@kshegunov Quantum Mechanics
-
Well, as this is the lounge (we are only missing the coffee machines) consider yourself asked. :)
@kshegunov
LOL, I didn't mean it seriously. I am also well aware that the world is full of laymen with their own pet theories on quantum and other physics, all of which are almost certainly worthless/of no interest to anyone other than themselves.I also would like to say I appreciate your regular & informed input on the forums, and answers to my posts. I know I sometimes put in an OT comment, I do hope that does not detract --- I like the casual, friendliness here, I am used to stackoverflow where you get penalized or executed by hostile members for anything frivolous or not directly relevant....
-
@kshegunov
LOL, I didn't mean it seriously. I am also well aware that the world is full of laymen with their own pet theories on quantum and other physics, all of which are almost certainly worthless/of no interest to anyone other than themselves.I also would like to say I appreciate your regular & informed input on the forums, and answers to my posts. I know I sometimes put in an OT comment, I do hope that does not detract --- I like the casual, friendliness here, I am used to stackoverflow where you get penalized or executed by hostile members for anything frivolous or not directly relevant....
@JNBarchan said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
LOL, I didn't mean it seriously. I am also well aware that the world is full of laymen with their own pet theories on quantum and other physics, all of which are almost certainly worthless/of no interest to anyone other than themselves.
Perhaps, but the flat earth (conspiracy) theory is rather funny at least. ;)
I also would like to say I appreciate your regular & informed input on the forums, and answers to my posts. I know I sometimes put in an OT comment
Thanks!
I do hope that does not detract
You'd get a notice in chat if it does, or a moderator will fork it into another topic. I myself am rather lenient on that (see below).
I am used to stackoverflow where you get penalized or executed by hostile members for anything frivolous or not directly relevant....
Well, if that were the case here, @tekojo would've had put me on the chopping block more than anyone else ... :D
Read and abide by the Qt Code of Conduct
-
@kshegunov
LOL, I didn't mean it seriously. I am also well aware that the world is full of laymen with their own pet theories on quantum and other physics, all of which are almost certainly worthless/of no interest to anyone other than themselves.I also would like to say I appreciate your regular & informed input on the forums, and answers to my posts. I know I sometimes put in an OT comment, I do hope that does not detract --- I like the casual, friendliness here, I am used to stackoverflow where you get penalized or executed by hostile members for anything frivolous or not directly relevant....
@JNBarchan said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
I like the casual, friendliness here, I am used to stackoverflow where you get penalized or executed by hostile members for anything frivolous or not directly relevant....
That even extends to Questions asked and anwered 100 times over. AKA:
My Program works when it`s started from QtCreator but not when I click on the exeI'll blame that partially on the bad topic search of this forum, in most cases its easier to simply use google instead of the on side search ;-)
Be aware of the Qt Code of Conduct, when posting : https://forum.qt.io/topic/113070/qt-code-of-conduct
Q: What's that?
A: It's blue light.
Q: What does it do?
A: It turns blue. -
@JNBarchan said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
I like the casual, friendliness here, I am used to stackoverflow where you get penalized or executed by hostile members for anything frivolous or not directly relevant....
That even extends to Questions asked and anwered 100 times over. AKA:
My Program works when it`s started from QtCreator but not when I click on the exeI'll blame that partially on the bad topic search of this forum, in most cases its easier to simply use google instead of the on side search ;-)
-
@tekojo said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
I use google to search the forums too
Don't we all ... ^_^
Btw, a nice one on the QM forum's existence. It reminded me of this particular meme:
-
@JNBarchan said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
LOL, I didn't mean it seriously. I am also well aware that the world is full of laymen with their own pet theories on quantum and other physics, all of which are almost certainly worthless/of no interest to anyone other than themselves.
Perhaps, but the flat earth (conspiracy) theory is rather funny at least. ;)
I also would like to say I appreciate your regular & informed input on the forums, and answers to my posts. I know I sometimes put in an OT comment
Thanks!
I do hope that does not detract
You'd get a notice in chat if it does, or a moderator will fork it into another topic. I myself am rather lenient on that (see below).
I am used to stackoverflow where you get penalized or executed by hostile members for anything frivolous or not directly relevant....
Well, if that were the case here, @tekojo would've had put me on the chopping block more than anyone else ... :D
@kshegunov said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
but the flat earth theory is rather funny at least
It's not funny man! they are lying to humanity!
"La mort n'est rien, mais vivre vaincu et sans gloire, c'est mourir tous les jours"
~Napoleon BonaparteOn a crusade to banish setIndexWidget() from the holy land of Qt
-
@kshegunov said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
but the flat earth theory is rather funny at least
It's not funny man! they are lying to humanity!
@VRonin
Yeah, well, I'm afraid so are the people I know who insist The Earth is about 4,000 years like in The Bible, evolution is not real, and dinosaurs either didn't exist and the bones have been "planted" or they lived about 3,500 years ago for a bit.... -
From what I read, its not so much the theory that earth is flat, but that all pictures/video we have of earth in space is made by NASA, and officially graphically revised which is actually true, and therefore #FakeNews.
On that note #Live
Be aware of the Qt Code of Conduct, when posting : https://forum.qt.io/topic/113070/qt-code-of-conduct
Q: What's that?
A: It's blue light.
Q: What does it do?
A: It turns blue. -
From what I read, its not so much the theory that earth is flat, but that all pictures/video we have of earth in space is made by NASA, and officially graphically revised which is actually true, and therefore #FakeNews.
On that note #Live
@J.Hilk
For the record, The Greeks (the ancient ones, not the ones in the EU who borrow a lot of money) knew it was curved and measured its radius purely from horizon/sun/"clock" stuff, so can't see how NASA can be blamed for faking it :)Whereas going to The Moon was clearly really just like Capricorn One....
-
From what I read, its not so much the theory that earth is flat, but that all pictures/video we have of earth in space is made by NASA, and officially graphically revised which is actually true, and therefore #FakeNews.
On that note #Live
@J.Hilk said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
but that all pictures/video we have of earth in space is made by NASA
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-30210230
It's even a great south asian restaurant if you happen to be in the area
-
Well, as this is the lounge (we are only missing the coffee machines) consider yourself asked. :)
@kshegunov , and other physicists:
OK then. 2 initial quantum questions:-
What does the empirical demonstration of Bell's Inequality Theorem thing tell me about the physical world I inhabit?
-
So what actually happened when they did the experiment on Schrödinger's cat?
-
-
@kshegunov , and other physicists:
OK then. 2 initial quantum questions:-
What does the empirical demonstration of Bell's Inequality Theorem thing tell me about the physical world I inhabit?
-
So what actually happened when they did the experiment on Schrödinger's cat?
@JNBarchan said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
- What does the empirical demonstration of Bell's Inequality Theorem thing tell me about the physical world I inhabit?
Not much as far as I know. Just that there can be no hidden variables in a quantum-like theory. Can't elaborate much on it as I'm not that familiar with the whole formalism.
- So what actually happened when they did the experiment on Schrödinger's cat?
As with any thought experiment - at the end of it they got a headache ;)
The cat is just an metaphor that tries to illustrate the principle of superposition in QM, but many people fundamentally misunderstand it and think it's bizarre and/or wrong. Basically it boils down to a very simple idea - you have a system with 2 pure states (i.e. the cat is alive, or the cat is dead, you could make the argument with the electron spin all the same). In the closed system where there's no interaction with the outside world the state is a superposition of the two with some probability. When you measure you're no longer dealing with a closed system, that is the person/instrument that measures influences the system, and since there's now determinism involved (i.e. the act of measurement) the state of the system collapses to one of the pure states - the cat is either dead or alive.
Read and abide by the Qt Code of Conduct
-
-
@JNBarchan said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
- What does the empirical demonstration of Bell's Inequality Theorem thing tell me about the physical world I inhabit?
Not much as far as I know. Just that there can be no hidden variables in a quantum-like theory. Can't elaborate much on it as I'm not that familiar with the whole formalism.
- So what actually happened when they did the experiment on Schrödinger's cat?
As with any thought experiment - at the end of it they got a headache ;)
The cat is just an metaphor that tries to illustrate the principle of superposition in QM, but many people fundamentally misunderstand it and think it's bizarre and/or wrong. Basically it boils down to a very simple idea - you have a system with 2 pure states (i.e. the cat is alive, or the cat is dead, you could make the argument with the electron spin all the same). In the closed system where there's no interaction with the outside world the state is a superposition of the two with some probability. When you measure you're no longer dealing with a closed system, that is the person/instrument that measures influences the system, and since there's now determinism involved (i.e. the act of measurement) the state of the system collapses to one of the pure states - the cat is either dead or alive.
@kshegunov
Hi,I understand the Schrödinger cat idea, I don't think it's wrong. I just want to know which way it did actually turn out when opened the box on his cat?
For the Bell/EPR thing, it's the implication of the "can be no hidden variables" that's intriguing, don't you think? What could quantum entanglement be? Are you more of a "Mathematical Physicist" rather than a "Philosophical Physicist"? ;-)
-
@kshegunov
Hi,I understand the Schrödinger cat idea, I don't think it's wrong. I just want to know which way it did actually turn out when opened the box on his cat?
For the Bell/EPR thing, it's the implication of the "can be no hidden variables" that's intriguing, don't you think? What could quantum entanglement be? Are you more of a "Mathematical Physicist" rather than a "Philosophical Physicist"? ;-)
@JNBarchan said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
I just want to know which way it did actually turn out when opened the box on his cat?
Well, either one way or the other. :)
The point is you can't tell until you open the box.For the Bell/EPR thing, it's the implication of the "can be no hidden variables" that's intriguing, don't you think?
I guess. I wouldn't trust theories that depend on hidden variables anyway, though. The whole point of science is to learn things, if we argue there exist things that can be neither measured, known or are otherwise hidden, we might as well go to church instead.
What could quantum entanglement be?
State coupling, which is pretty common. The typical (and quite known) problem, however, is not with entanglement itself. It's with the fact the QM is non-local, this mean everything (every process in QM) happens instantaneously in the whole of space, which is bizarre and hard to reconcile with.
Are you more of a "Mathematical Physicist" rather than a "Philosophical Physicist"?
Nuclear theory. Probably you could say I'm more of a mathematical physicist, I enjoy philosophy but am ultimately a practical man.
Read and abide by the Qt Code of Conduct
-
@JNBarchan said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
I just want to know which way it did actually turn out when opened the box on his cat?
Well, either one way or the other. :)
The point is you can't tell until you open the box.For the Bell/EPR thing, it's the implication of the "can be no hidden variables" that's intriguing, don't you think?
I guess. I wouldn't trust theories that depend on hidden variables anyway, though. The whole point of science is to learn things, if we argue there exist things that can be neither measured, known or are otherwise hidden, we might as well go to church instead.
What could quantum entanglement be?
State coupling, which is pretty common. The typical (and quite known) problem, however, is not with entanglement itself. It's with the fact the QM is non-local, this mean everything (every process in QM) happens instantaneously in the whole of space, which is bizarre and hard to reconcile with.
Are you more of a "Mathematical Physicist" rather than a "Philosophical Physicist"?
Nuclear theory. Probably you could say I'm more of a mathematical physicist, I enjoy philosophy but am ultimately a practical man.
It's with the fact the QM is non-local, this mean everything (every process in QM) happens instantaneously in the whole of space, which is bizarre and hard to reconcile with.
That's the bit I mean. And I assume a particle could in principle entangle with many others, and then any of them could influence it at the opposite side of The Universe. When they discover one day, I wonder what the "mechanism" will turn out to be....
Probably you could say I'm more of a mathematical physicist, I enjoy philosophy but am ultimately a practical man.
Yes I kind of guessed :) Being a layman, I am of course a purely philosophical amateur physicist!
Nuclear theory.
Ah ha! That's more like it! Right then: why haven't you figured practical nuclear fusion yet for the world's needs? You've had enough time now!
-
It's with the fact the QM is non-local, this mean everything (every process in QM) happens instantaneously in the whole of space, which is bizarre and hard to reconcile with.
That's the bit I mean. And I assume a particle could in principle entangle with many others, and then any of them could influence it at the opposite side of The Universe. When they discover one day, I wonder what the "mechanism" will turn out to be....
Probably you could say I'm more of a mathematical physicist, I enjoy philosophy but am ultimately a practical man.
Yes I kind of guessed :) Being a layman, I am of course a purely philosophical amateur physicist!
Nuclear theory.
Ah ha! That's more like it! Right then: why haven't you figured practical nuclear fusion yet for the world's needs? You've had enough time now!
@JNBarchan said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
That's the bit I mean. And I assume a particle could in principle entangle with many others, and then any of them could influence it at the opposite side of The Universe. When they discover one day, I wonder what the "mechanism" will turn out to be....
Yes, in principle it could. A group of Chinese scientists farily recently entangled two ensembles (please don't ask me to dig up the article it's quite late). Probably they'd discover QM is just an approximation ... just like what happened with classical mechanics and the relativistic corrections.
Yes I kind of guessed :) Being a layman, I am of course a purely philosophical amateur physicist!
No harm in that. :)
Ah ha! That's more like it! Right then: why haven't you figured nuclear fission yet for the world's needs? You've had enough time now!
Well I had a colleague that was working on that, he went into the private sector - there's just little money in science. Also we have figured it out ages ago, the problem is an engineering one, not a physical. For this you can ask the engineers around ... @Wieland, don't hide, why haven't you built the damn reactor already?! ;)
Read and abide by the Qt Code of Conduct
-
@JNBarchan said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
That's the bit I mean. And I assume a particle could in principle entangle with many others, and then any of them could influence it at the opposite side of The Universe. When they discover one day, I wonder what the "mechanism" will turn out to be....
Yes, in principle it could. A group of Chinese scientists farily recently entangled two ensembles (please don't ask me to dig up the article it's quite late). Probably they'd discover QM is just an approximation ... just like what happened with classical mechanics and the relativistic corrections.
Yes I kind of guessed :) Being a layman, I am of course a purely philosophical amateur physicist!
No harm in that. :)
Ah ha! That's more like it! Right then: why haven't you figured nuclear fission yet for the world's needs? You've had enough time now!
Well I had a colleague that was working on that, he went into the private sector - there's just little money in science. Also we have figured it out ages ago, the problem is an engineering one, not a physical. For this you can ask the engineers around ... @Wieland, don't hide, why haven't you built the damn reactor already?! ;)
Ah ha! That's more like it! Right then: why haven't you figured nuclear fission yet for the world's needs? You've had enough time now!
You quoted me before I had changed "fission" to "fusion", which is embarrassing! [Although it would be one way to solve all our needs :) ] I had also changed it to "practical nuclear fusion".
So once it's "practical" you hand over to engineers?! It's their problem. What about you come with some nuclear science physics which aids the practicalities? I don't know, find I way to make it work much closer to room temperature, or with less need for input power? :) We have been waiting for like 50 years for this promised physics + technology, and it's always "20-odd years away".
-
Ah ha! That's more like it! Right then: why haven't you figured nuclear fission yet for the world's needs? You've had enough time now!
You quoted me before I had changed "fission" to "fusion", which is embarrassing! [Although it would be one way to solve all our needs :) ] I had also changed it to "practical nuclear fusion".
So once it's "practical" you hand over to engineers?! It's their problem. What about you come with some nuclear science physics which aids the practicalities? I don't know, find I way to make it work much closer to room temperature, or with less need for input power? :) We have been waiting for like 50 years for this promised physics + technology, and it's always "20-odd years away".
@JNBarchan said in @kshegunov Quantum Mechanics:
So once it's "practical" you hand over to engineers?!
It was just a jape.
What about you come with some nuclear science physics which aids the practicalities?
As far as I know, although it isn't my subspecialty, they're building a reactor currently in germany to test some ideas. They are hopeful, but you know ... we don't sell any guarantees ...
We have been waiting for like 50 years for this promised physics + technology, and it's always "20-odd years away".
That's what I told my colleague while he was still working on it. He replied he doubts it'd be less than 50 years before we actually have a real and industry grade solution on that.
Read and abide by the Qt Code of Conduct
