- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/4/16 at 9:57 pm to blueboy
quote:
Einstein proven wrong once again.
it freaked Einstein out. LOL He refused to believe it.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 9:59 pm to LSU1NSEC
This would completely change my Sundays. If I could teeport home from the beach or NOLA after a long Saturday night, it would make hangovers bearable.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:01 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
The Pauli exclusion principle does not say that no two electrons in the universe can have the same quantum state. It says that no two electrons in a single atom can have the same quantum state. That's a big distinction.
Yes this is true.
I guess I should have made the distinction of the Pauli Exclusion principle as being applied to the EPR paradox.
EPR paradox
go to around 13 minutes its discussed.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:02 pm to LSU1NSEC
Primer was right!
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:02 pm to rintintin
quote:This is a bad way of putting it. When we first observed quantum mechanical phenomena, we found that they defied the predictions we had made based on our understanding of physical laws at that time. However, with rigorous experimentation and theoretical work, we were able to develop the body of knowledge and theory we now call quantum mechanics to explain and predict quantum phenomena. In other words, we learned more and it expanded our knowledge of physics.
I think it's pretty well agreed upon now that the quantum world does not abide by physics as we know them. Many experiments in quantum mechanics have shown particles defying the laws of physics.
What does it all mean though?
Quantum mechanics does not defy the laws of physics. Quantum mechanics is a part of the laws of physics, and while it appears to defy classical physics at first glance, it really does not. You just need different tools to evaluate what's going on at vastly different scales.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:03 pm to Cruiserhog
I like how people want to gang up on Einstein in discussions like this. We would not be close to where we are without his work.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:03 pm to sullivanct19a
quote:
the question is: can it be replicated. peer review will only put a light on so much. replication will be the gold standard on this one. if there's a fail to replicate, or the questions about their data get complicated, we'll see the pre-emptive 'data error'.
failure to replicate doesn't necessarily mean that the experiment is faulty, unless you fail to replicate in an infinite enough of times within some level of what a person who deem enough to be confident/non-confident in the results.
Could have been a blip on the radar as far a statistical probabilities go. Something left to random chance. Or it could be something that is possible a very small percentage of the time.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 10:08 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:08 pm to gaetti15
A super-advanced civilization of ET's would probably use this type of technology to investigate other systems. Doubt they'd show up here in space ships.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:11 pm to LSU1NSEC
Those scientists need some Jesus.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:11 pm to LSU1NSEC
quote:
A super-advanced civilization of ET's would probably use this type of technology to investigate other systems. Doubt they'd show up here in space ships.
possible theory, but that's assuming because we've reached this technical level that it must mean somebody else in the universe must be capable of technology/knowledge greater.
The converse of this is that we are the first to do this and every other civilization/life has not made it through the filter yet.
Enter the Fermi Paradox
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 10:12 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:13 pm to LSU1NSEC
I don't know much about physics but isn't the basis of quantum mechanics that at the quantum level, the rules of physics are broken, allowing for shite like transportation possible?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:13 pm to LSU1NSEC
Dude we're talking about rubidium atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate being accelerated with a laser, and this is very much a quantum phenomenon that will probably never be applicable on a large scale.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:15 pm to athenslife101
quote:Sort of but it's wrong to say that the rules of physics are broken. The rules still apply, they just aren't rules we knew about until about 100 years ago, and those rules only make sense when we're talking about veeerrry small systems of particles (compared to the size of systems we deal with in normal life).
I don't know much about physics but isn't the basis of quantum mechanics that at the quantum level, the rules of physics are broken, allowing for shite like transportation possible?
Think about how many atoms are in your body. You have trillions of cells in your body, and trillions of atoms in each cell. In this experiment, there were 10,000 atoms. That's a huuuuuuuuuuge difference. So when I talk about the relative size of systems, know that I'm talking about a massive, massive, almost incomprehensible difference in scale.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 10:16 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:21 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Dude we're talking about rubidium atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate being accelerated with a laser, and this is very much a quantum phenomenon that will probably never be applicable on a large scale.
I mostly look at these experiments as "hey, it is theoretically possible to do this or that"
Some of these experiments challenge your entire way of thinking about what "reality" is. Pretty exciting.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:27 pm to Cruiserhog
Something sounds wrong about this.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:34 pm to gaetti15
quote:
failure to replicate doesn't necessarily mean that the experiment is faulty, unless you fail to replicate in an infinite enough of times within some level of what a person who deem enough to be confident/non-confident in the results.
this doesn't make sense, at all. I'm not sure it's even English.
quote:
Could have been a blip on the radar as far a statistical probabilities go. Something left to random chance. Or it could be something that is possible a very small percentage of the time.
this confirms you don't understand research and connecting theory to experimentation.
were you intending to post in the thread about drunken comments?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:37 pm to LSU1NSEC
Teleportation has actually long been proven. It's not if teleportation is possible, it's if you could actually survive teleportation that is the question, even if you pop out of it seemingly alive. We can certainly teleport molecules, but to get to Star Trek levels and beam up Kirk, then that isn't proven at all.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:40 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Teleportation has actually long been proven. It's not if teleportation is possible, it's if you could actually survive teleportation that is the question, even if you pop out of it seemingly alive. We can certainly teleport molecules, but to get to Star Trek levels and beam up Kirk, then that isn't proven at all.
I don't see this as moving a particle from one location to another instantaneously. Seems to me it's having a particle existing simultaneously in 2 locations at once. The question seems to be "how far of a distance is possible?". Superposition.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 11:36 pm to sullivanct19a
quote:No. We'd be closer, but we clung to his stupid bullshite like it was some kind of quasi-religion.
I like how people want to gang up on Einstein in discussions like this. We would not be close to where we are without his work.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News