Not a bad way of thinking of the observer effect as well; It's almost like quantum mechanics requires a form of zen to grok.
-
-
En réponse à @Yohannon @ChrisWarcraft
A lack of knowledge is not knowledge. The inability to perceive something is not perception. A lack of methodology does not mean no methology is possible. Apply these basic tenets to modern “quantum” “theory” and it goes to pieces.
1 réponse 1 Retweet 1 j'aime -
Anything else is phlogiston. “It can’t be seen and can’t be known, but I think it’s what catches stuff on fire!” “Can you prove it in any way?” “No.” And we didn’t accept phlogiston for that reason because we applied the scientific method until we had an answer.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
If we apply the standards used in “quantum theory” to the issue of phlogiston, then “can you prove it” is followed not with “no” but with “Its impossible to detect phlogiston because it’s made of pippistron, which disappears when you look at it” and science goes “sounds legit!”
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
And when hard science questions pippistrons, “quantum science theory” says “well, you can’t detect pippistrons because of the Flargle Equation! Any attempt to detect pippistrons automatically fails because of it” and quantum science goes “sounds legit!”
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @viragoergosum @ChrisWarcraft
I thought this is where the math comes in (and advanced calculus is NOT one of my strengths!); Isn't part of the problem that the math at least provides support, if not proof (I know better!) to the theory? And I thought what separated quantum from, say, string theory...
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @Yohannon @ChrisWarcraft
...is that experiments have been created to check the predictions the math and quantum theory present, but that string theory has no such support? I mean, once you've reproduced "spooky action at a distance", how can you argue against quantum theory?
2 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @Yohannon
I think there is also something about how other than raw math, we may not even possess the tools to detect some of the more esoteric interactions (which can make it seem like 'phlogiston'). If something interacts at a resolution finer than the Planck length, would we even know?
1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
Urg. For those who don't know, the Planck length is, ostensibly, the answer to what some would think would be a child's question; "How small can anything BE?" Only it doesn't explain what that small bit would be made OF; observing anything that small would be a black box.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @Yohannon @ChrisWarcraft
So while there are particles that can't get any smaller, it doesn't mean there's no there there. But that's the kind of thing that makes ordinary people scratch their heads at this subject and scientists crazy to the lack of concrete experimentation. At least, so far.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime
Exactly, and that's what makes it so fun! And frustrating. But fun!
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.