• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 00:28
CEST 06:28
KST 13:28
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension1Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles7[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China11
StarCraft 2
General
TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles
Tourneys
$5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL [Guide] MyStarcraft BW General Discussion [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [Megathread] Daily Proleagues 2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5 Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Accidental Video Game Porn Archive
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 560 users

Scientists discover *life* on another galaxy. - Page 8

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 6 7 8 All
spitball
Profile Blog Joined August 2008
Australia81 Posts
March 16 2010 21:22 GMT
#141
On March 17 2010 05:53 starfries wrote:
If it's unobserved then there is a range of places where it could be, like a probability distribution. Pretty reasonable... but the weird thing that quantum mechanics says that it doesn't just exist somewhere within the distribution, but it actually exists EVERYWHERE to some extent. It's spread out over space, just like a wave. (it's not exactly like this but its close enough) This means it can interfere with itself, etc. It doesn't just happen for light either, it works with electrons, protons.. technically it should even happen when you walk through a door but the wavelength involved is so tiny that you'll never see it.

When you observe a particle (or detect which slit it goes through), you force it to have a definite position so suddenly the probability distribution collapses down to a point. It's like flipping a coin - when it's in the air, it has probably H with 50% and probability T with 50%, but after you catch it and look at it, it's one or the other with 100% probability. Since the distribution is basically one point now, it behaves like a particle again.

But what if some amoeba was just eyeballing that particle the whole time and we never found out?
starfries
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada3508 Posts
March 16 2010 23:46 GMT
#142
On March 17 2010 06:22 spitball wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 17 2010 05:53 starfries wrote:
If it's unobserved then there is a range of places where it could be, like a probability distribution. Pretty reasonable... but the weird thing that quantum mechanics says that it doesn't just exist somewhere within the distribution, but it actually exists EVERYWHERE to some extent. It's spread out over space, just like a wave. (it's not exactly like this but its close enough) This means it can interfere with itself, etc. It doesn't just happen for light either, it works with electrons, protons.. technically it should even happen when you walk through a door but the wavelength involved is so tiny that you'll never see it.

When you observe a particle (or detect which slit it goes through), you force it to have a definite position so suddenly the probability distribution collapses down to a point. It's like flipping a coin - when it's in the air, it has probably H with 50% and probability T with 50%, but after you catch it and look at it, it's one or the other with 100% probability. Since the distribution is basically one point now, it behaves like a particle again.

But what if some amoeba was just eyeballing that particle the whole time and we never found out?


The short answer is:
Observation is actually not a good word for this sort of stuff, and what we really are talking about is measurement. The modern interpretation is that "measurement" is a forced decoherence of the quantum state by a macroscopic system, and an amoeba is a macroscopic system so it will cause the collapse of the wavefunction before it enters the slits. So you will see particle behaviour, as if you measured it yourself.

Ok that was actually not that short of an answer but the long answer is a LOT longer.

short short answer: the amoeba counts as an observer, it behaves as a particle
DJ – do you like ramen, Savior? Savior – not really. Bisu – I eat it often. Flash – I’m a maniac! | Foxer Fighting!
DefMatrixUltra
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Canada1992 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-17 00:54:12
March 17 2010 00:49 GMT
#143
On March 17 2010 04:28 decafchicken wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 15 2010 01:53 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
On March 15 2010 01:49 Housemd wrote:
This is interesting due to the fact that i having a conversation about it in class today with my math teacher.

HE says that the reason we can't travel the speed of light is due to the fact that this happens:

When we shoot a particle of light into a spectrum (or something, not quite sure) on the other end, the particle turns out to be TWO particles, each in a different location on some black paper they put as a "receiver". If we can find out what causes this, we can travel the speed of light to different galaxies.

I think you're talking about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

This is an experiment that demonstrates the wave-particle duality of light. If you shoot a photon of light through two slits, and don't detect which slit it goes through, then the photon will act as if it went through both slits (even though it technically should be only one particle) and interfered with itself (as if it were a wave). This has to do with quantum mechanics, which I highly suggest you should learn in your academic future! To be honest, it doesn't have that much to do with the speed of light itself, but it's one of the things that got me interested in physics, so by all means, be open to the subject!


Is there a reason for the difference in behavior when it is observed vs unobserved?


Quantum mechanics is a semantic nightmare and is difficult to teach even to physics students. So I'll give you my simple input on this issue:


+ Show Spoiler [Trust me, this is simple.] +

In quantum mechanics, one of the major ways of examining systems (things doing stuff) is by using the concept of the wave function. The wave function is a complete abstraction - it is a mathematical entity that can be manipulated to get real answers to problems. Knowing how to setup a wave function for a specific system is something I won't even attempt to describe.

So why is this considered physics and not just mathematics? Well, let's say you have a system (en electron or something), and you wanna measure it (for whatever reason, physicists don't care). How do you represent that mathematically? How do you know what answer you will get when you measure?

What you do is this:

1. Figure out what quantity you're measuring.
2. Use the mathematical 'operator' associated with that quantity on the system's wavefunction.
3. The result is hopefully some constant times the wavefunction - so k*W(x,y,z,t).

In this case, the answer to "what will I get when I measure this?" is 'k'.

-----

It turns out that it's not quite this simple. Most wave functions are made of up a combination of a whole bunch of different functions. So

W = W1 + W2 + W3

What the hell does that mean? Well go back to your step-by-step process.

1. What quantity are you measuring (e.g. velocity)?
2. Use the 'velocity operator' on W.
3. The result is not quite what you were hoping for, it's

k1*W1 + k2*W2 + k3*W3

so does that mean you measure all of them(!!!!)? No - what this actually means is that you will measure one of the values k1, k2, or k3. Not all of them. You can use some tricky math to work out the probability that you will measure the individual terms, but you can never predict which one it will be.

-------

So what does that have to do with a system being observed?

Well the interpretation is that W = W1 + W2 + W3 is a system with three possible states. If you make the measurement of the system, you will measure k1 or k2 or k3 but never anything else.

What happens when you measure a system? So take the electron from earlier. We'll measure it's velocity. Let's say we get k2, and that k2 represents the electron moving off to the right at speed k2. Let's measure it again a little bit later. What do we get?

We sure as hell better get k2. If you measure something definitely happening, it better be definitely happening. So what does that mean for the wavefunction W?

Does W still equal W1 + W2 + W3? No, W = W2 because we have measured the system and know the answer. But that means we changed the wavefunction W just by measuring it. This is what is meant when people talk about observers. If there is some interaction that happens between your electron and something else, your electron most likely ends up in a definite state instead of in a probabilistic state. Observers don't have to people with eyes. Or cats. Or alive. Just something that interacts physically with the system.


/edit - Massive government-issue disclaimers for those who know about all the 'but what if...' cases I didn't talk about.
Sadist
Profile Blog Joined October 2002
United States7219 Posts
March 17 2010 02:07 GMT
#144
On March 14 2010 05:46 Slow Motion wrote:
I think we should launch a preemptive nuke. It should reach by the time intelligent multicellular life develops.



the descolada!
How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal and you have to be willing to work for it. Jim Valvano
Rev0lution
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States1805 Posts
March 17 2010 03:09 GMT
#145
On March 14 2010 03:47 konadora wrote:
But does having all the necessary elements -> life? I'm pretty shitty at chemistry but my thinking is that having the 'materials' there doesn't necessary mean the end products will exist.


Yeah man, enough concentration and a little time can produce complex organic compunds. As the shit cools down, longer and more complex shit can be made.

It's like looking at our solar system a few billion years ago when all the shit was still forming.

Take formaldehyde and Hydrogen Cyanide. At high temperatures and if enough of the stuff is there the Cyanide can add to the C=O bond and make a simple amino acid.

My dealer is my best friend, and we don't even chill.
Rev0lution
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States1805 Posts
March 17 2010 03:25 GMT
#146
On March 15 2010 02:07 cUrsOr wrote:
I read the odds against all the exact chemicals and molecules that make up a cell, being in a pile, and randomly making a cell... being like almost impossible.

Self replicating protein chains and things like that would be really interesting, I wonder if they will every find anything like that in space. My guess would be no.


mRNA can self replicate.
My dealer is my best friend, and we don't even chill.
LuCky.
Profile Joined March 2010
Zimbabwe91 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-17 03:58:14
March 17 2010 03:57 GMT
#147
On March 17 2010 12:25 Rev0lution wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 15 2010 02:07 cUrsOr wrote:
I read the odds against all the exact chemicals and molecules that make up a cell, being in a pile, and randomly making a cell... being like almost impossible.

Self replicating protein chains and things like that would be really interesting, I wonder if they will every find anything like that in space. My guess would be no.


mRNA can self replicate.


assuming that the first life contained rna only
"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names." - JFK
HnR)hT
Profile Joined October 2002
United States3468 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-17 20:44:13
March 17 2010 20:41 GMT
#148
On March 17 2010 09:49 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 17 2010 04:28 decafchicken wrote:
On March 15 2010 01:53 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
On March 15 2010 01:49 Housemd wrote:
This is interesting due to the fact that i having a conversation about it in class today with my math teacher.

HE says that the reason we can't travel the speed of light is due to the fact that this happens:

When we shoot a particle of light into a spectrum (or something, not quite sure) on the other end, the particle turns out to be TWO particles, each in a different location on some black paper they put as a "receiver". If we can find out what causes this, we can travel the speed of light to different galaxies.

I think you're talking about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

This is an experiment that demonstrates the wave-particle duality of light. If you shoot a photon of light through two slits, and don't detect which slit it goes through, then the photon will act as if it went through both slits (even though it technically should be only one particle) and interfered with itself (as if it were a wave). This has to do with quantum mechanics, which I highly suggest you should learn in your academic future! To be honest, it doesn't have that much to do with the speed of light itself, but it's one of the things that got me interested in physics, so by all means, be open to the subject!


Is there a reason for the difference in behavior when it is observed vs unobserved?


Quantum mechanics is a semantic nightmare and is difficult to teach even to physics students. So I'll give you my simple input on this issue:


+ Show Spoiler [Trust me, this is simple.] +

In quantum mechanics, one of the major ways of examining systems (things doing stuff) is by using the concept of the wave function. The wave function is a complete abstraction - it is a mathematical entity that can be manipulated to get real answers to problems. Knowing how to setup a wave function for a specific system is something I won't even attempt to describe.

So why is this considered physics and not just mathematics? Well, let's say you have a system (en electron or something), and you wanna measure it (for whatever reason, physicists don't care). How do you represent that mathematically? How do you know what answer you will get when you measure?

What you do is this:

1. Figure out what quantity you're measuring.
2. Use the mathematical 'operator' associated with that quantity on the system's wavefunction.
3. The result is hopefully some constant times the wavefunction - so k*W(x,y,z,t).

In this case, the answer to "what will I get when I measure this?" is 'k'.

-----

It turns out that it's not quite this simple. Most wave functions are made of up a combination of a whole bunch of different functions. So

W = W1 + W2 + W3

What the hell does that mean? Well go back to your step-by-step process.

1. What quantity are you measuring (e.g. velocity)?
2. Use the 'velocity operator' on W.
3. The result is not quite what you were hoping for, it's

k1*W1 + k2*W2 + k3*W3

so does that mean you measure all of them(!!!!)? No - what this actually means is that you will measure one of the values k1, k2, or k3. Not all of them. You can use some tricky math to work out the probability that you will measure the individual terms, but you can never predict which one it will be.

-------

So what does that have to do with a system being observed?

Well the interpretation is that W = W1 + W2 + W3 is a system with three possible states. If you make the measurement of the system, you will measure k1 or k2 or k3 but never anything else.

What happens when you measure a system? So take the electron from earlier. We'll measure it's velocity. Let's say we get k2, and that k2 represents the electron moving off to the right at speed k2. Let's measure it again a little bit later. What do we get?

We sure as hell better get k2. If you measure something definitely happening, it better be definitely happening. So what does that mean for the wavefunction W?

Does W still equal W1 + W2 + W3? No, W = W2 because we have measured the system and know the answer. But that means we changed the wavefunction W just by measuring it. This is what is meant when people talk about observers. If there is some interaction that happens between your electron and something else, your electron most likely ends up in a definite state instead of in a probabilistic state. Observers don't have to people with eyes. Or cats. Or alive. Just something that interacts physically with the system.


/edit - Massive government-issue disclaimers for those who know about all the 'but what if...' cases I didn't talk about.

I would put it differently. It's not that quantum mechanics is difficult to teach to physics students; it's that it is not well understood by anyone at all. That's why all these perverse, practically-no-chance-of-being-right "interpretations" (many worlds, consciousness-causes-collapse, etc.) are floating around and being debated by philosophers who think about quantum mechanics for a living. Perhaps in this century someone will manage to explain the math rationally, to everyone's satisfaction...
DefMatrixUltra
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Canada1992 Posts
March 18 2010 02:41 GMT
#149
On March 18 2010 05:41 HnR)hT wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 17 2010 09:49 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
On March 17 2010 04:28 decafchicken wrote:
On March 15 2010 01:53 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
On March 15 2010 01:49 Housemd wrote:
This is interesting due to the fact that i having a conversation about it in class today with my math teacher.

HE says that the reason we can't travel the speed of light is due to the fact that this happens:

When we shoot a particle of light into a spectrum (or something, not quite sure) on the other end, the particle turns out to be TWO particles, each in a different location on some black paper they put as a "receiver". If we can find out what causes this, we can travel the speed of light to different galaxies.

I think you're talking about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

This is an experiment that demonstrates the wave-particle duality of light. If you shoot a photon of light through two slits, and don't detect which slit it goes through, then the photon will act as if it went through both slits (even though it technically should be only one particle) and interfered with itself (as if it were a wave). This has to do with quantum mechanics, which I highly suggest you should learn in your academic future! To be honest, it doesn't have that much to do with the speed of light itself, but it's one of the things that got me interested in physics, so by all means, be open to the subject!


Is there a reason for the difference in behavior when it is observed vs unobserved?


Quantum mechanics is a semantic nightmare and is difficult to teach even to physics students. So I'll give you my simple input on this issue:


+ Show Spoiler [Trust me, this is simple.] +

In quantum mechanics, one of the major ways of examining systems (things doing stuff) is by using the concept of the wave function. The wave function is a complete abstraction - it is a mathematical entity that can be manipulated to get real answers to problems. Knowing how to setup a wave function for a specific system is something I won't even attempt to describe.

So why is this considered physics and not just mathematics? Well, let's say you have a system (en electron or something), and you wanna measure it (for whatever reason, physicists don't care). How do you represent that mathematically? How do you know what answer you will get when you measure?

What you do is this:

1. Figure out what quantity you're measuring.
2. Use the mathematical 'operator' associated with that quantity on the system's wavefunction.
3. The result is hopefully some constant times the wavefunction - so k*W(x,y,z,t).

In this case, the answer to "what will I get when I measure this?" is 'k'.

-----

It turns out that it's not quite this simple. Most wave functions are made of up a combination of a whole bunch of different functions. So

W = W1 + W2 + W3

What the hell does that mean? Well go back to your step-by-step process.

1. What quantity are you measuring (e.g. velocity)?
2. Use the 'velocity operator' on W.
3. The result is not quite what you were hoping for, it's

k1*W1 + k2*W2 + k3*W3

so does that mean you measure all of them(!!!!)? No - what this actually means is that you will measure one of the values k1, k2, or k3. Not all of them. You can use some tricky math to work out the probability that you will measure the individual terms, but you can never predict which one it will be.

-------

So what does that have to do with a system being observed?

Well the interpretation is that W = W1 + W2 + W3 is a system with three possible states. If you make the measurement of the system, you will measure k1 or k2 or k3 but never anything else.

What happens when you measure a system? So take the electron from earlier. We'll measure it's velocity. Let's say we get k2, and that k2 represents the electron moving off to the right at speed k2. Let's measure it again a little bit later. What do we get?

We sure as hell better get k2. If you measure something definitely happening, it better be definitely happening. So what does that mean for the wavefunction W?

Does W still equal W1 + W2 + W3? No, W = W2 because we have measured the system and know the answer. But that means we changed the wavefunction W just by measuring it. This is what is meant when people talk about observers. If there is some interaction that happens between your electron and something else, your electron most likely ends up in a definite state instead of in a probabilistic state. Observers don't have to people with eyes. Or cats. Or alive. Just something that interacts physically with the system.


/edit - Massive government-issue disclaimers for those who know about all the 'but what if...' cases I didn't talk about.

I would put it differently. It's not that quantum mechanics is difficult to teach to physics students; it's that it is not well understood by anyone at all. That's why all these perverse, practically-no-chance-of-being-right "interpretations" (many worlds, consciousness-causes-collapse, etc.) are floating around and being debated by philosophers who think about quantum mechanics for a living. Perhaps in this century someone will manage to explain the math rationally, to everyone's satisfaction...


Yes, part of the reason is that it openly tells you that things work in ways which humans aren't used to. The issue with quantum mechanics is that it's the realm of physics where instead of using your 'real' intuition, you have to use your 'mathematical' intuition in order to gain insight into problems.

From a semantical point of view, trying to describe something happening quantum mechanically is nightmarish. When talking about quantum mechanics to the general public (or even, like you say, in a philosophical sense), it's pretty much guaranteed that

a) You will not get your point across.
b) You will dig a semantic grave for yourself.
c) You will leave those interested mystified.

That's why I tried to bring some of the math in. It's the mathematical concepts which are key to 'understanding' quantum mechanics. Understanding it in a semantical sense just seems almost impossible.
Prev 1 6 7 8 All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 6h 32m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 247
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 6828
Leta 178
EffOrt 163
Mind 58
Noble 18
Bale 7
Icarus 6
Dota 2
monkeys_forever749
League of Legends
JimRising 1072
febbydoto32
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K871
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox800
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor68
Other Games
summit1g16663
shahzam815
WinterStarcraft492
ViBE210
NeuroSwarm99
RuFF_SC288
ROOTCatZ43
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick5134
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH353
• gosughost_ 39
• davetesta32
• practicex 28
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush2484
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
6h 32m
Replay Cast
1d 5h
WardiTV European League
1d 11h
ShoWTimE vs sebesdes
Percival vs NightPhoenix
Shameless vs Nicoract
Krystianer vs Scarlett
ByuN vs uThermal
Harstem vs HeRoMaRinE
PiGosaur Monday
1d 19h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Epic.LAN
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
[ Show More ]
Epic.LAN
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Online Event
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Liquipedia Results

Completed

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.