I Need Brian Cox.

Pheebs · 12-11-2011, 16:59

Okay.

For those of you who don't mind a bit of brain straining watch this:

Dr Quantum

Right. Hmm. I get the whole wave scatter thing and the pattern on the back wall.

I can *kind* of accept the electron becoming waves of potential... but I don't understand it. I just accept it.

As for the whole observing thing... seriously... WTF?!?!

What?!! WHAaaaaa!? Why... why... how does the electron know it's being watched or measured?! HOW!? It... how... it's just an electron... I just... how... ?!?

My Pa said that it's something about observation changes space and time. Which I don't get.

Please someone... this kept me up most of last night. Help me hire Brian Cox for the week. I need his brain.

Pheebs · 13-11-2011, 17:34

No ideas people?! No simple way of putting it?!

Mc Chrispycoats suggested it was magic. Which I kinda liked.

Bum nuggets!! Bum bum bum nuggets! *wish I was clever to get this*

semi-pro waster · 13-11-2011, 18:30

Essentially as I understand it it's the act of measurement that cause the particle to "commit" to one slit or the other i.e. to measure where a electron is you need a photon to interact with it and that changes how it behaves. If you don't measure then it is free to go through both slits, either one or neither.

It's difficult to think of a correlating example in the non-quantum world because once beyond that scale things will tend to behave in relatively predictable ways normally and cannot appear to be in two places at once.

However I'm not a scientist so I may be completely wrong with my understanding.

Belmit · 14-11-2011, 09:31

The problem is that no-one understands it, we've simply come up with a hypothesis that best fits. The only plausible explanation is that the particle goes through both slits... which is clearly implausible. Quantum theory explains it, but not by any knowledge or discovery we've yet made. Until we find a way of observing electrons without interacting with them we may never know the truth. I've basically come to peace with the fact that I'm only smart enough to know that I'll never understand it.

That is, until some genius works it out and is able to explain it in terms we can all understand.

Will · 14-11-2011, 09:58

Lex parsimoniae. The simplest explanation is usually the most likely. Since we don't really know we have to theorise and as such the perceived correct answer is the duality of existence of a particle. Observation changes everything although not directly, IT. Doesn't know it's being watched but the fact it's being watched means that it's state is different.

I kinda like these theories as they're beautifully impossible to grasp sometimes. This is why I like the fact that spiritual beliefs and science tie in with one another as whilst they can clash they can support one another too. If you are of the belief of a greater being(s) then all particles are always being observed hence why they can exist, but until we observe them they hold multiple states.

It's all rather fascinating. I love the light duality too that it behaves like a wave but like a particle too.

volospian · 14-11-2011, 11:53

It's an interesting conundrum... It strongly suggests, imo, the plausibility of the "multiverse" style theories (or, to put it more simply, Terry Pratchetts idea of "the tousers of time").

As I understand it (which is admittedly not much) it suggests that a particle can exist in several states (or places or "spins" or whatever, for now we'll ignore the technical minutiae) but we cannot entirely know the state of that particle until it is observed. Observation then "locks" that particle into place... however, it only "locks" it into that particular moment of time (and therefore, space).

The ensuing "reaility" is then based upon the position of that particle at that particular moment in time. It doesn't specifically "lock" the underlying quantum effect, per se, it just means that an "observation" means we only detect it in that state and that that state then becomes our reality. If we could go back and observe it again, the result may be different... although we wouldn't have the original result for us to compare it to... so it cannot be different as there can only be one result.

Anyway, the fact that our reality is based only upon the observed state of particles suggest that there are an infinite number of alternatives that can exist as every possible permutation of every particle could be observed. If this is so, I wonder what holds this "reality" together?

It's worth remembering that, as the guys have said, we don't really understand half of this stuff. I mean, I don't really understand the nature of time itself. It's easy to say we understand "time" as a chronological series of events, and that everything flows forwards in time, but is time the driving force, or just a byproduct of entropy, or gravity, or does quantum exist outside the "time" field? We believe that time works differently in different gravities, so why is that if it is not a "force" in its own right?

Also, if time is not a constant, how can we measure the "speed" of light (as calculated as the distance travelled in a set time). This suggests to me that the speed of light cannot be "constant" as it can travel the same distance in different times as it passes through different gravities, yet scientists insist it is a constant and nothing can go faster... but, if everything is relative, if I were travelling "east" at 3/4 the speed of light, and you were travelling west at the same speed... we would appear to be travelling away from each other at one and a half times the speed of light, but if we were both travelling east at that speed, we wouldn't appear to be moving at all... This suggests that it is only a constant in relation to a specific moment in the space/time continuum... but that's a bit pointless as the moment of space/time that existed when I started this sentence has long since passed... it all just boggles the mind

Muban · 14-11-2011, 19:05

I also need Brian Cox, however, science has nothing to do with it. I just want to name him George and hug him and pet him and squeeze him and pat him........

leowyatt · 14-11-2011, 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muban

I also need Brian Cox, however, science has nothing to do with it. I just want to name him George and hug him and pet him and squeeze him and pat him........

And just get him to keep telling you things are brilliant

Mark · 14-11-2011, 20:44

What no mention of Schrödinger's cat? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

It's much the same thing - just expressed in a different way.

Glaucus · 14-11-2011, 21:19

Yep it's pretTy darn confusing.

Oh and need Morgan freeman, love his voice and prefer the content. Wonders of the universe is far to cinematography and that makes it annoying. Put some graphics up, not a artistic shot of a desert with Brian randomly posing.

12-11-2011, 16:59	#1
Pheebs Deep Throat Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,512	I Need Brian Cox. Okay. For those of you who don't mind a bit of brain straining watch this: Dr Quantum Right. Hmm. I get the whole wave scatter thing and the pattern on the back wall. I can kind of accept the electron becoming waves of potential... but I don't understand it. I just accept it. As for the whole observing thing... seriously... WTF?!?! What?!! WHAaaaaa!? Why... why... how does the electron know it's being watched or measured?! HOW!? It... how... it's just an electron... I just... how... ?!? My Pa said that it's something about observation changes space and time. Which I don't get. Please someone... this kept me up most of last night. Help me hire Brian Cox for the week. I need his brain. __________________ http://www.spiffingdesigns.co.uk

13-11-2011, 17:34	#2
Pheebs Deep Throat Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,512	No ideas people?! No simple way of putting it?! Mc Chrispycoats suggested it was magic. Which I kinda liked. Bum nuggets!! Bum bum bum nuggets! wish I was clever to get this __________________ http://www.spiffingdesigns.co.uk

13-11-2011, 18:30	#3
semi-pro waster Provider of sensible advice about homosexuals Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: London Posts: 2,615	Essentially as I understand it it's the act of measurement that cause the particle to "commit" to one slit or the other i.e. to measure where a electron is you need a photon to interact with it and that changes how it behaves. If you don't measure then it is free to go through both slits, either one or neither. It's difficult to think of a correlating example in the non-quantum world because once beyond that scale things will tend to behave in relatively predictable ways normally and cannot appear to be in two places at once. However I'm not a scientist so I may be completely wrong with my understanding. __________________ "Your friend is the man that knows all about you, and still likes you." - Elbert Hubbard

14-11-2011, 09:31	#4
Belmit The Mouse King of Denmark Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Winchester Posts: 6,476	The problem is that no-one understands it, we've simply come up with a hypothesis that best fits. The only plausible explanation is that the particle goes through both slits... which is clearly implausible. Quantum theory explains it, but not by any knowledge or discovery we've yet made. Until we find a way of observing electrons without interacting with them we may never know the truth. I've basically come to peace with the fact that I'm only smart enough to know that I'll never understand it. That is, until some genius works it out and is able to explain it in terms we can all understand. __________________

14-11-2011, 09:58	#5
Will BBx woz 'ere :P Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 2,147,487,208	Lex parsimoniae. The simplest explanation is usually the most likely. Since we don't really know we have to theorise and as such the perceived correct answer is the duality of existence of a particle. Observation changes everything although not directly, IT. Doesn't know it's being watched but the fact it's being watched means that it's state is different. I kinda like these theories as they're beautifully impossible to grasp sometimes. This is why I like the fact that spiritual beliefs and science tie in with one another as whilst they can clash they can support one another too. If you are of the belief of a greater being(s) then all particles are always being observed hence why they can exist, but until we observe them they hold multiple states. It's all rather fascinating. I love the light duality too that it behaves like a wave but like a particle too. __________________ *No No!*

14-11-2011, 11:53	#6
volospian Vodka Martini Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 786	It's an interesting conundrum... It strongly suggests, imo, the plausibility of the "multiverse" style theories (or, to put it more simply, Terry Pratchetts idea of "the tousers of time"). As I understand it (which is admittedly not much) it suggests that a particle can exist in several states (or places or "spins" or whatever, for now we'll ignore the technical minutiae) but we cannot entirely know the state of that particle until it is observed. Observation then "locks" that particle into place... however, it only "locks" it into that particular moment of time (and therefore, space). The ensuing "reaility" is then based upon the position of that particle at that particular moment in time. It doesn't specifically "lock" the underlying quantum effect, per se, it just means that an "observation" means we only detect it in that state and that that state then becomes our reality. If we could go back and observe it again, the result may be different... although we wouldn't have the original result for us to compare it to... so it cannot be different as there can only be one result. Anyway, the fact that our reality is based only upon the observed state of particles suggest that there are an infinite number of alternatives that can exist as every possible permutation of every particle could be observed. If this is so, I wonder what holds this "reality" together? It's worth remembering that, as the guys have said, we don't really understand half of this stuff. I mean, I don't really understand the nature of time itself. It's easy to say we understand "time" as a chronological series of events, and that everything flows forwards in time, but is time the driving force, or just a byproduct of entropy, or gravity, or does quantum exist outside the "time" field? We believe that time works differently in different gravities, so why is that if it is not a "force" in its own right? Also, if time is not a constant, how can we measure the "speed" of light (as calculated as the distance travelled in a set time). This suggests to me that the speed of light cannot be "constant" as it can travel the same distance in different times as it passes through different gravities, yet scientists insist it is a constant and nothing can go faster... but, if everything is relative, if I were travelling "east" at 3/4 the speed of light, and you were travelling west at the same speed... we would appear to be travelling away from each other at one and a half times the speed of light, but if we were both travelling east at that speed, we wouldn't appear to be moving at all... This suggests that it is only a constant in relation to a specific moment in the space/time continuum... but that's a bit pointless as the moment of space/time that existed when I started this sentence has long since passed... it all just boggles the mind

14-11-2011, 19:05	#7
Muban Shoes, Boobs & Corsets Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The fastest town in Scotland Posts: 1,882	I also need Brian Cox, however, science has nothing to do with it. I just want to name him George and hug him and pet him and squeeze him and pat him........ __________________ well, not to put a too fine point to it, he was discovered.. in the lounge

14-11-2011, 20:44	#9
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	What no mention of Schrödinger's cat? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat It's much the same thing - just expressed in a different way.

14-11-2011, 21:19	#10
Glaucus Absinthe Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,855	Yep it's pretTy darn confusing. Oh and need Morgan freeman, love his voice and prefer the content. Wonders of the universe is far to cinematography and that makes it annoying. Put some graphics up, not a artistic shot of a desert with Brian randomly posing. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode