What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers’ points of view on the headlines making news.
176 Comments
- mordeci, on 08/25/2008, -0/+134WARNING: There is not a punch line at the end of this video. There is no political, religious or OS-based propaganda. There are no animals with human-like expressions. There are no stick figures making poignant, yet comical, observations about life. If you watch this video you might learn something. You have been warned.
- majikmixx, on 08/25/2008, -2/+118You and I both know those monkeys weren't throwing pebbles...
- maabus, on 08/25/2008, -5/+85"If you experience an erection lasting more than four hours, please seek medical help"
- wenomspitta, on 08/25/2008, -3/+69wow... something that's actually interesting on digg...
- Kakcoo, on 08/25/2008, -17/+79"If you -think- you understand quantum mechanics, you -don't- understand quantum mechanics." - Dawkins
- cutright, on 08/25/2008, -0/+48You're right... this theory is completely bogus. You know except for the fact that our understanding of quantum mechanics is the reason we have computers, world-wide communication, lasers, nuclear reactors, etc. But you're right we don't really understand those technologies at all, we'll have to refine our theory in the very near future.
Btw... quantum mechanics has not been refined in a very, very long time. It's just been expanded over the years revealing more understanding... regardless of popular opinion, scientists aren't afraid to say they don't know. No one ever claimed we knew everything there was to know about quantum mechanics (no one reputable or sane anyway). - TheLichKing, on 08/25/2008, -0/+40I believe the quote is attributed to Richard Feynman. Dawkins is a biologist (I'm referring to the fact that the quote didn't originate from him).
- Enfenestrate, on 08/25/2008, -1/+39"If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." - John Wheeler
- RandomGorilla, on 08/25/2008, -2/+36Quantum Junction: Enter both lanes.
- dsmx, on 08/25/2008, -0/+30Only if no-one is watching.
- fenderbiz, on 08/25/2008, -0/+28Yes. It is Feynman. Dawkins just uses it a lot in his lectures, but he always attributes it to Feynman.
- PixelMagic, on 08/25/2008, -0/+19"Be excellent to each other."
-Bill S. Preston, Esq
"Party on, dudes!"
-Ted "Theodore" Logan - flashback99, on 08/25/2008, -2/+21Some deranged people cite quantum physics as proof of their religion. Pretty ***** up if you ask me.
I think it's party due to that stupid film called What the Bleep! - talonstriker, on 08/25/2008, -0/+17Maybe he evolved into a physicist.
- cutright, on 08/25/2008, -1/+16Guess work? Here's some guess work... I'm gonna guess you've never actually seen the derivation of the Schrödinger equation or it's incredible agreement with observations. I'll also venture to guess you don't have a grasp of the uncertainty or Pauli exclusion principles. If by guess you mean a methodical step-by-step process involving very well understood partial differential equations, linear algebra, complex analysis, vector calculus, and that little thing we call the scientific method in conjunction with common sense and world-wide agreement within the community... then yes, by all means, call it guess work.
Tell me this... what are the odds of predicting the correct statistical behavior of a phenomenon nearly 100% of the time with just guess work? Assessing probabilities in the sub-atomic world is not guess work and leads to the closest thing to certain you can get for sizes within the scale of the every day world.
But then again... i can only guess that my computer is actually receiving the input I'm giving it and that it will post to digg. To put it clearly for you since you probably won't get it... without quantum mechanics you'd have no computers, yet you certainly depend on their reliability directly and indirectly.... or so I'm guessing. - inactive, on 08/25/2008, -0/+14You get lots of time to work this stuff out when you don't have the distraction of knowing whether or not your body is ***** your pants.
- Kyrgizion, on 08/25/2008, -0/+13How do you think almost all of the sciences started out? With someone, having a theory about something, then trying to prove or disprove it by field tests.
Guess what the LHC is for again? - ProfessorLX, on 08/25/2008, -0/+13"quantum mechanics are some crazy *****"
-me - nlight, on 08/25/2008, -10/+21If the LHC proves that there is no Higgs boson, we'll need a completely new theory.
- fluxion, on 08/25/2008, -0/+11he pushed quantum mechanics in the early stages with his explanation of the photo-electric effect, and never at any point did he completely reject quantum mechanics. he just thought we were missing something that might brings things back in line with the more deterministic view he had of the universe. It's fair to say he was "wrong", but i think a lot of times (not in your case) this is taken to an extreme, painting Einstein like an old fogey with his fingers in his ears.
- wonderchemist, on 08/25/2008, -1/+12Or at least his computer.
- bobbknight, on 08/25/2008, -0/+11I waves at Heisenberg.
- nicksauce, on 08/25/2008, -2/+13On a scale of 1 to wrong, you are a creationist.
- LokitheComplex, on 08/25/2008, -2/+12I was just thinking how much I like it.
- Kyrgizion, on 08/25/2008, -4/+14Or a stronger LHC.
- svendm, on 08/25/2008, -3/+13Depends on what you mean by 'understand' though. The things that had Einstein, Bohr and company in confusion and debate aren't things that necessarily confuse the modern physicist. As Stephen Weinberg pointed out: A physicist today would have a lot of trouble figuring out Newtonian mechanics by reading the Principia. Because Newton was NOT the first 'Newtonian' physicist. He was the last non-Newtonian physicist. It took a while before it sunk in and got explained in a coherent and concise manner.
Same goes for QM. A lot of the early debate ("particle-wave duality", etc) centered on trying to frame and explain Quantum theory in Classical terms. Which is and was confusing.
Whether we 'understand' QM or not depends entirely on what you mean by 'understand'. We understand how to use it, certainly. We understand _why_ it's the way it is, because we can derive it logically, mathematically, from a handful of basic postulates. Why those postulates? Well, either because experiment says "that's the way it is" or because they're just so basic ("Assume the probability that an existing particle is somewhere in the entire universe is exactly one")
On the other hand, if you mean 'understand' in the sense that it's 'common sense' and is consistent with our 'gut feeling' derived from everyday experiences. Then no, we'll never 'understand' it. But to that I'd say: Why would you expect physical objects on the scale of hundredths-of-billionths of our everyday scale to act the same way? Because it was assumed that up until the 20th century? That was never more than just an assumption. - fluxion, on 08/25/2008, -0/+10dont hate me because i can collapse wave functions with my mind powers
- SheikYabooty, on 08/25/2008, -0/+10There's a great lecture series from Professor Richard A. Muller of Berkeley on GoogleVideo. They're very long, as one would expect from university lectures, and I don't know how interested you are but its his entire semester of lectures.
It covers pretty much everything and is basic enough for anybody to understand. Below is the link for the first lecture. My recommendation is to rip the audio and play it whenever you're in the car. It'll keep you busy for the rest of the year but when you'll finish you can almost say that you went to Berkeley for a semester.
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-150107 ... - zippe, on 08/25/2008, -0/+9curse my average mind!
- smokeydbear, on 08/25/2008, -0/+8I believe in circles whose circumference is not related to their diameter by the factor pi.
- fx666, on 08/25/2008, -2/+9I do understand quantum mechanics -- says Hawking.
- svendm, on 08/25/2008, -0/+7To be precise, Einstein claimed it was an 'incomplete theory'. In the famous EPR paper he argued that a physical theory must (in his view) be able to produce real information about a physical system to the "outside observer". (so to speak) And he then went on to prove (correctly) that quantum theory doesn't do that.
And a whole horde of 'interpretations' sprung up (from the "Copenhagen interpretation" to "multiverse theory") in order to explain how QM could fit that bill.
It's kind of a nonissue in real-world physics nowadays though. Most physicists I know (to the extent that they're even interested in the topic) don't think it's relevant anymore. Because there simply _isn't anything_ "outside the system" in QM. The only completely isolated system is the universe taken as a whole. (which isn't really revolutionary: The same holds for basic thermodynamics) Treating systems as if they're isolated is just an abstraction. A convenience used by physicists - after all, it's not very practical to take the entire universe into account just to figure out how fast a ball will roll down a slope! But OTOH, it's hardly controversial to state that your result will not be _exact_ unless you do so. - SeaFour, on 08/25/2008, -0/+7You should probably start with a rebuttal to his statements.
- Enfenestrate, on 08/25/2008, -1/+8I've heard that the LHC is for creating world-ending black holes. Also that it could be the receiving end of a time machine so that we could have visitors from the future.
- boogie606, on 08/25/2008, -2/+9i thought it interesting that Einstein, while apparently wrong on this issue, still contributed experiments that bolstered and supported this theory. that has to be proof of insane brilliance...
- evilregis, on 08/25/2008, -1/+8Are you certain?
- iancgi, on 08/25/2008, -0/+7check out the BBC series called Atom
- ACTtravel, on 08/25/2008, -0/+7i cant believe i learned something new from a digg. i feel smrt! wait smart.
- Merigo, on 08/25/2008, -0/+6pi*
- karmabandit, on 08/25/2008, -1/+7Let me summarize it for *you*: We think this small particle will act in some particular way with some exact probability, say a 70% chance. We repeat the experiment 1000 times, and presto, the particle did do it roughly 70% of the time, getting closer to exactly 70% the more times we repeat it.
The important point is that those probabilities are predictable, even though the outcome of a single experiment is not. If you don't like it, too bad, experiments have been done to show that there cannot be a theory which does better. - grungegbunny, on 08/25/2008, -0/+6"Make up a theory"? Go study the scientific method again then come back.
- MrFurious2k, on 08/25/2008, -2/+8Some of the related videos are excellent too. Though this video doesn't get into explanations as much as I'd like, it's still good to watch.
- nathanwalker, on 08/25/2008, -1/+7Fail.
"Ted" Theodore Logan. - inactive, on 08/25/2008, -0/+6Shhhh! Its a secret.
- inactive, on 08/25/2008, -2/+8The unvierse is a hologramz!!1111111
- Cludgo, on 08/25/2008, -0/+6im sorry but dug down for bringing WOW into quantum mechanics, shame on you
- awtripp, on 08/25/2008, -0/+6Highlander! THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
- JohnFlux, on 08/25/2008, -2/+7pixeldust, be careful what you state..
I have my PhD etc etc.
It's certaintly not proven that it is truely uncertain. It could be that there are determinstic 'hidden variables' underneath, that we have yet to find.
However Bell's theorem has (to some 99.999% confidence) proven (through math and experiment) that if there are hidden variables, then the universe must be non-local (i.e. that one thing can affect something else faster than light and backwards in time.) - Cimlite, on 08/25/2008, -3/+8Same thing as the Creationists are doing... saying that since evolution does not explain everything it's just flat out wrong in every aspect.
Basically whenever you start talking religion and science at the same time it turns to ****. Science is a practical way to look at things, religion is mumbo-jumbo. Not that there is anything wrong with it... if faith helps you, more power to ya... but don't try to build transistors or microchips with faith. - NOD32user, on 08/25/2008, -0/+5Dugg for the final 1:10 because it challenges convention.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 177 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is