Steve Zodiac: By "these days" you mean since the early 1950's when they stated naming new particles those names?
Magorn: Steve Zodiac: By "these days" you mean since the early 1950's when they stated naming new particles those names?or "these days" refers to the particles physicists are DISCOVERING, not theorizing may exist, something which only started happening recently
czetie: Wait till subby hears where the name "quark" comes from. Hilarity will ensue.
I_Am_Weasel: Whoa. Do "quark" has nothing to do with a dog having a speech impediment?
MasterSFV: Best song about quarks, strangeness and charm
Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Because all the obvious property names (mass, charge, spin, etc.) were taken by the earlier-discovered particles. Now, to avoid confusion, and to reinforce that these particles have different properties than, say, protons, neutrons, and electrons, they give the properties new names.Actually, at that level of quantum physics, the properties of these particles are so divorced from the 'common sense' world of the macro, that durn near any adjective can be used as a property name. They're just tags, they have no connection any more to 'intuitive' concepts like mass, charge, spin, etc.
kahnzo: bottom top? I prefer beauty truth.
Magorn: I still want a physicist to explain this one conundrum to me.If according to quantum physics, the act of percieving an object materially changes it, then what happens if two people, for whatever reason percieve the same thing differently? What if one person opens the box and "sees" a live cat, but toher one sees, with equal conviction a dead one?
wjllope: Wait. There's part of this cat thing that's important: the time dependence. As originally expressed, there is a radioactive source measured by a perfectly efficient detector, and this detector is connected to a hammer. When the radioactive decay occurs, the detector sees that, and hammers the cat, killing it.The point is the time dependence. At t=0, the cat is alive. At t = some large number of half-lives, the cat is dead, by construction. The point (and what many felt was distasteful) was that at t=t_half that cat was 1/sqrt(2)*|alive> + 1/sqrt(2)*|dead>.... Clearly a cat cannot be in both states at once.Opening the box to check has nothing to do with the wave function of the cat. That's the bit about observation affecting the system. cheers
Magorn: If according to quantum physics, the act of percieving an object materially changes it
PirateKing: But at the quantum scale, it's like measuring the speed of a schoolbus by bouncing volkswagons off of it. By observing, you're changing the state of the thing being observed. This happens whether or not you pickup those other particles with your eyes.
kahnzo: czetie, excellent explanationthe only thing that I would add is that your analogy for temperature can be easily understood, whereas, I think that there's some disagreement between physicists as to how that analogy works for quantum mechanics
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 22 2017 22:57:50
Runtime: 0.326 sec (326 ms)