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.

(Medium)   Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn't get any weirder: turns out that the mass of any individual particle is fundamentally UNKNOWABLE   (medium.com) divider line 61
    More: Asinine, quantum, universe, dark matter, Atomic Nucleus, weak forces, gluons, boson, Quantum Fluctuation  
•       •       •

2485 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Jul 2014 at 1:47 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-02 10:08:45 PM  
OP, are you insane?  You've called the article "asinine" but the article is correct.  Learn something about physics before name calling please!
 
2014-07-02 10:42:08 PM  
And the cops says, "Mr. Schrodinger do you know how fast you were going?" and Schrodinger says, "No, but I know exactly where I am!".
 
2014-07-02 11:00:50 PM  
You may have heard of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and it has nothing to do with the chemistry teacher from Breaking Bad. Most commonly, it's known in the form of a joke:

I want to kick this guy square in the nuts. This is like introducing Sir Lawrence Olivier to a group of school children as "that guy who played Zeus in 'Clash of the Titans'".

I also want to kick subby in the nuts.  The inherent unknowability of both precise momentum and precise position has only been around for nearly a century.  Why didn't you use the NEWSFLASH tag?  Or maybe the CNN tag?
 
2014-07-02 11:01:36 PM  
The shortest distance between any two points is always zero.

/backs away
 
2014-07-02 11:06:10 PM  

Ambivalence: The shortest distance between any two points is always zero.

/backs away


Not true simpleton, you measure that and divide in half and multiply it by surrounding torsion fields..
 
2014-07-03 12:25:49 AM  
I thought I knew

/but then I didn't
 
2014-07-03 12:46:00 AM  
Wait ... I thought we knew this.
 
2014-07-03 01:59:17 AM  
Dr. Einstein said God doesn't play dice.  I'd believe him over some fancy-schmansy billion dollar experiment.
 
2014-07-03 02:00:42 AM  
FTFA: "If we're willing to ignore whatever it is that dark matter happens to be..."

You mean the stuff that makes up most of the mass of the Universe?
 
2014-07-03 02:20:06 AM  
Killer article... nuff said.....

...................................................
 
2014-07-03 02:22:25 AM  
Oh good. Next time I go to my doctor, I will refuse to get on the scale since my mass is fundamentally unknowable.
 
2014-07-03 02:29:45 AM  
Asinine tag is for the submitter, the article, the website's architect and for the humanity, may the FSM have mercy on our souls.
 
2014-07-03 02:37:32 AM  
I blame the "Aggregate Fark Ass-load". All that mass approaching infinity can't be good.
 
2014-07-03 02:39:32 AM  
Wait. Quantum Mechanics was just pilot waves in some sort of "Space-Time Aether" as of a few days ago ...
 
2014-07-03 02:53:03 AM  
Yo momma's so fat she iron her pants...ON THE DRIVEWAY
 
2014-07-03 03:13:26 AM  
rightweb.irc-online.org
"See, I told you.
Unknowable".
 
2014-07-03 03:37:49 AM  

JoieD'Zen: Ambivalence: The shortest distance between any two points is always zero.

/backs away

Not true simpleton, you measure that and divide in half and multiply it by surrounding torsion fields..


I'm done reconfoobling the energy-motron... or whatever...
 
2014-07-03 03:58:15 AM  
I have a theory:

"Many worlds" doesn't occur, but whatever observation made is propagated backwards through time to ensure causality.
 
2014-07-03 04:17:26 AM  
But isn't this a nice t-shirt?
 
2014-07-03 04:19:14 AM  

Prophet of Loss: I have a theory:

"Many worlds" doesn't occur, but whatever observation made is propagated backwards through time to ensure causality.


So, like, eating a sandwich propogates backwards in time to the creation of the sandwich?  Creating the sandwich doesn't cause it to be eaten, but eating the sandwich causes it to be created?
 
2014-07-03 04:29:46 AM  
Why the asinine tag?
 
2014-07-03 05:03:42 AM  

Ambivalence: Prophet of Loss: I have a theory:

"Many worlds" doesn't occur, but whatever observation made is propagated backwards through time to ensure causality.

So, like, eating a sandwich propogates backwards in time to the creation of the sandwich?  Creating the sandwich doesn't cause it to be eaten, but eating the sandwich causes it to be created?


Yes. We really have no definitive proof that the past occurred other than measurements made after the fact. Measurement defines the past. Whether than measurement is a photon detector or an actual observation.
 
2014-07-03 05:36:32 AM  

Smoking GNU: Why the asinine tag?


I see what you did there...
 
2014-07-03 06:00:45 AM  
My mass is unknowable because there was pizza last night.
 
2014-07-03 06:27:47 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-07-03 07:06:00 AM  

Prophet of Loss: Ambivalence: Prophet of Loss: I have a theory:

"Many worlds" doesn't occur, but whatever observation made is propagated backwards through time to ensure causality.

So, like, eating a sandwich propogates backwards in time to the creation of the sandwich?  Creating the sandwich doesn't cause it to be eaten, but eating the sandwich causes it to be created?

Yes. We really have no definitive proof that the past occurred other than measurements made after the fact. Measurement defines the past. Whether than measurement is a photon detector or an actual observation.


You have no proof those measurements were made, either. All observations are themselves past events.
 
2014-07-03 07:12:12 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Prophet of Loss: Ambivalence: Prophet of Loss: I have a theory:

"Many worlds" doesn't occur, but whatever observation made is propagated backwards through time to ensure causality.

So, like, eating a sandwich propogates backwards in time to the creation of the sandwich?  Creating the sandwich doesn't cause it to be eaten, but eating the sandwich causes it to be created?

Yes. We really have no definitive proof that the past occurred other than measurements made after the fact. Measurement defines the past. Whether than measurement is a photon detector or an actual observation.

You have no proof those measurements were made, either. All observations are themselves past events.


Very true. You would be hard pressed that prove anything had actually happened (at the quantum level). When you break a glass, the energy needed to bring that glass from an unordered state (sand) and an ordered state (glass) is released. You can't put the glass back together because it is now in a state of less energy. But, there is nothing in the laws of physics that say the process cannot be reversed. Its plays out fine both ways. Heat the pieces (add energy) and you can get a "new" glass.
 
2014-07-03 07:16:51 AM  

Prophet of Loss: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Prophet of Loss: Ambivalence: Prophet of Loss: I have a theory:

"Many worlds" doesn't occur, but whatever observation made is propagated backwards through time to ensure causality.

So, like, eating a sandwich propogates backwards in time to the creation of the sandwich?  Creating the sandwich doesn't cause it to be eaten, but eating the sandwich causes it to be created?

Yes. We really have no definitive proof that the past occurred other than measurements made after the fact. Measurement defines the past. Whether than measurement is a photon detector or an actual observation.

You have no proof those measurements were made, either. All observations are themselves past events.

Very true. You would be hard pressed that prove anything had actually happened (at the quantum level). When you break a glass, the energy needed to bring that glass from an unordered state (sand) and an ordered state (glass) is released. You can't put the glass back together because it is now in a state of less energy. But, there is nothing in the laws of physics that say the process cannot be reversed. Its plays out fine both ways. Heat the pieces (add energy) and you can get a "new" glass.


Oh, man. You guys are blowing my mind. Hey, what if c,a,t spelled dog?
 
2014-07-03 07:24:13 AM  
Nothing ever happens. We move through through a static universe creating the illusion of time.
 
2014-07-03 07:39:18 AM  
Wait, we can get greenlights for basic Quantum Physics 101 articles now?

Sweet, I'm off to submit the entirety of Wikipedia!
 
2014-07-03 07:40:48 AM  

Prophet of Loss: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Prophet of Loss: Ambivalence: Prophet of Loss: I have a theory:

"Many worlds" doesn't occur, but whatever observation made is propagated backwards through time to ensure causality.

So, like, eating a sandwich propogates backwards in time to the creation of the sandwich?  Creating the sandwich doesn't cause it to be eaten, but eating the sandwich causes it to be created?

Yes. We really have no definitive proof that the past occurred other than measurements made after the fact. Measurement defines the past. Whether than measurement is a photon detector or an actual observation.

You have no proof those measurements were made, either. All observations are themselves past events.

Very true. You would be hard pressed that prove anything had actually happened (at the quantum level). When you break a glass, the energy needed to bring that glass from an unordered state (sand) and an ordered state (glass) is released. You can't put the glass back together because it is now in a state of less energy. But, there is nothing in the laws of physics that say the process cannot be reversed. Its plays out fine both ways. Heat the pieces (add energy) and you can get a "new" glass.


I can't tell whether you've read anything about the arrow of time or T-symmetry, but if not you would probably find it interesting.
 
2014-07-03 07:47:53 AM  
How do you know something is unknowable? How do you know what's impossible to know?
 
2014-07-03 08:00:43 AM  
This thread is massinine.
 
2014-07-03 08:02:39 AM  
Subby knows exactly how much energy he has but isn't sure what decade it is.
 
2014-07-03 08:21:10 AM  

Barfmaker: And the cops says, "Mr. Schrodinger do you know how fast you were going?" and Schrodinger says, "No, but I know exactly where I am!".


Hey, who told the other Schrodinger joke a few weeks ago? That was a good one.

Cops pull Schrodinger over, and they're on a manhunt.  They ask to search the car and Schrodinger says OK.
Cops: "Mr. Schrodinger, did you know you have a dead cat in your trunk?"
Schrodinger: "Well I do NOW!!"

Ha!!!
 
2014-07-03 08:31:10 AM  

White_Scarf_Syndrome: Barfmaker: And the cops says, "Mr. Schrodinger do you know how fast you were going?" and Schrodinger says, "No, but I know exactly where I am!".

Hey, who told the other Schrodinger joke a few weeks ago? That was a good one.

Cops pull Schrodinger over, and they're on a manhunt.  They ask to search the car and Schrodinger says OK.
Cops: "Mr. Schrodinger, did you know you have a dead cat in your trunk?"
Schrodinger: "Well I do NOW!!"

Ha!!!


That joke has been recycled forever. Another variant has the cop tell Heisenberg "You were driving 88 mph."

To which Heisenberg replies" Oh great, now I'm lost! "
 
2014-07-03 08:47:50 AM  

JoieD'Zen: Ambivalence: The shortest distance between any two points is always zero.

/backs away

Not true simpleton, you measure that and divide in half and multiply it by surrounding torsion fields..


As long as you remember to factor in the flux through the field.
 
2014-07-03 08:51:30 AM  

syrynxx: White_Scarf_Syndrome: Barfmaker: And the cops says, "Mr. Schrodinger do you know how fast you were going?" and Schrodinger says, "No, but I know exactly where I am!".

Hey, who told the other Schrodinger joke a few weeks ago? That was a good one.

Cops pull Schrodinger over, and they're on a manhunt.  They ask to search the car and Schrodinger says OK.
Cops: "Mr. Schrodinger, did you know you have a dead cat in your trunk?"
Schrodinger: "Well I do NOW!!"

Ha!!!

That joke has been recycled forever. Another variant has the cop tell Heisenberg "You were driving 88 mph."

To which Heisenberg replies" Oh great, now I'm lost! "


Oh shoot that was the one, it was Heisenberg not Schrodinger...oops.
 
2014-07-03 08:51:41 AM  

Overman: Smoking GNU: Why the asinine tag?

I see what you did there...


No seriously, why that tag?
 
2014-07-03 09:30:04 AM  
It's becoming clear to me my perception of the universe actually improves when I take off my glasses.
 
2014-07-03 09:48:06 AM  
How agnostic of them.
 
2014-07-03 10:34:36 AM  

Prophet of Loss: I have a theory:

"Many worlds" doesn't occur, but whatever observation made is propagated backwards through time to ensure causality.


I have a theory!

It must be witches.
 
2014-07-03 10:41:46 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I thought I knew

/but then I didn't


and then I KNEW.

/one of my favorite columbo lines
 
2014-07-03 12:21:16 PM  
I thought we made quantum mechanics deterministic last week with pilot waves. what happened since then?
 
2014-07-03 01:25:39 PM  

Christian Bale: I thought we made quantum mechanics deterministic last week with pilot waves. what happened since then?


There is no reason, in principle, that a system can't be simultaneously deterministic and unknowable. That just means that the evolution of the system is non-random, but that the details of the system remain hidden and unpredictable.

Pilot waves are just one way that QM might be deterministic (I haven't read the article that you're referring to but, as far as I know, that hasn't been any sort of breakthrough that proves the existence of pilot waves). There are others (including many worlds), but all of them must respect the limitations of Heisenburg uncertainty.
 
2014-07-03 01:49:47 PM  

dready zim: Nothing ever happens. We move through through a static universe creating the illusion of time.


Are you Julian Barbour? I enjoyed that book, even if it was a bit hand-wavy at times.
 
2014-07-03 02:58:45 PM  

syrynxx: That joke has been recycled forever. Another variant has the cop tell Heisenberg "You were driving 88 mph."

To which Heisenberg replies" Oh great, now I'm lost! "


He wouldn't even know what time he was.
 
2014-07-03 03:10:54 PM  
I think the best way to think of Heisenburg Principle is:

"If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless." - as recounted by Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b5

Measure an arrow's exact position in flight (i.e. take a picture) and you lose all information concerning velocity because for the very instant the picture is taken, the arrow is motionless (in the thought experiment as a real arrow's motion would be encoded as motion blur).
 
2014-07-03 04:21:07 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: How do you know something is unknowable? How do you know what's impossible to know?


I don't know.
 
2014-07-03 04:33:14 PM  

STUFF

 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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