication though, even though I've never heard of Physical Review X.
Impact factor of 8.4 is pretty serious! That's higher than a few Nature Research Journals.

rickyarbino
Posts: 4508
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:07 pm
Location: Eternity

Re: Physics anyone?

Post by rickyarbino » Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:50 am

kay wrote:Oh, they weren't already linked? What the hell have quantum physicists been up to all these years???
I've not read the article, just the title and sub-title.
I want to wait for your response.
How did you think they were linked? Like specifically?
How does not being able to measure position and velocity, for instance (my knowledge is very limited), simultaneously relate to duality? Doesn't the immeasurability arise whether particle or wave motion is being observed?

Forgive these potentially ignorant waffles.
Image
magma wrote:It's a good job none of this matters.

rickyarbino
Posts: 4508
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:07 pm
Location: Eternity

Re: Physics anyone?

Post by rickyarbino » Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:57 am

I gave-in and started reading, their definition of duality really put it into perspective. Ignore the ignorant waffles.
kurzweilai.net wrote:Wave-particle duality is the idea that a quantum object can behave like a wave, but that the wave behavior disappears if you try to locate the object
magma wrote:It's a good job none of this matters.

Phigure
Posts: 14134
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 5:55 am
Contact:

Re: Physics anyone?

Post by Phigure » Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:06 am

Afaik it was mostly assumed to be the case anyways
j_j wrote:^lol
Soundcloud | Twitter

User avatar
LeanSound
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Physics anyone?

Post by LeanSound » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:41 pm

LeanSound wrote:
kay wrote:Write-up on a new take on parallel universes being the reason behind quantum mechanics' fuzziness:
http://theconversation.com/when-paralle ... born-32631
This almost seems like a get-out clause to some quantum physics behavior we don't quite understand.... blame it on the parallel universes!!!
Cool publication though, even though I've never heard of Physical Review X.
Impact factor of 8.4 is pretty serious! That's higher than a few Nature Research Journals.
This is kind of what i was getting at... speculative theories
http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-m ... ign=buffer

User avatar
kay
Posts: 7343
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:50 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Physics anyone?

Post by kay » Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:54 pm

Mostly agree with that article. Don't get me wrong - speculative theories are great. If no one ever speculated about how things work we'd still be cavemen. However, to be scientific, a theory has to correctly match observations and be provable/disprovable. Otherwise it's just a thought experiment. Ultimately, theories are frameworks for describing what we see around us and elegant solutions that can't be proven one way or other aren't terribly useful.

However this doesn't mean we should abandon speculative theories that can't be proven. It could be that we have not developed them sufficiently or have the right mathematics or worldview to deliver proof. It's just that no one should tout them as The Truth.

Finally, I don't really see anything wrong with theories where every parameter can be tweaked to make it match reality. After all, physics is all about modelling reality. Also, there's nothing wrong with having multiple theories to model reality - they are after all just ways of framing how the universe works and different situations may benefit from a different way of framing the problem.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests