(Thread IKs:
Platystemon)
|
pretty fitting considering all the rape the nerds do later on
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:It really is just math, and using it to solve fundamental mysteries of reality is nonsense. "A bunch of observations about the world and some algebra and calculus so that you can predict things like those observations" is what quantum physics is, and if you learn it as math done on some observations its not particularly troubling, save that the math is calculus and not everyone is great with that. Honestly I don't know what you mean by "think of it as a hammer" but to me the issue is that quantum becomes really hard and troubling when you start trying to create metaphors that make it observable to humans. An electron is a bit like a baseball in someways but is fundamentally not a baseball in a lot of other ways, and if somebody tries to explain to you the double slit experiment through a baseball metaphor its going to sound completely insane, doubly so if its been telephone game'd 300 times by people who thought it was mind blowing. I think in large part the mystification of quantum comes courtesy of people believing that there are no limits at all on human comprehension, so the fact that our brain loving hates things like the dead cat thought experiment, the slit experiment, and of course the uncertainty principle is seen as something incredibly troubling, or profound, when its mostly just that our brain is designed to memorize which berries are poison and figure out how to bean an antelope with a rock, which are not tasks that overlap with "how electrons behave." Fitzy Fitz posted:I never took physics The good/bad news is that physics will probably take you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 23:19
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Honestly I don't know what you mean by "think of it as a hammer" I gathered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 23:22
|
|
|
Quantum physics is like, you wanna know where a baseball is you gotta do wave math. but you never find the wave always just the baseball. and when you find it, the math becomes baseball math for a while, before it diffuses out again when you're not looking. that + entanglement, the baseball can be in two places at the same time. idk if there's any other weird stuff
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 23:49
|
|
|
It's also satisfying that the standard model comes from just a couple symmetries. Every point in space has a circle you can spin, doesn't matter how you spin it, nothing changes. That little circle shows up as a step in the math, but it seems it doesn't matter for the actual final prediction. Mathematically, astonishingly, making that little circle that exists at every point in space go away gives you electromagnetism and quantized charges. They are mathematically equivalent. edit: same for weak force and strong force, each just a consequence of a symmetry, and in fact they are the next simplest symmetries after spinning a circle Antonymous has issued a correction as of 23:57 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 23:53
|
|
|
tokin opposition posted:The Italian Room chatgpt cant speak italian because it doesnt have arms edit: the double slit experiment is a really good example of "human brains can't comprehend bad metaphors" because 1. the layman version totally obfuscates what "observation" is and makes it sounds like merely looking at the experiment setup makes it behave differently 2. it is not a real experiment anyway, it is literally a thought experiment that can't be done in practice ymgve has issued a correction as of 00:17 on Mar 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:11
|
|
|
ymgve posted:chatgpt cant speak italian because it doesnt have arms no they did it with electrons in 2012
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
got any details? as far as I know there hasn't been any experiment with the classical setup thats in all education videos about the double slit, where a detector magically turns on/off the interference pattern like a light switch
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:25
|
|
|
Feynmann's QED book does a good job explaining the difference iirc. A: An electron/photon/whatever shoots out, passes through an area with two slits, where does it arrive on the screen? is different question than B: An electron/photon/whatever shoots out, which slit does it go through AND where does it arrive on the screen? it might seem surprising that these give different results because it doesn't communicate that specifically in version A the system is set up so that is no way to tell, not just that we don't look/don't ask. edit: you could say even the universe doesn't know in version A, it's simply not a valid question to say 'which slit' when its set up right Antonymous has issued a correction as of 00:32 on Mar 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:25
|
|
|
ymgve posted:got any details? as far as I know there hasn't been any experiment with the classical setup thats in all education videos about the double slit, where a detector magically turns on/off the interference pattern like a light switch https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304399112000599 this is what I found
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
I am just a dilettante and a sucker for science youtubes, I watch them before bed. and I was a physics major for a while but I switched. I did all the math classes at least. now I have an MFA I'm also an extreme skeptic and believe science often uses bad analogies and poorly communicates concepts so I won't believe something until it clicks in my head and I get it. I could be tricked tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304399112000599 this is what I found that seems to be a variant of what you describe as experiement A, except the electrons arrive one by one and the interference builds up over time. what i'm talking about is a setup that switches between experiment A and B seamlessly, which is described in way too many intros to quantum stuff as a real setup that exists
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
quadruple post but I think historically the top physicists, Einstein Feynman etc, are good philosophers and absolutely made use of questioning assumptions. Einstein clowned on Lorentz et al because it took them years to figure out how to make sense of the michelson morley experiment and their conclusions were convoluted and Einstein just went 'look I can get the same answer in about 10 minutes with highschool level math if I just give up one assumption". Feynman doesn't assume particles are limited by the speed of light or that they conserve momentum or energy or anything and then finds those things are consequences of much more simple, albeit alien to our macro world, assumptions. Just like those little symmetries give you all the forces for free. It's really the philosophy that won but at the same time it's completely alien to anything humanist
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:40
|
|
|
ymgve posted:that seems to be a variant of what you describe as experiement A, except the electrons arrive one by one and the interference builds up over time. what i'm talking about is a setup that switches between experiment A and B seamlessly, which is described in way too many intros to quantum stuff as a real setup that exists electrons always arrive one by one and the interference is a statical effect. there is no such thing as observing a wave, it's a mathematical trick to predict where the electron lands, it's never physical. version B is the easy one to set up anyway. Version A is the interesting one
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:41
|
|
|
Tulip posted:"A bunch of observations about the world and some algebra and calculus so that you can predict things like those observations" is what quantum physics is, and if you learn it as math done on some observations its not particularly troubling, save that the math is calculus and not everyone is great with that. Honestly I don't know what you mean by "think of it as a hammer" but to me the issue is that quantum becomes really hard and troubling when you start trying to create metaphors that make it observable to humans. An electron is a bit like a baseball in someways but is fundamentally not a baseball in a lot of other ways, and if somebody tries to explain to you the double slit experiment through a baseball metaphor its going to sound completely insane, doubly so if its been telephone game'd 300 times by people who thought it was mind blowing. my brain doesn't hate any of those things op, and i don't know why people keep insisting it's very weird. one of the weirdest things about quantum physics is that quantum physicists insist it's so weird. i'm basically the politician here. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
what I mean is stuff like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ&t=419s (7 minute mark if it doesn't start correctly) where it acts like just adding a detector to an existing double slit interference setup suddenly erases the interference
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:48
|
|
|
afaik that's not what anyone has built and leads to the confusion yeah, like just looking at it does something which is not the case but I don't really know what experiments are out there
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
and that is my point, the "classical" detector experiment that is in lectures and tutorials all over simply does not exist
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
it's almost like we don't understand this very well and are explaining it poorly!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 00:56
|
|
|
Everything I need to know about quantum mechanics I learned in Greg Egan books
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
everything i need to know about quantum mechanics is, thankfully, nothing
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 01:04
|
|
|
You can do something similar with photons, it is easy to make them behave like waves - the Type A version. And you can do an experiment where you send them through both slits and get a pattern, then each slit individually which gets you a pattern for each slit which, added together, is a wholly different pattern than both slits together. If you dim the laser so that you're confident that at most one photon is going through, at a time, it's still hard to explain why the patterns change when the photons arrive as a single point on the screen. Conceptually that's the same issue anyway. But it doesn't look like that reference video so you're still right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_uBaBuarEM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h53PCmEMAGo
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
Zodium posted:my brain doesn't hate any of those things op, and i don't know why people keep insisting it's very weird. one of the weirdest things about quantum physics is that quantum physicists insist it's so weird. i'm basically the politician here. The real question here is if I put a cat in a box with a radioactive isotope with a seal that may or may not break open and result in the cat's death... will that be enough to win the suburban swing vote?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 01:06
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:The real question here is if I put a cat in a box with a radioactive isotope with a seal that may or may not break open and result in the cat's death... will that be enough to win the suburban swing vote? Tell them the cat is antifa
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
Zodium posted:my brain doesn't hate any of those things op, and i don't know why people keep insisting it's very weird. one of the weirdest things about quantum physics is that quantum physicists insist it's so weird. i'm basically the politician here. the important thing in life is to never be an analytic philosopher
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
Tulip posted:the important thing in life is to never be an analytic philosopher true
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 02:29
|
|
|
Tulip posted:the important thing in life is to never be an analytic philosopher that's right
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
Zodium posted:that's right
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 03:02
|
|
|
If you aren't Judith Butler stfu imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 03:02
|
|
|
MeowthZodium posted:that's right
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 03:09
|
|
|
lol https://twitter.com/vxunderground/status/1635427567271329792
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 08:48
|
|
|
lmao gently caress
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 09:11
|
|
|
Amazon to the Hackers: "Go ahead, I already know that data."
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 09:52
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:if you wanna waste an hour on youtube this guy's videos are all pretty watchable. different major physics frauds, why america didn't build a way, way bigger accelerator than CERN's LHC in the 80s (Spoiler: Reagan). The real story of the Bogdanoff twins oh hell yeah i need as much "chart party" style science content in my life as possible also my mans sounds like Kevin Perjurer
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 15:23
|
|
|
someone discovered the super secret COPS_ONLY endpoint
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
new gpt just dropped https://twitter.com/sama/status/1635687853324902401
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Aniirban19/status/1635719192803688448?s=20 Does the robot actually "get" jokes? I really don't know what's real with this stuff anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
Nichael posted:https://twitter.com/Aniirban19/status/1635719192803688448?s=20 They got a bunch of people to look at images that were funny and describe what was funny about them to establish the correct answers and then they made the computer try to do the same thing and zapped it with a cattle prod when it got it wrong until it started getting it right, basically
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
Nichael posted:https://twitter.com/Aniirban19/status/1635719192803688448?s=20 It is quite simply just associating things to other things and determining the most likely response based on that. Since referencing things is the majority of humor I suppose you could say that yes, it does get the jokes
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
However, it won't be truly real until it's able to independently determine that the joke is not funny and insult you for making it
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 20:41
|
|