Moderators: Moderators General, Magistrates, Prelates
perlhaqr wrote:Ooooooh. I'd always wondered what a "graser" was. Now I know.
I heard Kansas was trying to weaponise their remaining bison, though, into a sort of counter-grazer.
dp2 wrote:Andrusi wrote:dp2 wrote:I'd much prefer "America the Beautiful" as our national anthem.
Isn't it already someone else's national anthem? I know a bunch of our patriotic songs are knockoffs of other countries' patriotic songs.
Not that one. Which is all the more reason it should be the anthem. Maybe you're thinking of "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" (God Save The Queen), which was the anthem for a while.
PM 2Ring wrote:perlhaqr wrote:Ooooooh. I'd always wondered what a "graser" was. Now I know.
I heard Kansas was trying to weaponise their remaining bison, though, into a sort of counter-grazer.
I suspect that this involves careful interbreeding with dairy cows, in an attempt to produce a Bise-Holstein condensate. As any agri-quantum mechanic knows, you need high quality bisons to make a livestock laser, there's no point trying to use cheap farmions to achieve a lasing action because they obey the Poorly Exclusion Principle.
project2051 wrote:dp2 wrote:Andrusi wrote:dp2 wrote:I'd much prefer "America the Beautiful" as our national anthem.
Isn't it already someone else's national anthem? I know a bunch of our patriotic songs are knockoffs of other countries' patriotic songs.
Not that one. Which is all the more reason it should be the anthem. Maybe you're thinking of "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" (God Save The Queen), which was the anthem for a while.
I don't mind the "The Star-Spangled Banner", but for an anthem I prefer "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" over "America the Beautiful". Though I can't sing it anymore without lapsing into "The Kilted Yaksmen".
Hughes wrote:I...don't think I'm smart enough to understand this one. Not even after reading (more like scanning, really) the Wikipedia article on the Copenhagen Blah Blah Blah Interpretation Words.
pezguy wrote:Wouldn't that be "gasar" instead of "lasar?" I know for some people here, the more serious question is going to be "Wouldn't that be 'gasar' instead of 'lasar'?"
SirMustapha wrote:I really don't get the joke at all (I did more or less understand the science explanations here, but I still don't get how they're supposed to make this a "joke" proper), but I really enjoy the art. The finak product looks like a truly worked-on drawing, not like a bunch of "stylish" Photoshop filters applied on some crap smudges. Randall could do this kind of thing a lot more often.
I can tell from some of the pixels, and from seeing quite a few 'shops in my time.SpringLoaded12 wrote:But were you suggesting that Randall normally uses Photoshop filters? Honest question there, I'm a bit confused. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that, but I was never very good at spotting Photoshopped images.
MartianInvader wrote:This comic and thread have inspired me to learn more about quantum cornfield theory.
JPatten wrote:ASW wrote:As a Nebraskan I generally oppose the alt textAlthough it would be wicked cool to see.
As a sooner fan I have to hope they hurry with that laser! *grin*
drachefly wrote:Pfhorrest wrote:I recently read, and now cannot find, a rather amusing bit of fiction about an alternate universe where the Everett (many-worlds) interpretation became dominant before the Copenhagen (waveform-collapse) interpretation did, and the latter is now (in said alternate universe) considered a crazy crackpot theory.
Here it is, starting in the fifth paragraph
radtea wrote:What is this "collision" thing? If we just focus on Schrondinger's equation you'll see no such thing is represented anywhere. All wavefunctions evolve smoothly. Where does the classical world come from? Everrett never explains why we aren't aware of other worlds--he just takes for granted that we aren't. But why aren't we? Components of our initial wavefunction are entangled with different components of the scattering particle's wavefunction, but how come we're only aware of ONE such set of components? Decoherence approaches say we are only aware of quantum effects via what amounts to interference phenomena, and so when they go away we are no longer aware of them, but again, how come?
No quantum interpretation does anything but obfuscate and dance around the fundamental question, which is why we are only aware of the classical world, and why there is an entire phenomenological substrate--the world described by classical physics--that obeys rules (causality, locality) that are not part of the quantum corpus. This is the central mystery, and contra Penrose et al it is clear that consciousness is a purely classical phenomenon: if it wasn't we'd be aware of the quantum world, whereas manifestly we are not.
The question is not "why is the quantum world so weird?" but "why is there a classical world at all?"
ijuin wrote:It's only when we make the gross state of a macroscopic system dependent on a single-particle event, as in Schrodinger's Cat, that quantum effects aren't lost in the noise and rounding errors.
Mirage_GSM wrote:Isn't it ironic that the hard part about understanding this comic wasn't quantum physics but the lyrics to some song that probably every American child knows?
Now, using a technique known as "weak measurement", Steinberg and his research team say they have managed to accurately measure both position and momentum of single photons in a two-slit interferometer experiment.
cilix42 wrote:What I have never really understood in discussions about the wave/particle duality is why it is valid to treat a macroscopic object (say, a baseball) as a single "particle" when clearly it is composed of many tiny particles. So how can we speak about "the wave corresponding to the baseball"?
cilix42 wrote:What I have never really understood in discussions about the wave/particle duality is why it is valid to treat a macroscopic object (say, a baseball) as a single "particle" when clearly it is composed of many tiny particles. So how can we speak about "the wave corresponding to the baseball"?
Thinking about it again the reason for this is probably that when I think of waves (like water waves or light waves) I don't really think of them interacting apart from superposition, so my intuition says that even if many "tiny" waves superimpose to form the "big" wave of a macroscopic object, that object will instantaneously fall apart because the waves "move on". Hmm, seeing this written down makes me aware of how much nonsense that probably is because if waves correspond to particles then of course they must be able to interact. I suppose this interaction is governed by the Schroedinger equation? (I'm guessing here, I have no idea what that equation actually says.)
Denswei wrote:So a grain combine (ie, grain harvester) merely collapses the wave function of the (grain) field so that it is observed as particles of grain, instead of waves of grain?
And so the particles of grain subsequently enter a particle smasher to be broken into sub-grain particles, which reassemble into tasty macro-scale grain-assemblages?
So whenever a physicist says "observe", mentally replace it with "hit with shit".
The waveforms collapses when hit with shit.
When you hit a photon wave with shit it collapses into a particle.
Archgeek wrote:So whenever a physicist says "observe", mentally replace it with "hit with shit".
The waveforms collapses when hit with shit.
When you hit a photon wave with shit it collapses into a particle.
...Troublingly, that makes it sound like they're throwing poo at the waves, monkeyways.
Return to Individual XKCD Comic Threads
Users browsing this forum: advipmerped, AluisioASG, BlueCrab, Eternal Density, Exodies, HES, MobTeeseboose, spamjam, tman2nd and 25 guests