Comments on: Many Worlds Interpretation

By: reboot

reboot — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:06:54 +0000

Everything that garbledxmission wrote is true, especially the insecure part. Every word I write is a cry for your approval.

By: garbledxmission

garbledxmission — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:55:57 +0000

don’t bother natedog, reboot is an insufferable know it all who is so incredibly insecure he feels the need to trumpet his education to anyone that doesn’t post observations at the level of Stephen Hawking. But then, I guess when you spend the majority of your life immersed to the eyeballs in the fast paced, exciting, glamorous world of quantum chemistry it doesn’t leave much room for developing a fucking personality.

By: The Lawnmower

The Lawnmower — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 06:34:21 +0000

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality

By: El_Chupachichis

El_Chupachichis — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:00:51 +0000

I am hoping the Many Worlds interpretation is correct. Somewhere out there, I’m banging a Victoria’s Secret Model or similar.

/giving that quantum iteration of me a high five
//ignoring the quantum iteration of me getting buttraped in prison

By: natedog

natedog — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:43:26 +0000

of course the wave particles travel at the same time.

the example is not perfect, but it was just a thought i had at the time.

and you’re wrong about my grasp on QM. it was profound to me when i learned the quirky way subatomic particles work.

By: reboot

reboot — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:53:48 +0000

You sound like a good dad, but its just so non-sequitur that’s its funny. Like if you were playing frisbee and suddenly started explaining statistical mechanics. Sure, the principles apply, but in such an abstract way that its hard to draw a connection.
And what remarkable about wave-particles is not that they take two different paths, but that they take two different paths at the same time.
I guess I’m making an assumption about your understanding, and that’s rude,but from our previous conversations I kind of doubt you have a profound grasp on QM.

By: natedog

natedog — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:40:20 +0000

@reboot, come on.

for one thing, every particle has wave properties, and vice versa. Duality is a central concept in Quantum Mechanics.

A hacky sack, like all matter, has wave/particle duality, it is just that the wave aspect is so small.

and it was a game of hacky sack, not an experiment.

and i didnt say the hacky sack was a photon, i said it represented one. and since it took 2 different routes to get to the same spot, i was reminded of Young’s experiment.

and i totally didnt take your post as a critique of my mad skills as a daddy, i took it as you misunderstanding me.

but you’re totally right in criticizing a parent that tries to use real life situations and to inspire a love & fascination with the universe in their 10 year olds.

and i think it is funny that you assume to know the level of understanding that someone you have never met has of the Quantum world.

ass.

By: reboot

reboot — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:13:38 +0000

Oh, I know what the double slit experiment is (besides a 3-some sex position ), but a hacky-sac really doesn’t have any of the properties of a photon. In particular, its doesn’t have any wave-particle duality behavior and the outcome of the experiment isn’t changed by the method of observation. It’s as non-quantum as you can get.
Not trying to criticize your parenting, I just think its funny that you would be randomly trying to teach your daughter about QM principles that you yourself barely understand.

By: natedog

natedog — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:03:48 +0000

well, the hacky sack can represent the photon, and the 2 paths it took to get behind the TV can represent the 2 slits in the screen.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

By: tiki god

tiki god — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:09:42 +0000

isn’t the double slit experiment a part of some sex position?