1731: "Wrong"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
thunk
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:29 am UTC
Location: Arguably Exiled

1731: "Wrong"

Postby thunk » Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:11 am UTC

Image

Alt-text: Hang on, I just remembered another thing I'm right about. See...

...dinosaurs couldn't possibly have been covered in feathers. The quill knobs are just cracks in the rock.
Free markets, free movement, free plops
Blitz on, my friends Quantized, GnomeAnne, and iskinner!
troo dat

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby StClair » Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:34 am UTC

Someone is wrong on the internet.

... and it's not me.

User avatar
alvinhochun
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:07 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby alvinhochun » Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:47 am UTC

I'll just quickly edit the Wikipedia page so that it says I'm right and you're wrong...

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby rhomboidal » Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:57 am UTC

If anything says I'm wrong about physics, it anti-matters.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5380
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:58 am UTC

So it destroys things that matter upon contact with them?
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)

OP Tipping
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:23 am UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby OP Tipping » Fri Sep 09, 2016 6:06 am UTC

Shouldn't this be black hat guy?
a) Please explain the specific MEDICAL reason for ordering this MEDICATION !
b) Please state the nature of your ailment or injury.
c) One a scale of one to ten, how would you rate your pain?
d) Please state the nature of the medical emergency.

User avatar
balthasar_s
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:20 pm UTC
Location: secret base on the Moon
Contact:

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby balthasar_s » Fri Sep 09, 2016 6:20 am UTC

It's the anti-black hat guy.
BSTA
Good luck, my blitzing friends!
BTTBAA:1023 # Mustard? Use the mirror! Blitzing? Also use the mirror! And here's why. # OTT facebug copy
that's a robot so it doesn't countImage
This text was autogenerated:
swimming unit detector active

Antagonist
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:27 am UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Antagonist » Fri Sep 09, 2016 6:43 am UTC

OP Tipping wrote:Shouldn't this be black hat guy?


Black hat guy would find some way to change physics itself so that he would not have been wrong.

That or some wide social engineering project to change terminology among everyone else, far greater in scope and terror than a mere Wikipedia edit. He's good at those.

Demki
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:29 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Demki » Fri Sep 09, 2016 6:46 am UTC

Randall get out of my head. I meet too many people like him

Tub
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:13 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Tub » Fri Sep 09, 2016 7:05 am UTC

"Did you know that photons are their own anti-particle? So technically, at least the sun is made of anti-matter."

User avatar
Wee Red Bird
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am UTC
Location: In a tree

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Wee Red Bird » Fri Sep 09, 2016 7:43 am UTC

Should you try to shut him up by asking him to show you the thing he is wrong about to hide, he will get angry. Then he'll start throwing insults or his own faeces.

User avatar
Echo244
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:49 am UTC
Location: Ping! Ping! Ping! Ping!

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Echo244 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:26 am UTC

This is not from Black Hat Guy, because all the people that do this think they're being good and helpful.

Anyway. Yes. Too common, and in some ways an extension of the ideas in 1716.
Unstoppable force of nature. That means she/her/hers.
Has committed an act of treason.

Demki
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:29 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Demki » Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:14 am UTC

Also when black hat guy is wrong, it's because he wants to be wrong.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby orthogon » Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:28 am UTC

Demki wrote:Also when black hat guy is wrong, it's because he wants to be wrong.

And he's wrong in so many ways.

Beret Guy, on the other hand, is not even wrong. Although he's also usually right, too.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2044
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:18 am UTC

Tub wrote:"Did you know that photons are their own anti-particle? So technically, at least the sun is made of anti-matter."



Man^H^H^HNerdsplaining: No it isn't because photons aren't matter. If that matters.
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

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5574
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Eternal Density » Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:34 am UTC

balthasar_s wrote:It's the anti-black hat guy.

Not to be confused with black anti-hat guy, or black hat anti-guy.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
peewee_RotA
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby peewee_RotA » Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:43 am UTC

This joke is anti-humor
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

http://timelesstherpg.wordpress.com/about/

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2044
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Sep 09, 2016 1:24 pm UTC

Eternal Density wrote:
balthasar_s wrote:It's the anti-black hat guy.

Not to be confused with black anti-hat guy, or black hat anti-guy.


Or Oxford Comma guy, apparently :P
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

User avatar
Jack21222
Posts: 414
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:13 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Jack21222 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 2:07 pm UTC

Something like this happened to me last night. I told my wife that Ted Kaczynski was a subject in Project MKUltra. I then looked it up, and it now I'm not convinced. He was the subject of human experimentation by a Dr. Murray at Harvard, but I can't find a credible source that he was tied to MKUltra. So I had to admit I was wrong, though I could've quoted any number of blogs or conspiracy theories that say he was.
broken_escalator wrote:The Mako is powered by the rage of the physics it denies.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2044
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:13 pm UTC

Jack21222 wrote:Something like this happened to me last night. I told my wife that Ted Kaczynski was a subject in Project MKUltra. I then looked it up, and it now I'm not convinced. He was the subject of human experimentation by a Dr. Murray at Harvard, but I can't find a credible source that he was tied to MKUltra. So I had to admit I was wrong, though I could've quoted any number of blogs or conspiracy theories that say he was.


Excellent! Now if anyone brings up the subject, I'll selectively quote your post here! :twisted:

I'll note in passing that two more or less reputable mags, Psychology Today
and The Atlantic claim it's true, but without any references to back up the stories.
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

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5380
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:21 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
Tub wrote:"Did you know that photons are their own anti-particle? So technically, at least the sun is made of anti-matter."

Man^H^H^HNerdsplaining: No it isn't because photons aren't matter. If that matters.

And, you know, the sun isn't made of them, but yeah that too.
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)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:48 pm UTC

I once momentarily thought I was wrong. But it turned out that I was wrong, I was right.

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby cyanyoshi » Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:52 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
cellocgw wrote:
Tub wrote:"Did you know that photons are their own anti-particle? So technically, at least the sun is made of anti-matter."

Man^H^H^HNerdsplaining: No it isn't because photons aren't matter. If that matters.

And, you know, the sun isn't made of them, but yeah that too.

Exactly. About 70% of its mass comes from dark energy. :wink:

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Copper Bezel » Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:18 pm UTC

Most energy is just empty space, after all.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby rmsgrey » Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:06 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Most energy is just empty space, after all.

But most "empty" space is only half-empty...

Tub
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:13 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Tub » Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:21 am UTC

cyanyoshi wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:
cellocgw wrote:
Tub wrote:"Did you know that photons are their own anti-particle? So technically, at least the sun is made of anti-matter."

Man^H^H^HNerdsplaining: No it isn't because photons aren't matter. If that matters.

And, you know, the sun isn't made of them, but yeah that too.

Exactly. About 70% of its mass comes from dark energy. :wink:

Uh, that'd leave only 30% for light energy. Is there really more dark than light in the sun?

Mikeski
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Mikeski » Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:30 am UTC

Tub wrote:
cyanyoshi wrote:Exactly. About 70% of its mass comes from dark energy. :wink:

Uh, that'd leave only 30% for light energy. Is there really more dark than light in the sun?

Well, duh, it's been projecting light energy for billions of years. Have you ever seen it project dark energy? Of course there's more dark than light left!

This is also why stars that "burn out" become black holes; what else would they become when they're made of only dark energy?

User avatar
Cougar Allen
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:49 am UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Cougar Allen » Sun Sep 11, 2016 12:32 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:But most "empty" space is only half-empty...


Only the pessimists say that.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6819
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby ucim » Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:06 am UTC

Cougar Allen wrote:Only the pessimists say that.
The engineers say space is twice as large as it needs to be.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Echo244
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:49 am UTC
Location: Ping! Ping! Ping! Ping!

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby Echo244 » Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:20 pm UTC

Tub wrote:
cyanyoshi wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:
cellocgw wrote:
Tub wrote:"Did you know that photons are their own anti-particle? So technically, at least the sun is made of anti-matter."

Man^H^H^HNerdsplaining: No it isn't because photons aren't matter. If that matters.

And, you know, the sun isn't made of them, but yeah that too.

Exactly. About 70% of its mass comes from dark energy. :wink:

Uh, that'd leave only 30% for light energy. Is there really more dark than light in the sun?


Only in winter.
Unstoppable force of nature. That means she/her/hers.
Has committed an act of treason.

E_H
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 9:16 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong" : is wrong about particles

Postby E_H » Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:22 pm UTC

Too bad Randall himself got the end wrong. In quantum mechanics, particles are solely an artifact of interaction, particles never propagate.

* von Neumann's "Proocess I" and "Process II", interaction and propagation -
particles are inferred from the discrete nature of interactions, but there is no
particle trajectory between interactions, rather wave propagation

*Feynmann collaborator and godfather of microelectronics Carver Mead's Collective Electrodynamics,
proves that the wave nature of QM is its essence, in a superconducting coil carrying a current
the coherent wavefunction means electrons may be thousands of meters long.

There are no particles, there are only fields
Art Hobson, American Journal of Physics, (cited by 39)
Conclusion:
"Textbooks need to reflect that fields, not particles, form our most
fundamental description of nature. This can be done easily, not by trying to teach
the formalism of QFT in introductory courses, but rather by talking about fields,
explaining that there are no particles but only particle-like phenomena caused by
field quantization (Ref. 21). In the 2-slit experiment, for example, the quantized
field for each electron or photon comes simultaneously through both slits, spreads
over the entire interference pattern, and collapses non-locally, upon interacting
with the screen, into a small (but still spread out) region of the detecting screen.
Field-particle duality exists only in the sense that quantized fields have
certain particle-like appearances: quanta are unified bundles of field that carry
energy and momentum and thus "hit like particles;" quanta are discrete and thus
countable. But quanta are not particles; they are excitations of spatially unbounded
fields. Photons and electrons, along with atoms, molecules, and apples, are
ultimately disturbances in a few universal fields."

Some citations from Hobson's article:

(10) S. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of
Nature (Random House, Inc., New York, 1992): "Furthermore, all these particles are
bundles of the energy, or quanta, of various sorts of fields. A field like an electric or
magnetic field is a sort of stress in space... The equations of a field theory like the
Standard Model deal not with particles but with fields; the particles appear as
manifestations of those fields" (p. 25).

(11) S. Weinberg, Facing Up: Science and its Cultural Adversaries (Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001): "Just as there is an electromagnetic field whose energy
and momentum come in tiny bundles called photons, so there is an electron field whose
energy and momentum and electric charge are found in the bundles we call electrons, and
likewise for every species of elementary particles. The basic ingredients of nature are
fields; particles are derivative phenomena."

(12) R. Mills, Space, Time, and Quanta: An Introduction to Modern Physics (W. H.
Freeman, New York, 1994), Chp 16: "The only way to have a consistent relativistic
theory is to treat all the particles of nature as the quanta of fields, like photons. Electrons
and positrons are to be treated as the quanta of the electron-positron field, whose
'classical' field equation, the analog of Maxwell's equations for the EM field, turns out to
be the Dirac equation, which started life as a relativistic version of the single-particle
Schroedinger equation. …This approach now gives a unified picture, known as quantum
field theory, of all of nature."

(13) F. Wilczek, "Mass Without Mass I: Most of Matter," Physics Today 52 (11), 11-13
(1999): "In quantum field theory, the primary elements of reality are not individual
particles, but underlying fields. Thus, e.g., all electrons are but excitations of an
underlying field, ..the electron field, which fills all space and time.

(14) M. Redhead, "More ado about nothing," Foundations of Physics 25 (1), 123-137
(1995): "Particle states are never observable--they are an idealization which leads to a
plethora of misunderstandings about what is going on in quantum field theory. The
theory is about fields and their local excitations. That is all there is to it."

(15) A. Zee, Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
2003), p 24: "We thus interpret the physics contained in our simple field theory as
follows: In region 1 in spacetime there exists a source that sends out a 'disturbance in the
field,' which is later absorbed by a sink in region 2 in spacetime. Experimentalists choose
to call this disturbance in the field a particle of mass m."

cphite
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong" : is wrong about particles

Postby cphite » Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:45 pm UTC

E_H wrote:Too bad Randall himself got the end wrong. In quantum mechanics, particles are solely an artifact of interaction, particles never propagate.


Thank you for taking the time to fact check this internet comic. Hopefully all of the people who rely on this comic as a source of knowledge regarding quantum mechanics will take note of your correction.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5528
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1731: "Wrong" : is wrong about particles

Postby doogly » Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:39 am UTC

E_H wrote:Too bad Randall himself got the end wrong. In quantum mechanics, particles are solely an artifact of interaction, particles never propagate.

*more things*

That is the point of the last panel.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1731: "Wrong" : is wrong about particles

Postby orthogon » Tue Sep 13, 2016 8:44 am UTC

doogly wrote:
E_H wrote:Too bad Randall himself got the end wrong. In quantum mechanics, particles are solely an artifact of interaction, particles never propagate.

*more things*

That is the point of the last panel.

I'm confused - is E_H saying that Randall got it wrong by accidentally having WHG get it right, when he's supposed to be wrong yet again?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Mikeski
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1731: "Wrong" : is wrong about particles

Postby Mikeski » Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:47 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
doogly wrote:
E_H wrote:Too bad Randall himself got the end wrong. In quantum mechanics, particles are solely an artifact of interaction, particles never propagate.

*more things*

That is the point of the last panel.

I'm confused - is E_H saying that Randall got it wrong by accidentally having WHG get it right, when he's supposed to be wrong yet again?

I don't know whether or not you're confused... but I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2044
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong" : is wrong about particles

Postby cellocgw » Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:16 pm UTC

E_H wrote:Too bad Randall himself got the end wrong. In quantum mechanics, particles are solely an artifact of interaction, particles never propagate.


There are no particles, there are only fields
Art Hobson, American Journal of Physics, (cited by 39)


So you're saying that trying to decide whether there are particles comes down to ....Hobson's Choice ? :lol:

In any case, I'll go one step further and claim that there aren't fields either. Everything is merely a manifestation of local probability density. The higher the probability, the more apparent energy (which as we all know, is the same as mass :twisted: ). Hence the validity of the Infinite Improbability Drive.
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

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5528
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby doogly » Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:38 pm UTC

That's not right though.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

E_H
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 9:16 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong" : is wrong about particles

Postby E_H » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:42 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
doogly wrote:
E_H wrote:Too bad Randall himself got the end wrong. In quantum mechanics, particles are solely an artifact of interaction, particles never propagate.

*more things*

That is the point of the last panel.

I'm confused - is E_H saying that Randall got it wrong by accidentally having WHG get it right, when he's supposed to be wrong yet again?


Yes.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1731: "Wrong"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:45 pm UTC

Then, as doogly implied, you have simply misunderstood the comic.

After realizing that he was wrong in his initial claim, White Hat Guy retreats to a true but irrelevant position rather than admit to his initial wrongness.
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)

E_H
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 9:16 pm UTC

Re: 1731: "Wrong" : is wrong about particles

Postby E_H » Wed Sep 14, 2016 9:24 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
E_H wrote:Too bad Randall himself got the end wrong. In quantum mechanics, particles are solely an artifact of interaction, particles never propagate.


There are no particles, there are only fields
Art Hobson, American Journal of Physics, (cited by 39)


So you're saying that trying to decide whether there are particles comes down to ....Hobson's Choice ? :lol:

In any case, I'll go one step further and claim that there aren't fields either. Everything is merely a manifestation of local probability density. The higher the probability, the more apparent energy (which as we all know, is the same as mass :twisted: ). Hence the validity of the Infinite Improbability Drive.


But local probability density would also be a field (number or numbers assigned to every point in space), and one that would suddenly vary at one spot due to a quantum being absorbed at a distant spot because the wavefunction as a whole is nonlocal, the single-quantum wave spreads out across a large volume then suddenly disappears like a popped bubble across the whole volume when it is absorbed anywhere.

The relation of probability density to mass and to twisting is right, though twisting can be seen in different ways. I like a flat space with varying refractive index, higher near mass, a spherical gradient lens for each mass. Seen from outside the gravitational field, Waves' phases advance more slowly in a gravitic refractive medium, their spatial frequency also rises. Barring frame-dragging effects that are typically unmeasurable, you get the same results as general relativity, and you can get those too by adding a rotational gauge field to the displacement gauge field that encodes the refractive index.

The probability of anything (e.g. a quantum interaction) at any given point is the sum of the probability waves passing through that point which depends sensitively on their relative phases, which may be affected by quanta being absorbed or otherwise interacting at locations almost anywhere in space and time, including outside the light-cone in the case of a "popped bubble" quantum interaction. So in theory if you could figure out which distant interactions would cause the phases to constructively interfere at a distant point, or perform the phase adjustment by moving masses so as to advance the phase of waves passing nearby, then you could make the probability at that point change dramatically, even effectively backward in time for the out-of-light cone interactions. So a finite improbability drive is possible*, and as Douglas Adams proved, therefore an infinite improbability drive is also.

*except you generally can't know which interactions would achieve the desired effects and this is probably a laws-of-thermodynamics-hard prohibition.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests