Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Digital Journal)   Geeks prepare to slap-fight to the death as MIT tries to reconcile quantum and classical physics. I mean, there will be retainers and mechanical pencils scattered EVERYWHERE   (digitaljournal.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, classical physics, quantum, MIT, physics, mechanical pencil, Newtonian Physics, particle detector, action at a distance  
•       •       •

1453 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Feb 2014 at 12:26 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-02-22 12:22:36 PM  
The original MIT press release does a much better job of explaining the proposal. I don't believe it, but it's a better explanation.
 
2014-02-22 12:28:42 PM  
Words cannot express how tired I am of that stereotype.
 
2014-02-22 12:46:20 PM  
Lightning bolt, LIGHT ING BOLT!
 
2014-02-22 12:51:14 PM  
Is this a repeat, or do the modmins not have free will based on the prior state of the submission queue?
 
2014-02-22 12:55:04 PM  
I should ask my brother to smack the teeth outta yer face, subtard.

My brother. The jarhead.
 
2014-02-22 12:59:02 PM  
For a long time, I have wondered if there isn't a 3rd set of rules for physics....only applicable to very large scales (like an opposite of quantum). Can some more learned farker than I 'splain to me (or at least point me in the right direction) as to why this is a wrong line of thinking?

My original thought was, what if there is no dark matter...could the celestial movements dark matter explains instead be explained by a different set of rules?
 
2014-02-22 01:02:07 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Words cannot express how tired I am of that stereotype.


True. Its been years since a physicist assaulted a peer over competing ideas. Alluding to violence just feeds the misgivings people already have when around those people.
 
2014-02-22 01:09:10 PM  
BAH GAWD! HE BROKE THAT SYMMETRY IN HAFF!
 
2014-02-22 01:12:17 PM  

Sasquach: For a long time, I have wondered if there isn't a 3rd set of rules for physics....only applicable to very large scales (like an opposite of quantum). Can some more learned farker than I 'splain to me (or at least point me in the right direction) as to why this is a wrong line of thinking?

My original thought was, what if there is no dark matter...could the celestial movements dark matter explains instead be explained by a different set of rules?


Well, keep in mind that physics isn't so much 'rules' as it is a working model.That this model *breaks down* at certain points (Qmech and Special relativity.. which IS the very large/very fast scales... do not play nicely with each other at certain points) means that our model isn't complete yet.

The real problem with your question is: A) What defines 'large', and B) Why would physics arbitrarily switch how it works at a certain length scale? You'd need a mechanism to explain that.

('Course, if the rules suddenly do switch, that could be a FANTASTIC argument for evidence that we are, in fact, in a simulation)
 
2014-02-22 01:20:09 PM  
Not only is this a repeat, it's a repeat of a story which is only 4 links down on the page.
 
2014-02-22 01:41:24 PM  

Sasquach: Can some more learned farker than I 'splain to me


I'm about halfway through The Extravagant Universe by Robert Kirshner which is explaining a lot of this.  Good book if you like this sort of thing.
 
2014-02-22 01:46:48 PM  

Felgraf: Sasquach: For a long time, I have wondered if there isn't a 3rd set of rules for physics....only applicable to very large scales (like an opposite of quantum). Can some more learned farker than I 'splain to me (or at least point me in the right direction) as to why this is a wrong line of thinking?

My original thought was, what if there is no dark matter...could the celestial movements dark matter explains instead be explained by a different set of rules?

Well, keep in mind that physics isn't so much 'rules' as it is a working model.That this model *breaks down* at certain points (Qmech and Special relativity.. which IS the very large/very fast scales... do not play nicely with each other at certain points) means that our model isn't complete yet.

The real problem with your question is: A) What defines 'large', and B) Why would physics arbitrarily switch how it works at a certain length scale? You'd need a mechanism to explain that.

('Course, if the rules suddenly do switch, that could be a FANTASTIC argument for evidence that we are, in fact, in a simulation)


My focus is engineering, so theoretical physics was always an interesting side note that had to be neglected because of more immediate needs...

I guess I did word my question poorly....to use your much better language: Our models seem to break down on "large" scales....in order to explain observed movements of objects in galaxies, we inserted some un-observable mass to make our current model work. I unfortunately don't know enough to even form a good question here but, might dark matter simply not exist and our model is so totally garfed up? I mean, we always talk about a unified theory to join quantum and classical mechanics.....what if our problem is way bigger than that. What if we need to delete dark matter and develop a 3rd model to explain the very large?

(I'm stuck at work on a Saturday editing operations procedures....I need some kind of mental outlet!)
 
2014-02-22 01:52:29 PM  

2chris2: Not only is this a repeat, it's a repeat of a story which is only 4 links down on the page.


Maybe it is... or maybe not.
 
2014-02-22 01:57:33 PM  
controversy.wearscience.com
 
2014-02-22 02:03:11 PM  

Felgraf: Well, keep in mind that physics isn't so much 'rules' as it is a working model.That this model *breaks down* at certain points (Qmech and Special relativity.. which IS the very large/very fast scales... do not play nicely with each other at certain points) means that our model isn't complete yet.


You probably mean general relativity. Quantum mechanics and special relativity have been reconciled in relativistic quantum mechanics.
 
2014-02-22 02:03:45 PM  

Sasquach: Felgraf: Sasquach: For a long time, I have wondered if there isn't a 3rd set of rules for physics....only applicable to very large scales (like an opposite of quantum). Can some more learned farker than I 'splain to me (or at least point me in the right direction) as to why this is a wrong line of thinking?

My original thought was, what if there is no dark matter...could the celestial movements dark matter explains instead be explained by a different set of rules?

Well, keep in mind that physics isn't so much 'rules' as it is a working model.That this model *breaks down* at certain points (Qmech and Special relativity.. which IS the very large/very fast scales... do not play nicely with each other at certain points) means that our model isn't complete yet.

The real problem with your question is: A) What defines 'large', and B) Why would physics arbitrarily switch how it works at a certain length scale? You'd need a mechanism to explain that.

('Course, if the rules suddenly do switch, that could be a FANTASTIC argument for evidence that we are, in fact, in a simulation)

My focus is engineering, so theoretical physics was always an interesting side note that had to be neglected because of more immediate needs...

I guess I did word my question poorly....to use your much better language: Our models seem to break down on "large" scales....in order to explain observed movements of objects in galaxies, we inserted some un-observable mass to make our current model work. I unfortunately don't know enough to even form a good question here but, might dark matter simply not exist and our model is so totally garfed up? I mean, we always talk about a unified theory to join quantum and classical mechanics.....what if our problem is way bigger than that. What if we need to delete dark matter and develop a 3rd model to explain the very large?

(I'm stuck at work on a Saturday editing operations procedures....I need some kind of mental outlet!)


That is very possible, and there ARE currently other theories being tried out that there don't involve/need dark matter (I think some of them were MOND, and I don't remember the others). The problem is currently dark matter *Gives* better predictions. (Though, the entire point of dark matter and dark energy *is* "This is a place holder until we actually figure out WTF is going on.)

I should note I'm not an *astro* physicist, I do nanophysics.

//and I can sympathize, I'm stuck in the lab myself. WOO GRAD SCHOOL.
 
2014-02-22 02:04:37 PM  

batlock666: Felgraf: Well, keep in mind that physics isn't so much 'rules' as it is a working model.That this model *breaks down* at certain points (Qmech and Special relativity.. which IS the very large/very fast scales... do not play nicely with each other at certain points) means that our model isn't complete yet.

You probably mean general relativity. Quantum mechanics and special relativity have been reconciled in relativistic quantum mechanics.


Yes I think I did, sorry. XD. I always get the name of those two mixed up in my head, likely because I admit I don't use them much in my field.
 
2014-02-22 02:26:51 PM  
TFA: Faster than the speed of light? If correct, classical physics loses its most cherished benchmark.

Not really. The speed of light limit only applies to the movement of matter/energy. Quantum entanglement can be thought of as the movement of information, which isn't limited by the speed of light.
 
2014-02-22 02:27:59 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [controversy.wearscience.com image 400x300]


What about heart?
 
2014-02-22 02:40:07 PM  

Tiberius Gracchus: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Words cannot express how tired I am of that stereotype.

True. Its been years since a physicist assaulted a peer over competing ideas. Alluding to violence just feeds the misgivings people already have when around those people.


You can have my mechanical pencil when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
 
2014-02-22 02:46:03 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: TFA: Faster than the speed of light? If correct, classical physics loses its most cherished benchmark.

Not really. The speed of light limit only applies to the movement of matter/energy. Quantum entanglement can be thought of as the movement of information, which isn't limited by the speed of light.


Actually, not even energy. Just particles with Mass are subject to that limitation.Theoretically, non-massive particles would be able to exceed it.
 
2014-02-22 02:49:12 PM  
I have a question that I think some of you smarter Farkers could answer. If my question ultimately leads to anything revolutionary I post this as a claim to prior art. ;)

Quantum physics holds that "empty space" (the space between galaxies) isn't really empty. Rather it is a sea of subatomic particles popping into and out of existence at any and every given moment. Further, this "Quantum Space" is jammed full of photons and other subatomic particles of every imaginable wavelength traversing from one corner of the universe to the other.

My question is, has anyone tried to account for the mass of all that quantum energy and matter comprising so-called "empty space?" If quantum matter has mass, and "empty space" is awash in quantum matter, then "empty space" must have mass. And since the universe is 90% "empty space," that must be a LOT of mass.   Has anyone accounted for that mass? And how might that effect our understanding of quantum physics and could it account for so-called "dark matter?"

That Nobel Prize is in the bag.
 
2014-02-22 02:59:11 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Words cannot express how tired I am of that stereotype.


Indeed, I use graphite holders. Pencils are for the plebs.
 
2014-02-22 03:01:09 PM  
Quantum entanglement will prove the phlogiston.
 
2014-02-22 03:22:04 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Quantum entanglement will prove the phlogiston.


Pffft....all of the phlogiston was converted to luminiferous aether in 1952 for tax reasons.
 
2014-02-22 03:24:26 PM  

KRSESQ: I have a question that I think some of you smarter Farkers could answer. If my question ultimately leads to anything revolutionary I post this as a claim to prior art. ;)

Quantum physics holds that "empty space" (the space between galaxies) isn't really empty. Rather it is a sea of subatomic particles popping into and out of existence at any and every given moment. Further, this "Quantum Space" is jammed full of photons and other subatomic particles of every imaginable wavelength traversing from one corner of the universe to the other.

My question is, has anyone tried to account for the mass of all that quantum energy and matter comprising so-called "empty space?" If quantum matter has mass, and "empty space" is awash in quantum matter, then "empty space" must have mass. And since the universe is 90% "empty space," that must be a LOT of mass.   Has anyone accounted for that mass? And how might that effect our understanding of quantum physics and could it account for so-called "dark matter?"

That Nobel Prize is in the bag.



There are physicists who do think that could explain dark matter.
 
2014-02-22 03:29:21 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Because People in power are Stupid: [controversy.wearscience.com image 400x300]

What about heart?


withfriendship.com
 
2014-02-22 03:38:18 PM  

Sasquach: ReverendJynxed: Quantum entanglement will prove the phlogiston.

Pffft....all of the phlogiston was converted to luminiferous aether in 1952 for tax reasons.


Thanks, Truman!
 
2014-02-22 03:50:08 PM  
Obligatory. (I think there was a FARK thread on this.)
 
2014-02-22 05:04:34 PM  

Felgraf: The real problem with your question is: A) What defines 'large', and B) Why would physics arbitrarily switch how it works at a certain length scale? You'd need a mechanism to explain that.


I actually wonder if there isn't a sliding scale where one force slowly takes the other one over.  Does anyone know if this has ever been explored?
 
2014-02-22 06:58:21 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: TFA: Faster than the speed of light? If correct, classical physics loses its most cherished benchmark.

Not really. The speed of light limit only applies to the movement of matter/energy. Quantum entanglement can be thought of as the movement of information, which isn't limited by the speed of light.


Technically it's not information that is moving faster than light. If it were then you could communication faster than light (which you can't).
 
2014-02-22 07:04:54 PM  
Just wanted to express respect for anyone who gets physics past what Newton understood, even if at the end of the day his work is the only directly applicable to my daily life.
/mad respect for you who get subatomic particle physics
//doesn't mean I don't get more sexually attractive women than y'all
 
2014-02-22 07:24:18 PM  

mongbiohazard: KRSESQ: I have a question that I think some of you smarter Farkers could answer. If my question ultimately leads to anything revolutionary I post this as a claim to prior art. ;)

Quantum physics holds that "empty space" (the space between galaxies) isn't really empty. Rather it is a sea of subatomic particles popping into and out of existence at any and every given moment. Further, this "Quantum Space" is jammed full of photons and other subatomic particles of every imaginable wavelength traversing from one corner of the universe to the other.

My question is, has anyone tried to account for the mass of all that quantum energy and matter comprising so-called "empty space?" If quantum matter has mass, and "empty space" is awash in quantum matter, then "empty space" must have mass. And since the universe is 90% "empty space," that must be a LOT of mass.   Has anyone accounted for that mass? And how might that effect our understanding of quantum physics and could it account for so-called "dark matter?"

That Nobel Prize is in the bag.


There are physicists who do think that could explain dark matter.


Sweet. Thanks. Bookmarked.
 
2014-02-22 07:28:04 PM  

blastoh: Felgraf: The real problem with your question is: A) What defines 'large', and B) Why would physics arbitrarily switch how it works at a certain length scale? You'd need a mechanism to explain that.

I actually wonder if there isn't a sliding scale where one force slowly takes the other one over.  Does anyone know if this has ever been explored?


Don't take this the wrong way, but if you're a layman and you have this idea, chances are it was explored and discarded 50 years ago.  Theorists put in a lot of hours and know a lot more of the details than you do. There won't be a Good Will Hunting style amateur breakthrough on this.
 
2014-02-22 08:15:05 PM  
Um... classical physics is pretty much quantum physics plus statistics, with a couple long-range effects like gravity having increased mathematical prominence due to scaling.

I'm not really seeing the "conflict" and I'm having trouble seeing why it's a  problem that different effects dominate on different length-scales.  Have these people never heard of scale regimes before?  They come up in a lot more than physics, I'll tell you that.

blastoh: I actually wonder if there isn't a sliding scale where one force slowly takes the other one over.  Does anyone know if this has ever been explored?


Again, this is not a mathematical thing limited to the changeover from classical to quantum effects dominating.  The behavior of electrons in chemistry and the interactions of photons with large molecules has elements of both sets of effects.

Or, rather,  everything is subject to both sets of effects, it's just that the ability of a baseball to delocalize isn't really large enough or frequent enough to matter to anything a baseball does.  That's why scientists usually call things "negligible" instead of "nonexistent".  Negligible literally means "small enough that it can be mathematically treated as zero without changing the answer within significant figures".
 
2014-02-22 09:45:57 PM  

murray208: Tyrone Slothrop: TFA: Faster than the speed of light? If correct, classical physics loses its most cherished benchmark.

Not really. The speed of light limit only applies to the movement of matter/energy. Quantum entanglement can be thought of as the movement of information, which isn't limited by the speed of light.

Technically it's not information that is moving faster than light. If it were then you could communication faster than light (which you can't).



That's right: the information about the state of an entangled object is encoded when the entanglement is created.  So, a measurement on one "part" of it (one of the, say, two particles with the entangled wave function) automatically sets the state of the whole system.

Nothing travels faster than light, because the two created entangled particles travel through space slower than light.  The wave function is the mechanism that keeps everything internally consistent.
 
2014-02-22 10:32:08 PM  
My degree in theoretical Phys Ed didn't prepare me for this.

/though it has helped with Quantum Dodgeball tournaments
 
2014-02-22 10:54:27 PM  
Newton VS Higgs
Round One
Fight!
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and 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