1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby keithl » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:45 pm UTC

Colorless green ideas sleep according to quantum mechanics.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby Kit. » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:51 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:
ST47 wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:Te sheer level of militant atheism in this thread is absurd.


And there's another phrase that you can safely ignore!


Oh, boy! Are we going to get into a debate about the usage of the term militant to describe atheists?

Wasn't it your intent anyway?

But I'd be more interested in a debate about the usage of the term "absurd" to describe observed levels.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:01 pm UTC

just brew it! wrote:Hey, I liked Quantum Leap *and* ST:E. So there!


I still like QL (I have the DVD boxset) but Enterprise was a bit disappointing - and it took me half the first season to stop waiting for Cpt Archer to say "Oh boy" when something went wrong...

O-Deka-K
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:40 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby O-Deka-K » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:04 pm UTC

jc wrote:An example I read recently said that a particular company had made a quantum leap in income last year. My immediate thought was "Did their income actually increase by exactly $0.01?" But that's not at all what it meant; the writer was using "quantum" to mean "an unspecified but huge amount", and indicated this by the use of "leap".

There's nothing wrong with that statement. The phrase "quantum leap" is an idiom that has been in use for a long time, and "a huge leap" is exactly what it means.

Yes, it's counter-intuitive because a "quantum" is actually a very small amount. However, I think of it this way: It takes a huge intuitive leap to go from traditional physics to quantum physics. Therefore, the word "quantum" refers to "knowledge of quantum physics", not the literal meaning of the word "quantum" itself.

I also loved the TV show "Quantum Leap". Obviously, the title is a play on this idiom. In the show, Scott Bakula stepped into a "quantum accelerator" and this caused his consciousness him to "leap" from person to person, putting right what once went wrong (sorry, obligatory phrase).

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5439
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:40 pm UTC

Regarding "quantum leap", I think the important analogy which is meant to be drawn from physics is not one of magnitude of change but one of rate of change. A "quantum leap" in the colloquial sense is a sudden, discrete, immediate change, as opposed to something that ramped up gradually and then plateaued; it is not necessarily a large change, as opposed to a small one.

Of course in reality nothing but an actual literal change in quantum state is going to be so discrete and sudden, but for a given sampling rate and resolution of the phenomenon in question some changes may be effectively as sudden.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby Kit. » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:41 pm UTC

O-Deka-K wrote:
jc wrote:An example I read recently said that a particular company had made a quantum leap in income last year. My immediate thought was "Did their income actually increase by exactly $0.01?" But that's not at all what it meant; the writer was using "quantum" to mean "an unspecified but huge amount", and indicated this by the use of "leap".

There's nothing wrong with that statement. The phrase "quantum leap" is an idiom that has been in use for a long time, and "a huge leap" is exactly what it means.

Yes, it's counter-intuitive because a "quantum" is actually a very small amount. However, I think of it this way: It takes a huge intuitive leap to go from traditional physics to quantum physics.

I think the "quantum leap" idiom (and "quantum" as an adjective meaning "huge") comes from the band theory of solids. Where electrons behave like "classical" particles (with an "effective mass" different from the mass of a free electron, though) with small changes in their energies keeping them in their band, but experience quantum effects when the change of their energy is huge enough to move them between the bands.

communisteggplant
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby communisteggplant » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:43 pm UTC

dacaldar wrote:Why isn't the dog a stick-dog?


Because CUTE PUPPY CUTE PUPPY WHO'S A CUTE PUPPY :D

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:11 pm UTC

communisteggplant wrote:
dacaldar wrote:Why isn't the dog a stick-dog?


Because CUTE PUPPY CUTE PUPPY WHO'S A CUTE PUPPY :D


And anyways, wolpies, meowlpies, and beesnakes are never stick figures.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

SimonMoon5
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:00 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby SimonMoon5 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:28 pm UTC

dacaldar wrote:Why isn't the dog a stick-dog?


Is the implication that dogs are higher-dimensional beings than people?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:56 pm UTC

mszegedy wrote:The wavefunction doesn't collapse/decohere until you personally observe it/entangle your mind with it.
Which happens at the speed of light spreading out from the original decohering interactions.

CocoaNutCakery wrote:The sheer level of militant atheism in this thread is absurd.
Really? Those two posts constituted an absurd level? Do you live in a monastery or something?

Pfhorrest wrote:Regarding "quantum leap", I think the important analogy which is meant to be drawn from physics is not one of magnitude of change but one of rate of change. A "quantum leap" in the colloquial sense is a sudden, discrete, immediate change, as opposed to something that ramped up gradually and then plateaued; it is not necessarily a large change, as opposed to a small one.

Of course in reality nothing but an actual literal change in quantum state is going to be so discrete and sudden, but for a given sampling rate and resolution of the phenomenon in question some changes may be effectively as sudden.
Yeah, I always took it to mean a sudden jump, with no necessary reference to size (apart from the implied fact that you wouldn't notice a jump if it were really tiny).
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby orthogon » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:39 pm UTC

Speaking of '80s throwbacks, I believe the phrase Quantum Leap was also abbreviated to form the name of the multi-thousand selling Sinclair QL.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

mszegedy
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:29 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby mszegedy » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:13 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
mszegedy wrote:The wavefunction doesn't collapse/decohere until you personally observe it/entangle your mind with it.
Which happens at the speed of light spreading out from the original decohering interaction.


Your point? It's still the case that, to you, it looks like decoherence, not wavefunction collapse, until you personally observe it. Nobody can collapse a wavefunction for you. Although, it's a moot point, because the Copenhagen interpretation is a discontinuous/non-differentiable CPT-violating unitarity-destroying informally-defined FTL piece of trash.

User avatar
pitareio
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:03 pm UTC
Location: the land of smelly cheese

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby pitareio » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:13 pm UTC

dacaldar wrote:Why isn't the dog a stick-dog?


It was made by the experimental dog generator.

Wlerin
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:16 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby Wlerin » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:48 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
yellow103 wrote:Schrodinger's cat knows very well if it is dead or alive.


Only true if it has a soul.... or at least if we can prove cats are self-aware. Heck, how do you know you're alive? You have no comparison state that you can recall (deadness).

Alive isn't defined as not-dead, but rather by various positive functions, such as (for humans) breathing, a heartbeat, consciousness. Granted some of these aren't absolutely necessary, but I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference for yourself without being conscious... Point is you don't need a comparison state to know if you are alive.

Dead, on the other hand, is either simply not-alive, or else was-once-but-is-no-longer-alive, so the negative of the above functions.

dalcde
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:49 am UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby dalcde » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:03 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
dalcde wrote:According to quantum mechanics, you can't know both the position and momentum of a particle precisely.

EDIT: Just realized that my statement is a counter-example for both the comic AND the title-text.


I chose to ignore your sentence and I don't feel in danger at all...


Since you replied, you have not ignored it.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby addams » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:06 pm UTC

yellow103 wrote:Schrodinger's cat knows very well if it is dead or alive.

I know the dead or alive thing is woven deeply into who we are and how we think.

I like to think of Schrodinger's Cat as In or Out.
I have learned a few things about cats.
Cats are not like dogs.

I met a cat. It is a strange animal.
Is the cat In or Out?

A dog will tell you. They tell me.
I ask into the air, "Where is the dog?"
The dog tells me. If it is In; It lets me know.

A cat? No. The cat might not tell.
We don't have to keep killing Schrodinger's Cat.
We can, as a mental exercise, let it in and let it out and not know if it is In or Out.

I learned it is very hard to tell if the Cat is In or Out.
I learned it IS possible to tell if the Cat is In or Out.
It is not worth the effort to know. The Cat knows.

That is you point; Is it not?
The Cat Knows.

It may not know if it is dead.
It knows if it is In or Out.

Cats are strange. Dogs are also strange.
Dogs seem to make more sense.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Fostermann
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:27 am UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby Fostermann » Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:43 am UTC

Would reading 'consciousness' or 'sentience' for 'soul' keep atheists, agnostics, and theists happy?

Reading 'consciousness' or 'sentience' for 'soul' will probably keep everyone on this forum happy.
Elsewhere, there remains the tricky question of doggy heaven and 'Rainbow Bridge'.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby da Doctah » Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:42 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
just brew it! wrote:Hey, I liked Quantum Leap *and* ST:E. So there!


I still like QL (I have the DVD boxset) but Enterprise was a bit disappointing - and it took me half the first season to stop waiting for Cpt Archer to say "Oh boy" when something went wrong...

I know the feeling. I went through fourteen seasons of the original Dallas looking for webs between Patrick Duffy's fingers.

Okay, thirteen, 'cause he took that one year off. But I really thought they'd be visible when he stepped out of that shower.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby Fire Brns » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:47 am UTC

Fostermann wrote:Would reading 'consciousness' or 'sentience' for 'soul' keep atheists, agnostics, and theists happy?

Reading 'consciousness' or 'sentience' for 'soul' will probably keep everyone on this forum happy.
Elsewhere, there remains the tricky question of doggy heaven and 'Rainbow Bridge'.

Your first posts is this? Odd. But yes, soul can be used as a colloquialism or synonym for the combined active consciousness and stored memories of a person.

Responding to the comic:
People who use the phrase quantum mechanics to explain concepts are too lazy or too under informed to fully comprehend what they are explaining.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby dudiobugtron » Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:31 am UTC

dp2 wrote:Why is today's cartoon a drawing of two people and a dog with no text anywhere? I don't get it.


I came in to this thread to post this exact same thing, but you have beaten me to it. Bah!
Image

ijuin
Posts: 1104
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby ijuin » Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:49 am UTC

Wooloomooloo wrote:Anyway, it's astonishing how many people misunderstand "observed" in quantum-related discussions to mean "by a self-aware being" instead of what it actually means ("interacting with anything at all ")...


Right. An "observer" does not have to possess a mind--it only needs to be able to interact with the object being observed and then retain information about the interaction. For example, if the radioactive atom in the Schroedinger's Cat problem emitted an alpha particle, and this alpha particle then struck an atom in the wall of the box, then that would make the box an "observer". The mere fact of the interaction taking place necessarily restricts the wave function to the subset in which the interaction is possible--all scenarios in which the alpha particle went elsewhere, or was not emitted at that time, are ruled out.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby Klear » Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:07 am UTC

dalcde wrote:
Klear wrote:
dalcde wrote:According to quantum mechanics, you can't know both the position and momentum of a particle precisely.

EDIT: Just realized that my statement is a counter-example for both the comic AND the title-text.


I chose to ignore your sentence and I don't feel in danger at all...


Since you replied, you have not ignored it.


I replied to the "EDIT" part... =P

dalcde
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:49 am UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby dalcde » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:01 am UTC

Klear wrote:
dalcde wrote:
Klear wrote:
dalcde wrote:According to quantum mechanics, you can't know both the position and momentum of a particle precisely.

EDIT: Just realized that my statement is a counter-example for both the comic AND the title-text.


I chose to ignore your sentence and I don't feel in danger at all...


Since you replied, you have not ignored it.


I replied to the "EDIT" part... =P


The EDIT part makes no sense without the original text. So you must have replied to both.

TranquilFury
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:24 am UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby TranquilFury » Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:28 pm UTC

Unless you're in physics class, and plan to go into physics, semiconductor, or superconductor research, this comic is probably true. Even if the sentence is completely accurate, it has no relevance to the decisions of the average person.

schrodingasdawg
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:37 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby schrodingasdawg » Sat Jul 20, 2013 4:07 pm UTC

mszegedy wrote:Your point? It's still the case that, to you, it looks like decoherence, not wavefunction collapse, until you personally observe it. Nobody can collapse a wavefunction for you. Although, it's a moot point, because the Copenhagen interpretation is a discontinuous/non-differentiable CPT-violating unitarity-destroying informally-defined FTL piece of trash.


First of all, the Copenhagen interpretation says nothing about minds or even wave-function collapse. It'd be wise for you to have some clue what you're talking about before you try to trash it.

Secondly, when you do make a measurement, you assign a new wave-function to the system you measured because you obtain new knowledge. You update your assessment of probabilities—which is exactly what you'd do in classical statistics, too. You discontinuously change the wave-function you've assigned because your knowledge discontinuously changed. That's actually a matter of fact—one you can't get around because it doesn't appeal to your purely aesthetic desire for only unitary time evolution to exist. Nature and empiricism trump your personal desires.

Third, there's nothing FTL about the Copenhagen interpretation. The wave-function isn't something 'out there' in the world, just as assessments of probabilities aren't something 'out there' in the world. You're committing the mind projection fallacy by saying that it is—something that advocates of MWI tend to do quite often.

Lastly, Copenhagen is much better off as an interpretation than Many Worlds, which cannot even predict probabilities. MWI is, consequently, completely worthless as an interpretation of a scientific theory; after all, it's the ability to make predictions about experiments that really counts in science. I sometimes can't believe so many people are so credulous as to believe such nonsense.

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby bmonk » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:34 pm UTC

A couple of observations:

If someone uses the quantum terminology, would it help to ask if they can show you the mathematics to support their statement?

"Quantum leap" is not necessarily the minimum quantum leap. I recall, from analysis of the Hydrogen spectrum, that while certain transitions are forbidden (because, say, the spin of the two levels does not allow a 1-spin photon to be emitted), others are not. An electron in, say, the 8s orbital can make a quantum leap to the 1s orbital, emitting a photon of a certain energy--which is not the minimum energy that electron could emit. What makes it a quantum leap is that it cannot radiate energy and go to orbitals in non-quantum states, such as the 6.5 orbital, or 1.5.
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:01 pm UTC

The dog is cute. Is it the 0 dollar dog? I get the point that the comic says you can ignore its own texts, it's a webcomic though, that was almost a given...

Wlerin wrote:
cellocgw wrote:
yellow103 wrote:Schrodinger's cat knows very well if it is dead or alive.


Only true if it has a soul.... or at least if we can prove cats are self-aware. Heck, how do you know you're alive? You have no comparison state that you can recall (deadness).

Alive isn't defined as not-dead, but rather by various positive functions, such as (for humans) breathing, a heartbeat, consciousness. Granted some of these aren't absolutely necessary, but I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference for yourself without being conscious... Point is you don't need a comparison state to know if you are alive.

Dead, on the other hand, is either simply not-alive, or else was-once-but-is-no-longer-alive, so the negative of the above functions.


That's a rather unworkable definition of "alive"... It only applies to humans (instead of cats, which would be more relevant in this context); this also means it does not describe the property "alive" properly, as "alive" applies to many non-humans. On the other hand: I must admit that I don't have a better definition for the word (my concise OED does not help, it defines "alive" and "to live" relative to each other).

I remember being thought when I was about 12 that living meant something was capable of moving by itself. The problem with that definition is of course: what constitutes moving by itself? My teacher didn't consider cars as being alive, even though they move by internally applied forces. Plants on the other hand were considered to be alive by this definition because they move slightly by themselves (which I understand as by mostly internally applied forces) although this seems to contradict the car example, in essence I don't know if there is any relevant distinction between them: they both move by converting chemical energy into kinetic energy internally (although plants do convert light into the required chemical energy first).

I agreed more with the definition of dead: this was no longer alive, this was contrasted with never lived. Although these definitions required a proper definition for life.

Fostermann wrote:Would reading 'consciousness' or 'sentience' for 'soul' keep atheists, agnostics, and theists happy?

Reading 'consciousness' or 'sentience' for 'soul' will probably keep everyone on this forum happy.
Elsewhere, there remains the tricky question of doggy heaven and 'Rainbow Bridge'.


Conscious is also vague. Does it simply mean: too complex for us to understand or does it require additional properties? It is unfortunately not useful for defining life, as most organisms are not usually considered to be conscious beings.

This does make me wonder: why would there be a separate heaven for dogs?

TV4Fun
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:45 am UTC
Location: Certifiable C++ Programmer

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby TV4Fun » Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:40 pm UTC

GOOMHR. Reading through Leadership and the New Science and thinking this every few paragraphs.
$_[0] wrote:rule 2:
Once a relationship ends, physical access to all relevant machinery is denied.

nekomata
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:43 am UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby nekomata » Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:01 pm UTC

Am I the only one wondering about the Nerd Sniping potential of this?
"According to Quantum Mechanics, you should get out of the way of that out-of-control car hurtling towards you!"
Last edited by nekomata on Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:41 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby Klear » Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:30 pm UTC

Maybe before we rush to adopt quantum mechanics, we should stop to consider the the consequences of blithely giving this theory such a central position in our lives.

/obligatory

Fostermann
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:27 am UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby Fostermann » Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:35 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
Fostermann wrote:Would reading 'consciousness' or 'sentience' for 'soul' keep atheists, agnostics, and theists happy?

Reading 'consciousness' or 'sentience' for 'soul' will probably keep everyone on this forum happy.
Elsewhere, there remains the tricky question of doggy heaven and 'Rainbow Bridge'.

Your first posts is this? Odd. But yes, soul can be used as a colloquialism or synonym for the combined active consciousness and stored memories of a person.


Why odd? Unless you're talking about the (unintended) redundancy. Oops.

ijuin
Posts: 1104
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby ijuin » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:55 am UTC

I think that part of what is confusing all of us is that we don't have an agreement on what "decoherence" actually means, and thus can't agree upon how or why it "collapses".

Here is my understanding of it:

"Decoherence" is the "fuzziness" in a particle (or system's) state that is inherent because of the limits of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle--namely, that the product of the uncertainty in an object's location and kinetic energy can not be less than a certain amount--thus, reducing the uncertainty in location results in an inversely-proportional increase in the uncertainty in energy. For macroscopic objects, this limit is too small to be of any concern--who cares if the precision in the location of an automobile is off by a few nanometers? However, for objects at or below the molecular scale, the uncertainty can dwarf the actual size of the object.

This is not to say that uncertainty merely means that the particle has an exact location and motion and that we are merely prevented from measuring it. Rather, a--- particle/wave seems to actually be spread out across all of its possible locations at once--an electron for example can be anywhere within its "cloud", with various probabilities of it being here or there. This is what allows the phenomenon of "quantum tunneling", where a particle appears to teleport across a gap at the speed of light--according to decoherence, there was already a small probability that it was "already" on the other side of the gap.

What makes the fuzziness "collapse", then, is that any interactions between particles necessarily limit their wavefunctions. If particle A interacts with particle B, then only that subset of their wavefunctions that allow the interaction can be considered "correct". When you have millions upon millions of such particle-particle interactions, such as happens in any macroscopic object, then the subset of allowed degrees of freedom becomes comparatively narrow, which is why macroscopic objects appear to be completely discrete and deterministic--the probability of a macroscopic object "tunneling" to a noticeably different location/energy is so small that nobody is going to observe it within a reasonable time span.

dmitrygr_
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:25 am UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby dmitrygr_ » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:53 pm UTC

Is this comic a reference to this?

gah, why can't i post links?....well, google "ziblee-beverage-pleasure-enhancer"

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:00 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:The sheer level of militant atheism in this thread is absurd.
Really? Those two posts constituted an absurd level? Do you live in a monastery or something?


Two posts in the first half of the first page that equate religious thoughts with extreme insanity?

That's a little absurd, yeah. The issue is not just "Militant atheists being militantly atheistic? y/n," it's also how extreme the posts were.

Kit. wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:
ST47 wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:Te sheer level of militant atheism in this thread is absurd.


And there's another phrase that you can safely ignore!


Oh, boy! Are we going to get into a debate about the usage of the term militant to describe atheists?

Wasn't it your intent anyway?

But I'd be more interested in a debate about the usage of the term "absurd" to describe observed levels.


Actually no. And you might want to crack open a dictionary before you try to correct people on their word choices.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby Fire Brns » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:43 pm UTC

Fostermann wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:
Fostermann wrote:Would reading 'consciousness' or 'sentience' for 'soul' keep atheists, agnostics, and theists happy?

Reading 'consciousness' or 'sentience' for 'soul' will probably keep everyone on this forum happy.
Elsewhere, there remains the tricky question of doggy heaven and 'Rainbow Bridge'.

Your first posts is this? Odd. But yes, soul can be used as a colloquialism or synonym for the combined active consciousness and stored memories of a person.


Why odd? Unless you're talking about the (unintended) redundancy. Oops.
No, redundancy can be good. It clarifies statements. Just that I find it odd that it was the first thing you chose to reply to. It's not that important though.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:31 am UTC

addams wrote:I know the dead or alive thing is woven deeply into who we are and how we think.

I like to think of Schrodinger's Cat as In or Out.
I have learned a few things about cats.
Cats are not like dogs.

I met a cat. It is a strange animal.
Is the cat In or Out?

A dog will tell you. They tell me.
I ask into the air, "Where is the dog?"
The dog tells me. If it is In; It lets me know.

A cat? No. The cat might not tell.
We don't have to keep killing Schrodinger's Cat.
We can, as a mental exercise, let it in and let it out and not know if it is In or Out.

I learned it is very hard to tell if the Cat is In or Out.
I learned it IS possible to tell if the Cat is In or Out.
It is not worth the effort to know. The Cat knows.

That is you point; Is it not?
The Cat Knows.

It may not know if it is dead.
It knows if it is In or Out.

Cats are strange. Dogs are also strange.
Dogs seem to make more sense.

*beatnik applause*

Far out, man.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

arthurd006_5
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:49 am UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby arthurd006_5 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:23 am UTC

dmitrygr_ wrote:Is this comic a reference to this?

gah, why can't i post links?....well, google "ziblee-beverage-pleasure-enhancer"

I presume that you mean this:
http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/the-zi ... -enhancer/

Links: because you haven't read the forum rules.

Wrt specifying a search enginge, filter bubble:
http://www.thefilterbubble.com/

arthurd006_5
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:49 am UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby arthurd006_5 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:49 am UTC

schrodingasdawg wrote:MWI is, consequently, completely worthless as an interpretation of a scientific theory; after all, it's the ability to make predictions about experiments that really counts in science.

I'm wondering where the boundary lies, between a theory and an interpretation. This footnote implies that good interpretations should not modify the thing that they interpret:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... ote_note13

There's also writing on the web that claims that the Everett interpretation is a theory, and makes predictions:
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#detect

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby Flumble » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:33 am UTC

ijuin wrote:What makes the fuzziness "collapse", then, is that any interactions between particles necessarily limit their wavefunctions. If particle A interacts with particle B, then only that subset of their wavefunctions that allow the interaction can be considered "correct". When you have millions upon millions of such particle-particle interactions, such as happens in any macroscopic object, then the subset of allowed degrees of freedom becomes comparatively narrow, which is why macroscopic objects appear to be completely discrete and deterministic--the probability of a macroscopic object "tunneling" to a noticeably different location/energy is so small that nobody is going to observe it within a reasonable time span.

According to quantum mechanics it's possible for an elephant to appear right here, right now.

Although the biggest chance (unless you look out the door and don't see an elephant) for that to happen would indeed be an observable macroscopic change known as "an elephant walking into the room".

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1240: "Quantum Mechanics"

Postby Kit. » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:06 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:The sheer level of militant atheism in this thread is absurd.
Really? Those two posts constituted an absurd level? Do you live in a monastery or something?


Two posts in the first half of the first page that equate religious thoughts with extreme insanity?

Which exactly are those two posts that "equate religious thoughts with extreme insanity"?

(not even starting about your statistical model, or more probably the lack of such, as obviously irrelevant)

CocoaNutCakery wrote:And you might want to crack open a dictionary before you try to correct people on their word choices.

Why, your word choice was perfect... in a sense.

In case you didn't get the pun:
Spoiler:
I was referring to Tertullian's defense of Christian beliefs (the one that was later misquoted as Credo quia absurdum): if you see something existing as "absurd", there's probably something you are missing here :roll:

schrodingasdawg wrote:Third, there's nothing FTL about the Copenhagen interpretation. The wave-function isn't something 'out there' in the world, just as assessments of probabilities aren't something 'out there' in the world. You're committing the mind projection fallacy by saying that it is—something that advocates of MWI tend to do quite often.

Lastly, Copenhagen is much better off as an interpretation than Many Worlds, which cannot even predict probabilities.

I'm genuinely confused.

Are you going go say that there are some probabilities that my favorite ("shut up and calculate") interpretation cannot calculate and the Copenhagen interpretation can?

Or is there anything in MWI that makes those calculations somehow wrong?

dalcde wrote:The EDIT part makes no sense without the original text. So you must have replied to both.

There's nothing wrong in replying to something that makes no sense. Or at least we do it all the time.

Fostermann wrote:Would reading 'consciousness' or 'sentience' for 'soul' keep atheists, agnostics, and theists happy?

1. Will it keep the meaning of the whole phrase the same? (Each of the definite answers is going to keep someone unhappy).

2. According to Christian Scholastics (which used to be what the Quantum Mechanics is now during the most of the last millennium), there are three kinds of souls, only one of which is immortal. Dogs have two of them (both mortal), humans have all three.

3. All photo cameras I have can observe. But one of them needs film for that. What does it say about their "consciousness" or "sentience" or "soul"?


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 108 guests