If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slashdot)   Quantum physicists try to figure out if their equipment's history is affecting their results. Subby just thought it was funny to install two wave detectors in their particle/wave detector   (science.slashdot.org) divider line 49
    More: Weird, quantum mechanics, wave detectors, logical possibility, particles, Physical Review Letters, old quantum theory  
•       •       •

2275 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Feb 2014 at 5:08 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-21 04:40:42 PM  
The tiny Einstein head on that page is freaking me out.
 
2014-02-21 04:49:35 PM  
Have the tried reversing the polarity.

It's reccomend by 9 out of 11 doctors.
 
2014-02-21 05:10:25 PM  
So, in other words, the contagion theory of magic.

Got it.
 
2014-02-21 05:12:34 PM  
Yo dawg.
 
2014-02-21 05:14:32 PM  
One of them used to be a particle detector.
 
2014-02-21 05:21:02 PM  
Subatomic physics is really weird.
 
2014-02-21 05:28:23 PM  
Ahhhhhhrghhhh can someone please dumb it down for me?  Thanks!
 
2014-02-21 05:31:11 PM  
The test is to see whether, as far-fetched as it sounds, a particle detector's settings conspire with events in the shared past to determine which properties of a particle to measure

Can I buy some pot from you?
 
2014-02-21 05:34:00 PM  
So the TL:DR of the story is that funky results of testing equipment measuring quasars on opposite sides of the known universe from us can either prove or disprove free will

-- that escalated quickly


// one could wonder why that deja vu  feels so real....
//now if we can just find a way to bend the rules of this computer simulation we are all in to break the cycle
 
2014-02-21 05:36:02 PM  

xenomorpheus: //now if we can just find a way to bend the rules of this computer simulation we are all in to break the cycle


SHhhhhhhh, you weren't supposed to tell.
 
2014-02-21 05:36:25 PM  
Here is the link that is linked in the slashdot summary so not everyone has to visit slashdot to read the story.


http://scienceblog.com/70583/lab-equipment-may-take-on-a-mind-of-its -o wn-to-trick-scientists/
 
2014-02-21 05:39:49 PM  
But how do you know if the equipment you use to measure the equipment is working? And how do you know if the equipment you use to measure the equipment you use to measure the equipment is working? And how do you know ad infinitum regression.

/Who watches the watchers?
 
2014-02-21 05:41:58 PM  

Geotpf: Subatomic physics is really weird.


And that's an understatement. It's SO farking weird. I've always found Feynman to be one of the best explainers but even when I can follow it...I don't grok it. I don't think anyone can because it's just not part of our normally observed universe; we didn't evolve interacting with it in any meaningful way unlike other physics. We do use QM today in tech of course, but I mean as apes until practically yesterday, it just wasn't part of our world in a way we could observe/interact/understand.

I think that's why it's so farking weird to us, though I could be completely wrong.

/QM remains the hardest thing I still try to understand, outside of human relationships
 
2014-02-21 05:43:32 PM  
Some guys just have defective equipment. Sorry babe
 
2014-02-21 05:48:58 PM  
Have they tried turning it off and back on?
 
2014-02-21 06:04:20 PM  

Ishkur: But how do you know if the equipment you use to measure the equipment is working? And how do you know if the equipment you use to measure the equipment you use to measure the equipment is working? And how do you know ad infinitum regression.

/Who watches the watchers?


Jist is (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, which is good!) that observation collapses the wave. It's farking weird but true in the slit experiment. If there's ANY observation of which slit it went through, the backspatter is in a particle formation which is what we'd normally expected. No observation and it appears as a wave.

If you observe after the fact (AFTER they've gone thru the slit, if you determine which one) the wave pattern collapses. This is where you get that observation can affect past events. Seems farking freaky as all shiat, but that's what we're seeing.

So you don't need the ad infinitum of watchers, just eliminate the bias. Again, weird as shiat and shouldn't be doing anything...but QM is spooky. Investigating other freaky and seemingly impossible scenarios isn't a bad idea with QM because it's so alien to our experiences.

/really fascinated by it
//and the universe
///pretty much all of physics really
 
2014-02-21 06:06:40 PM  
Lady Indica:

I think that's why it's so farking weird to us, though I could be completely wrong.

/QM remains the hardest thing I still try to understand, outside of human relationships


Quantum Physics are the new magic and the heigh priest are Physicist. I wish I understood it.
 
2014-02-21 06:22:20 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Lady Indica:

I think that's why it's so farking weird to us, though I could be completely wrong.

/QM remains the hardest thing I still try to understand, outside of human relationships

Quantum Physics are the new magic and the heigh priest are Physicist. I wish I understood it.


I've talked with some folks who are researchers in this area, can't name drop...but I can tell you that it is as baffling to them as well. And I think a good example in science to demonstrate how it has *nothing* to do with belief, and everything to do with math and observation.
 
2014-02-21 06:22:28 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Lady Indica:

I think that's why it's so farking weird to us, though I could be completely wrong.

/QM remains the hardest thing I still try to understand, outside of human relationships

Quantum Physics are the new magic and the heigh priest are Physicist. I wish I understood it.


...try Spice

//Traveling....without moving
 
2014-02-21 06:29:00 PM  

Lady Indica: Darth_Lukecash: Lady Indica:

I think that's why it's so farking weird to us, though I could be completely wrong.

/QM remains the hardest thing I still try to understand, outside of human relationships

Quantum Physics are the new magic and the heigh priest are Physicist. I wish I understood it.

I've talked with some folks who are researchers in this area, can't name drop...but I can tell you that it is as baffling to them as well. And I think a good example in science to demonstrate how it has *nothing* to do with belief, and everything to do with math and observation.


The problem is I suck at understanding math. I can't comprehend it to save my life.  So it might as well be magic to me. ;-)

On the other hand, my brother is a genius at being an electrical engineer. Lucky bastard.
 
2014-02-21 06:33:47 PM  

Lady Indica: Jist is (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, which is good!) that observation collapses the wave.


I know, I'm just being facetious.

You don't know how many arguments I've had with Creationists over this subject.
 
2014-02-21 06:37:59 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Lady Indica: Darth_Lukecash: Lady Indica:

I think that's why it's so farking weird to us, though I could be completely wrong.

/QM remains the hardest thing I still try to understand, outside of human relationships

Quantum Physics are the new magic and the heigh priest are Physicist. I wish I understood it.

I've talked with some folks who are researchers in this area, can't name drop...but I can tell you that it is as baffling to them as well. And I think a good example in science to demonstrate how it has *nothing* to do with belief, and everything to do with math and observation.

The problem is I suck at understanding math. I can't comprehend it to save my life.  So it might as well be magic to me. ;-)

On the other hand, my brother is a genius at being an electrical engineer. Lucky bastard.


I'm good at math and like it...but I'm nowhere near a level of understanding this stuff beyond really basic equations. I'm basically good at math before we get to calculus. Then it's a steep decline into differential equations. farking Newton. ;)

I have to approach it via language not math. But if you are interested in checking out that stuff, there's a ton of great lectures and distant free university edu for this stuff. I've been peeking at the Stanford YouTube channel and their physics lectures, they have some good stuff. But I'm looking more for a superficial understanding, once it reaches a certain complexity I just want to understand what they're saying even if I can't follow the maths. I get a lot of enjoyment out of it too, it's just so fascinating. Less so from any maths beyond algebra, just not fun or rewarding for me personally but that may be due more to my lack of ability there than a statement towards calculus. (F Newton)
 
2014-02-21 06:41:22 PM  
Idea reminds me of an old SF story, where the experiment was to see if Mice could affect a random number generator to get rewards.

Seems that they could, but when things were checked out, it was always the random number generator being maladjusted.  Claims of scientific fraud got bandied about.

/spoiler: The mice couldn't affect the machine, but they were able to mind control the experimenter to foul-up the settings and get more treats.

/well sort of like that story, but without the cute fuzzy mice.
 
2014-02-21 07:03:42 PM  
Their theory is to use quasars separated by vast distances to avoid any kind of entanglement.

But I would argue that at the moment of the Big Bang all matter was entangled. So I don't see how that's going to prove anything.
 
2014-02-21 07:09:26 PM  
www.majorspoilers.com

Speaking of Bell's Theorem, is anyone else reading this comic? I'm really digging it. It has all the great the mindfarkery of Lost, but it actually seems to know where it is going plot wise because just about every issue has me going back to previous ones that hinted at the events coming.
 
2014-02-21 07:15:33 PM  

Lady Indica: Darth_Lukecash: Lady Indica: Darth_Lukecash: Lady Indica:

I think that's why it's so farking weird to us, though I could be completely wrong.

/QM remains the hardest thing I still try to understand, outside of human relationships

Quantum Physics are the new magic and the heigh priest are Physicist. I wish I understood it.

I've talked with some folks who are researchers in this area, can't name drop...but I can tell you that it is as baffling to them as well. And I think a good example in science to demonstrate how it has *nothing* to do with belief, and everything to do with math and observation.

The problem is I suck at understanding math. I can't comprehend it to save my life.  So it might as well be magic to me. ;-)

On the other hand, my brother is a genius at being an electrical engineer. Lucky bastard.

I'm good at math and like it...but I'm nowhere near a level of understanding this stuff beyond really basic equations. I'm basically good at math before we get to calculus. Then it's a steep decline into differential equations. farking Newton. ;)

I have to approach it via language not math. But if you are interested in checking out that stuff, there's a ton of great lectures and distant free university edu for this stuff. I've been peeking at the Stanford YouTube channel and their physics lectures, they have some good stuff. But I'm looking more for a superficial understanding, once it reaches a certain complexity I just want to understand what they're saying even if I can't follow the maths. I get a lot of enjoyment out of it too, it's just so fascinating. Less so from any maths beyond algebra, just not fun or rewarding for me personally but that may be due more to my lack of ability there than a statement towards calculus. (F Newton)


Thanks a lot, I'll have to check those out. I'm fascinated by science-and a firm believe in it.

I have to doff my hat to you, dear lady, for continuing your expansion of knowledge, despite difficulties.
 
2014-02-21 07:19:04 PM  

Lady Indica: Darth_Lukecash: Lady Indica: Darth_Lukecash: Lady Indica:

I think that's why it's so farking weird to us, though I could be completely wrong.

/QM remains the hardest thing I still try to understand, outside of human relationships

Quantum Physics are the new magic and the heigh priest are Physicist. I wish I understood it.

I've talked with some folks who are researchers in this area, can't name drop...but I can tell you that it is as baffling to them as well. And I think a good example in science to demonstrate how it has *nothing* to do with belief, and everything to do with math and observation.

The problem is I suck at understanding math. I can't comprehend it to save my life.  So it might as well be magic to me. ;-)

On the other hand, my brother is a genius at being an electrical engineer. Lucky bastard.

I'm good at math and like it...but I'm nowhere near a level of understanding this stuff beyond really basic equations. I'm basically good at math before we get to calculus. Then it's a steep decline into differential equations. farking Newton. ;)

I have to approach it via language not math. But if you are interested in checking out that stuff, there's a ton of great lectures and distant free university edu for this stuff. I've been peeking at the Stanford YouTube channel and their physics lectures, they have some good stuff. But I'm looking more for a superficial understanding, once it reaches a certain complexity I just want to understand what they're saying even if I can't follow the maths. I get a lot of enjoyment out of it too, it's just so fascinating. Less so from any maths beyond algebra, just not fun or rewarding for me personally but that may be due more to my lack of ability there than a statement towards calculus. (F Newton)


Blame Leibniz, we're using his notations.
 
2014-02-21 07:43:53 PM  

xenomorpheus: one could wonder why that deja vu feels so real....


it's the vuja de that freaks me out
 
2014-02-21 07:55:38 PM  

Lady Indica: I don't think anyone can because it's just not part of our normally observed universe; we didn't evolve interacting with it in any meaningful way unlike other physics.


We knew you were going to say that.
 
2014-02-21 08:25:53 PM  

Lady Indica: I'm basically good at math before we get to calculus. Then it's a steep decline into differential equations.


So Calc 1, Calc 2 and most of what I remember of Calc 3 make sense.  Series, that last bit of calc 3, and calc 4 were where it all started falling apart for me.

First, there's this really interesting concept called:

Limits.

y = x
y = (x-1)x/(x-1) .

Now, it's clearly obvious that those are the exact same graph, except when x = 1, where the second becomes 0/0 and just wierd.

But what LIMITS let you do is say:  Ok, as I get closer and closer to x=1, y gets closer and closer to y=1.  And so therefore, the LIMIT of y as x approaches 1 is 1.  So:

y = (x-1)x/(x-1)
x = 1 + blah, where blah is this infinitely small number that isn't exactly 0*.
y = (1-1 + blah)*1/(1-1 + blah)
y = 1 * blah/blah
y = 1
Therefore the limit of y as x approaches 1 is 1

*In fact, the great dirty secret of infinitesimals (the fancy name for these super-tiny numbers) is that they're basically numbers that we can make equal 0 or just merely very, very, incredibly tiny whenever we wish.  So x/blah is NOT x/0, and x + blah = x.   Wierdness.

Derivatives and Integrals:

Start with a graph.  y = x^2

img.fark.net

The derivative of the graph is SIMPLY the slope of the graph at every point.
The Nth derivative is simply the derivative of the N-1th derivative.

So basically:

dy/dx = (F(x+ h) - F(x))/h as limit h approaches 0 for all x
so y = X^2
dy/dx = ((x+ h)^2 - x^2)/h
dy/dx = (x^2 + 2xh + h^2 - x^2)/h
dy/dx = (2xh + h^2)/h
dy/dx = 2x + h
h = 0
dy/dx = 2x

And then the integral is the reverse.  It's the sum of the area underneath the curve.

So integral of 2x dx = x^2 + C (because the derivative of a constant is 0 for what are hopefully obvious reasons)

And then the integral from A to B = B^2 - A^2.

In fact the general form of that is the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Usually we use physics examples because:

Acceleration is the derivative of velocity is the derivative of position
Position is the integral of velocity is the integral of acceleration


So if I'm going 100 m/s for 3 seconds, I've gone 300m.
And if I'm accelerating at 2m/s^2 for 3 seconds from rest (a = 2),
I've accelerated from 0 to 6 m/s (v = integral of a from 0 to 3 == 2t == 6 - 0 == 6)
I've traveled 9m (p = integral of v from 0 to 3 == integral of 2t from 0 to 3 == t^2 from 0 to 3 == 3^2 - 0^2 == 9).


And that combined with all of the "This is how to get derivatives and integrals of weird functions" gets you like 80% of the way through Calc 1 and 2.
 
2014-02-21 08:27:00 PM  

WelldeadLink: Lady Indica: I don't think anyone can because it's just not part of our normally observed universe; we didn't evolve interacting with it in any meaningful way unlike other physics.

We knew you were going to say that.


As long as I have the illusion of free will, I don't mind. ;)
 
2014-02-21 08:35:42 PM  

meyerkev: Lady Indica: I'm basically good at math before we get to calculus. Then it's a steep decline into differential equations.

So Calc 1, Calc 2 and most of what I remember of Calc 3 make sense.  Series, that last bit of calc 3, and calc 4 were where it all started falling apart for me.

First, there's this really interesting concept called:

Limits.

y = x
y = (x-1)x/(x-1) .

Now, it's clearly obvious that those are the exact same graph, except when x = 1, where the second becomes 0/0 and just wierd.

But what LIMITS let you do is say:  Ok, as I get closer and closer to x=1, y gets closer and closer to y=1.  And so therefore, the LIMIT of y as x approaches 1 is 1.  So:

y = (x-1)x/(x-1)
x = 1 + blah, where blah is this infinitely small number that isn't exactly 0*.
y = (1-1 + blah)*1/(1-1 + blah)
y = 1 * blah/blah
y = 1
Therefore the limit of y as x approaches 1 is 1

*In fact, the great dirty secret of infinitesimals (the fancy name for these super-tiny numbers) is that they're basically numbers that we can make equal 0 or just merely very, very, incredibly tiny whenever we wish.  So x/blah is NOT x/0, and x + blah = x.   Wierdness.

Derivatives and Integrals:

Start with a graph.  y = x^2



The derivative of the graph is SIMPLY the slope of the graph at every point.
The Nth derivative is simply the derivative of the N-1th derivative.

So basically:

dy/dx = (F(x+ h) - F(x))/h as limit h approaches 0 for all x
so y = X^2
dy/dx = ((x+ h)^2 - x^2)/h
dy/dx = (x^2 + 2xh + h^2 - x^2)/h
dy/dx = (2xh + h^2)/h
dy/dx = 2x + h
h = 0
dy/dx = 2x

And then the integral is the reverse.  It's the sum of the area underneath the curve.

So integral of 2x dx = x^2 + C (because the derivative of a constant is 0 for what are hopefully obvious reasons)

And then the integral from A to B = B^2 - A^2.

In fact the general form of that is the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Usually we use physics examples because:

Acceleration is the derivative of velocity is the derivative of position
Position is the integral of velocity is the integral of acceleration

So if I'm going 100 m/s for 3 seconds, I've gone 300m.
And if I'm accelerating at 2m/s^2 for 3 seconds from rest (a = 2),
I've accelerated from 0 to 6 m/s (v = integral of a from 0 to 3 == 2t == 6 - 0 == 6)
I've traveled 9m (p = integral of v from 0 to 3 == integral of 2t from 0 to 3 == t^2 from 0 to 3 == 3^2 - 0^2 == 9).

And that combined with all of the "This is how to get derivatives and integrals of weird functions" gets you like 80% of the way through Calc 1 and 2.


Yeah, from what I remember of it, the majority of Calc 1 and 2 dealt with algebraic tricks to solve gnarlier and gnarlier equations.
 
2014-02-21 08:40:49 PM  
meyerkev:

ibankcoin.com

/ just kidding
/ passed DiffEQ
 
2014-02-21 08:48:19 PM  

StopLurkListen: Ahhhhhhrghhhh can someone please dumb it down for me?  Thanks!


Very simply: Stuff looks different depending on how you measure it. Imagine that you close your eyes and someone brings an animal into the room and you can only look at it through one eye. Every time you decide to use your right eye, it's a squirrel. Every time you use your left eye, it's an elephant.

The conclusion that we've drawn is that it's some sort of weird squirrelephant that turns into one or the other depending on which eye you open.

This is article is describing a test of the last possible alternative to that idea, which is that the universe is conspiring to always make us decide to open our left eye whenever an elephant is being brought into the room and our right eye whenever a squirrel is brought into the room, which would imply both that free will doesn't exist and that the universe is actively trying to screw with us.

This is considered less plausible than the existence of the squirrelephant, but they're checking it out just to be sure.
 
2014-02-21 08:53:14 PM  

Delta1212: This is considered less plausible than the existence of the squirrelephant, but they're checking it out just to be sure.


Now we know what Drew did with his time machine.
i466.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-21 10:19:47 PM  
Yo, subby:
www.yodawg.com
 
2014-02-22 02:39:46 AM  
I still don't why "zig toward the closest passing neutrino" hypothesis isn't taken more seriously.
 
2014-02-22 03:46:05 AM  

aerojockey: I still don't why "zig toward the closest passing neutrino" hypothesis isn't taken more seriously.


Which flavor?
 
2014-02-22 08:36:09 AM  
I was told there would be red and blue pills available for consumption...
 
2014-02-22 09:05:05 AM  

Lady Indica: I'm good at math and like it...but I'm nowhere near a level of understanding this stuff beyond really basic equations. I'm basically good at math before we get to calculus. Then it's a steep decline into differential equations. farking Newton. ;)

I have to approach it via language not math. But if you are interested in checking out that stuff, there's a ton of great lectures and distant free university edu for this stuff. I've been peeking at the Stanford YouTube channel and their physics lectures, they have some good stuff. But I'm looking more for a superficial understanding, once it reaches a certain complexity I just want to understand what they're saying even if I can't follow the maths. I get a lot of enjoyment out of it too, it's just so fascinating. Less so from any maths beyond algebra, just not fun or rewarding for me personally but that may be due more to my lack of ability there than a statement towards calculus. (F Newton)


I've been told that the difficulty in understanding QM is because the only way to explain it IS with math. There is no spoken language explanation at all. You can explain QM quite well with math, and that is it.
 
2014-02-22 09:21:33 AM  
I'm convinced that the Higgs Boson is a Type 1 error.
 
2014-02-22 10:39:42 AM  

MindStalker: I've been told that the difficulty in understanding QM is because the only way to explain it IS with math. There is no spoken language explanation at all. You can explain QM quite well with math, and that is it.


That's the prime reason QM is so misunderstood. Physicists only like to explain things in their preferred language: Mathematics.

But not everyone understands mathematics, so no one knows what the hell physicists are talking about.

So physicists are forced to translate their mathematics into words, often explicating things using analogies and metaphors which they hate doing because what they're describing in words isn't even close to what's actually going on in the math.

And then the people misunderstand or misinterpret the word-analogies of physics equations, which coddles a healthy bullshiat industry.

And that pisses physicists right the fark off.
 
2014-02-22 12:18:24 PM  
Just two points: Quantum weirdness is not weird, it's the way things are. What's weird is our perception of it, since it rarely applies on our scale. And second, observation/measurement don't necessarily mean the same things in the quantum world as they do to us meatbags. Any time a particle interacts with another, that's a measurement, regardless of whether a human is involved. Entanglement isn't a unique situation, most particles are already entangled with all the others around them. To see the 'spooky' parts of entanglement though, you have to first generate particles that AREN'T entangled, or at least are 'born' pre-entangled with only one other.

When you measure a quantum interaction, you're 'entangling' your particle with all the trillions of trillions of other particles that make up your detector.
 
2014-02-22 12:46:36 PM  

Ishkur: And then the people misunderstand or misinterpret the word-analogies of physics equations, which coddles a healthy bullshiat industry.

And that pisses physicists right the fark off.


I blame that cat in the box.
 
2014-02-22 01:15:06 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Ishkur: And then the people misunderstand or misinterpret the word-analogies of physics equations, which coddles a healthy bullshiat industry.

And that pisses physicists right the fark off.

I blame that cat in the box.


I blame Deepak Chopra.
 
2014-02-22 02:03:18 PM  

StopLurkListen: Ahhhhhhrghhhh can someone please dumb it down for me?  Thanks!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wHKBavY_h8
 
2014-02-22 02:15:52 PM  
Wait a minute, this isn't the wave/particle detector, it's the frog exaggerator!

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-02-22 02:38:22 PM  

Lady Indica: Ishkur: But how do you know if the equipment you use to measure the equipment is working? And how do you know if the equipment you use to measure the equipment you use to measure the equipment is working? And how do you know ad infinitum regression.

/Who watches the watchers?

Jist is (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, which is good!) that observation collapses the wave. It's farking weird but true in the slit experiment. If there's ANY observation of which slit it went through, the backspatter is in a particle formation which is what we'd normally expected. No observation and it appears as a wave.

If you observe after the fact (AFTER they've gone thru the slit, if you determine which one) the wave pattern collapses. This is where you get that observation can affect past events. Seems farking freaky as all shiat, but that's what we're seeing.

So you don't need the ad infinitum of watchers, just eliminate the bias. Again, weird as shiat and shouldn't be doing anything...but QM is spooky. Investigating other freaky and seemingly impossible scenarios isn't a bad idea with QM because it's so alien to our experiences.

/really fascinated by it
//and the universe
///pretty much all of physics really


A few years back Sci Am had a do it yourself demonstration of quantum erasure, using 3 pieces of polarizer, a needle and a laser pointer.  You split the beam with the needle and arrange 2 polarizers so their angle of polarization is 90 degrees different and then feed one side of the beam through each. Aim it at the wall and you see an interference pattern.  Put a third polarizer into the beam after the beam has passed the needle and polarizers and you can selectively cut off one or the other side of the split beam.  The interference pattern remains when the third polarizer lets 50% of the light from each side through.  When the third polarizer is rotated 45 degrees to pass light from one side or the other, the interference pattern disappears.
While not completely definitive, it is quite an amazing demonstration.  To truly test it you need to do the experiment one photon at a time, with a sophisticated detector, but the results are the same.
 
2014-02-22 04:59:33 PM  

Felgraf: Vlad_the_Inaner: Ishkur: And then the people misunderstand or misinterpret the word-analogies of physics equations, which coddles a healthy bullshiat industry.

And that pisses physicists right the fark off.

I blame that cat in the box.

I blame Deepak Chopra.


Just so you do not shatter my belief in Robert Anton Wilson's theory that Finnegan's Wake is best understood by considering it in terms of quantum mechanics.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report