On August 23 2015 16:14 Simberto wrote: Multiple possibilities, depending on how much effort you are willing to put into it:
a) Accept that everyone in the field thinks it exists, and that those are very smart people. b) Try to understand how it works on a superficial level, and get some basic ideas from these very smart people. c) Take a textbook on quantum mechanics, and understand it. Most of the introductory ones have a few chapters with experiments that show that classical mechanics fail to accurately describe small things. Typical points are the fact that atoms don't collapse (According to the Bohr atom model and classical mechanics they should), Black Body radiation and a few other things. d) c), but also perform some of the experiments to prove that the stuff you calculate actually fits reality.
This way, you can convincingly prove to yourself that quantum mechanics describe reality better than classical mechanics in some cases.
Basically, the more effort you are willing to put into it, the less faith you need.
The easiest experiment to do at home is the double slit experiment. Literally all you need is a light bulb, a wall, a piece of cardboard and a knife. It shows that something is seriously wacky :D
Yeah, I have no grounds to say science lies to promulgate itself. Yeah discussing science as the moist dangerous of all religions is less interesting than debating to rip off an alarm! No harm done, thank you for your time.
On August 25 2015 07:44 fluidrone wrote: Yeah, I have no grounds to say science lies to promulgate itself. Yeah discussing science as the moist dangerous of all religions is less interesting than debating to rip off an alarm! No harm done, thank you for your time.
Finally something we can agree on! If only you weren't sarcastic...
If you want to have a discussion about the shortcomings of today's science (yes, they exist), there are scientists in this thread that will have it with you if you behave. But you need to approach the discussion from a much more concrete angle than your very abstract, almost philosophical, "science lies!!" accusation that you don't really back up. Give us a real example, and it'll be much easier for us to understand what you are on about.
Also, if you don't have much first hand experience from research and science, I suggest you take a bit more curious trying-to-learn approach, rather than coming in and throwing these a bit insulting insinuations right and left instead of actually asking questions.
On August 23 2015 16:14 Simberto wrote: Multiple possibilities, depending on how much effort you are willing to put into it:
a) Accept that everyone in the field thinks it exists, and that those are very smart people. b) Try to understand how it works on a superficial level, and get some basic ideas from these very smart people. c) Take a textbook on quantum mechanics, and understand it. Most of the introductory ones have a few chapters with experiments that show that classical mechanics fail to accurately describe small things. Typical points are the fact that atoms don't collapse (According to the Bohr atom model and classical mechanics they should), Black Body radiation and a few other things. d) c), but also perform some of the experiments to prove that the stuff you calculate actually fits reality.
This way, you can convincingly prove to yourself that quantum mechanics describe reality better than classical mechanics in some cases.
Basically, the more effort you are willing to put into it, the less faith you need.
The easiest experiment to do at home is the double slit experiment. Literally all you need is a light bulb, a wall, a piece of cardboard and a knife. It shows that something is seriously wacky :D
You might be talking about a different double slit experiment than the one i know, but for the one i know you lead a light source that is much more coherent than a lightbulb, usually meaning a LASER. I don't know if cheap laser pointers are coherent enough either. Also very helpful to have slits that are a lot closer to each other and smaller than you can do with cardboard, but i think you can get an interference pattern with stuff you can manage on cardboard.
Also, this is the coolest experiment done in schools. It is incredibly amazing.
On August 25 2015 15:51 fluidrone wrote: "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." Some indian dead guy
I like quotes !
The quote is used by Gandhi [Young India] (see edition of Feb. 26th 1925 p7).
He uses it as an argument against the bible: it is not because the bible has been translated in every tongue in the world and that missionaries relay its message that it should be considered as Truth.
Of course the basic statement (advertising/propaganda does not imply truth) is sound, but I guess the implication bible=error made a few people cringe at the time.
On August 25 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote: If you want to have a discussion about the shortcomings of today's science (yes, they exist), there are scientists in this thread that will have it with you if you behave. But you need to approach the discussion from a much more concrete angle than your very abstract, almost philosophical, "science lies!!" accusation that you don't really back up. Give us a real example, and it'll be much easier for us to understand what you are on about.
Also, if you don't have much first hand experience from research and science, I suggest you take a bit more curious trying-to-learn approach, rather than coming in and throwing these a bit insulting insinuations right and left instead of actually asking questions.
Sorry if I seemed hostile, I just wanted to fedora the messages/responses I got on the previous page. I am well behaved, do ask around. How please is a concrete approach "more" than an abstract one? If you need a concrete: In order to explain all the complex intricacies of light (my mum studied photons for over 20 years) to my 7 year kid, how should she go about it? Please think before you read on, please allow your own answer, your own thought to be heard by you on how you would react, what you would do. She would lie her ass off at every question he asks, knowing fueling his interest in science is worth a few white lies, no?
I am sorry, I try but the wrong way I rub people, again my post was not hostile but meant as final. No hard feelings, I'll keep reading and enjoy. gg no re
On August 25 2015 15:51 fluidrone wrote: "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." Some indian dead guy
I like quotes !
The quote is used by Gandhi [Young India] (see edition of Feb. 26th 1925 p7).
He uses it as an argument against the bible: it is not because the bible has been translated in every tongue in the world and that missionaries relay its message that it should be considered as Truth.
Of course the basic statement (advertising/propaganda does not imply truth) is sound, but I guess the implication bible=error made a few people cringe at the time.
Thus taking the quote from him means
1/I mean it as he meant it 2/I mean just that bit of "common sense" crystallized by some indian dude I never know about quotes. I meant the "common sense" bit which I love "truth does not become error if no one sees it".
Sorry for any hostility (yours, mine, who cares) in an awes sum thread. Edit: I wanted to add, I found closer to what I wanted to type: "truth does not become error if no one praises it"
On August 24 2015 01:39 Epishade wrote: So I'm at my dorm now on campus and the dumbasses who installed fire detectors when the building was built put them in the bathrooms right next to the shower, like so:
As a result, the fire alarm goes off every time I shower with hot water because of the steam. Tampering with the alarm itself (including covering it in any way) can lead to criminal/civil charges according to the school, as well as my removal from housing.
How best do I take hot showers without setting the alarm off? I'm thinking along the lines of ways to reduce the steam and/or dispersing it so it doesn't cloud around the alarm and set it off. Would something like a dehumidifier work well enough for this purpose? Does that do anything to steam? Or if I had a fan pointed at the fire alarm or something (but that might blow steam at it and set it off too so idk). Is it better if I have the dorm cold before I take a hot shower via the AC, or should I leave the AC off before I take a hot shower?
I've already tried opening the door and having the ac on when I took a hot shower, and that set it off too.
When you want to take hot showers, use cooking oil intead of water. It will make much less steam.
On August 23 2015 16:14 Simberto wrote: Multiple possibilities, depending on how much effort you are willing to put into it:
a) Accept that everyone in the field thinks it exists, and that those are very smart people. b) Try to understand how it works on a superficial level, and get some basic ideas from these very smart people. c) Take a textbook on quantum mechanics, and understand it. Most of the introductory ones have a few chapters with experiments that show that classical mechanics fail to accurately describe small things. Typical points are the fact that atoms don't collapse (According to the Bohr atom model and classical mechanics they should), Black Body radiation and a few other things. d) c), but also perform some of the experiments to prove that the stuff you calculate actually fits reality.
This way, you can convincingly prove to yourself that quantum mechanics describe reality better than classical mechanics in some cases.
Basically, the more effort you are willing to put into it, the less faith you need.
The easiest experiment to do at home is the double slit experiment. Literally all you need is a light bulb, a wall, a piece of cardboard and a knife. It shows that something is seriously wacky :D
You might be talking about a different double slit experiment than the one i know, but for the one i know you lead a light source that is much more coherent than a lightbulb, usually meaning a LASER. I don't know if cheap laser pointers are coherent enough either. Also very helpful to have slits that are a lot closer to each other and smaller than you can do with cardboard, but i think you can get an interference pattern with stuff you can manage on cardboard.
Also, this is the coolest experiment done in schools. It is incredibly amazing.
You're right, of course. Forgot the little detail that you need coherent light. Still easy to do at home. Just use sunlight!
That's probably how it was done in the first place, because lasers weren't invented yet in 1801!
On August 25 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote: If you want to have a discussion about the shortcomings of today's science (yes, they exist), there are scientists in this thread that will have it with you if you behave. But you need to approach the discussion from a much more concrete angle than your very abstract, almost philosophical, "science lies!!" accusation that you don't really back up. Give us a real example, and it'll be much easier for us to understand what you are on about.
Also, if you don't have much first hand experience from research and science, I suggest you take a bit more curious trying-to-learn approach, rather than coming in and throwing these a bit insulting insinuations right and left instead of actually asking questions.
Sorry if I seemed hostile, I just wanted to fedora the messages/responses I got on the previous page. I am well behaved, do ask around. How please is a concrete approach "more" than an abstract one? If you need a concrete: In order to explain all the complex intricacies of light (my mum studied photons for over 20 years) to my 7 year kid, how should she go about it? Please think before you read on, please allow your own answer, your own thought to be heard by you on how you would react, what you would do. She would lie her ass off at every question he asks, knowing fueling his interest in science is worth a few white lies, no?
I am sorry, I try but the wrong way I rub people, again my post was not hostile but meant as final. No hard feelings, I'll keep reading and enjoy. gg no re
oh ok i get it now, by lying you mean doing oversimplification for everyone to understand. It's actually a valid point, although it has nothing to do with lying, it's still telling the truth. It's one of the main problems with vulgarization, at some points you have to rely on some sort of authority argument. It's only a problem for the communication between the public and the scientists, because when scientists talk to each other, we go the full length of explanation. I get your point with the religion comparison, but as i said it's not valid in intra-scientific talk. A religion has no basis wether in observation or in calculus. So please dont go around saying science lies. yes we simplify some thing for everybody to understand, because you just have to accept that the truth is a really, really, really complicated thing that need years of training to even begin to comprehend
On August 25 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote: If you want to have a discussion about the shortcomings of today's science (yes, they exist), there are scientists in this thread that will have it with you if you behave. But you need to approach the discussion from a much more concrete angle than your very abstract, almost philosophical, "science lies!!" accusation that you don't really back up. Give us a real example, and it'll be much easier for us to understand what you are on about.
Also, if you don't have much first hand experience from research and science, I suggest you take a bit more curious trying-to-learn approach, rather than coming in and throwing these a bit insulting insinuations right and left instead of actually asking questions.
Sorry if I seemed hostile, I just wanted to fedora the messages/responses I got on the previous page. I am well behaved, do ask around. How please is a concrete approach "more" than an abstract one? If you need a concrete: In order to explain all the complex intricacies of light (my mum studied photons for over 20 years) to my 7 year kid, how should she go about it? Please think before you read on, please allow your own answer, your own thought to be heard by you on how you would react, what you would do. She would lie her ass off at every question he asks, knowing fueling his interest in science is worth a few white lies, no?
I am sorry, I try but the wrong way I rub people, again my post was not hostile but meant as final. No hard feelings, I'll keep reading and enjoy. gg no re
oh ok i get it now, by lying you mean doing oversimplification for everyone to understand. It's actually a valid point, although it has nothing to do with lying, it's still telling the truth. It's one of the main problems with vulgarization, at some points you have to rely on some sort of authority argument. It's only a problem for the communication between the public and the scientists, because when scientists talk to each other, we go the full length of explanation. I get your point with the religion comparison, but as i said it's not valid in intra-scientific talk. A religion has no basis wether in observation or in calculus. So please dont go around saying science lies. yes we simplify some thing for everybody to understand, because you just have to accept that the truth is a really, really, really complicated thing that need years of training to even begin to comprehend
OK, so the statement is "teaching simplifies" more than "science lies"? I can agree with the former. And yes, the example really helped understanding what you are saying, thanks.
On August 25 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote: If you want to have a discussion about the shortcomings of today's science (yes, they exist), there are scientists in this thread that will have it with you if you behave. But you need to approach the discussion from a much more concrete angle than your very abstract, almost philosophical, "science lies!!" accusation that you don't really back up. Give us a real example, and it'll be much easier for us to understand what you are on about.
Also, if you don't have much first hand experience from research and science, I suggest you take a bit more curious trying-to-learn approach, rather than coming in and throwing these a bit insulting insinuations right and left instead of actually asking questions.
Sorry if I seemed hostile, I just wanted to fedora the messages/responses I got on the previous page. I am well behaved, do ask around. How please is a concrete approach "more" than an abstract one? If you need a concrete: In order to explain all the complex intricacies of light (my mum studied photons for over 20 years) to my 7 year kid, how should she go about it? Please think before you read on, please allow your own answer, your own thought to be heard by you on how you would react, what you would do. She would lie her ass off at every question he asks, knowing fueling his interest in science is worth a few white lies, no?
I am sorry, I try but the wrong way I rub people, again my post was not hostile but meant as final. No hard feelings, I'll keep reading and enjoy. gg no re
oh ok i get it now, by lying you mean doing oversimplification for everyone to understand. It's actually a valid point, although it has nothing to do with lying, it's still telling the truth. It's one of the main problems with vulgarization, at some points you have to rely on some sort of authority argument. It's only a problem for the communication between the public and the scientists, because when scientists talk to each other, we go the full length of explanation. I get your point with the religion comparison, but as i said it's not valid in intra-scientific talk. A religion has no basis wether in observation or in calculus. So please dont go around saying science lies. yes we simplify some thing for everybody to understand, because you just have to accept that the truth is a really, really, really complicated thing that need years of training to even begin to comprehend
I would especially point out that the 'full length' discussed between scientists is also available for anyone. But since it takes a lot of background knowledge, this is too often view as oversimplification, magic or just lies. But you cannot expect everyone to know everything about anything (even limited -so to speak- to Science), so simplifications are made and usable results are given. The fact is that the everybody does not need to know the whole depth of a science branch to use its results. For instance, you don't need to know much of quantum mechanics to use a computer, or even more, you don't need any knowledge of Newton's laws to fall on the floor.
And I'm wondering, so after that disturbance early on, everything seemed to be going ok, crowd got under control, speech continued as normal. When did it really get bad to the point where everything was lost? Before I always assumed this speech was the end, and then he escaped and eventually was found, but this doesn't seem to be the case here.
On August 25 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote: If you want to have a discussion about the shortcomings of today's science (yes, they exist), there are scientists in this thread that will have it with you if you behave.
The second law of thermodynamics claims that information is constantly being lost, while quantum mechanics claims that information is conserved. How do you resolve this inconsistency?
On August 25 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote: If you want to have a discussion about the shortcomings of today's science (yes, they exist), there are scientists in this thread that will have it with you if you behave.
The second law of thermodynamics claims that information is constantly being lost, while quantum mechanics claims that information is conserved. How do you resolve this inconsistency?
I'm no physicist, but from what I understand of information theory, the second law does not claim information is being lost. It at most implies information gets hidden (in the same way information can be 'hidden' inside a black hole, only to eventually radiate out of it).
On August 25 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote: If you want to have a discussion about the shortcomings of today's science (yes, they exist), there are scientists in this thread that will have it with you if you behave.
The second law of thermodynamics claims that information is constantly being lost, while quantum mechanics claims that information is conserved. How do you resolve this inconsistency?
neither of these statements are precisely what those things claim; information is not a well-defined quantity, and a common misconception is that the 2nd law applies to things that aren't closed systems... things can gain more "information" (if you define it as precisely the opposite of entropy) as long as something is losing more in exchange (gaining entropy). i'm not sure which aspect of QM you think claims that information is not constantly being lost (the 'constantly' part is also not part of the 2nd law)
there's a feynman bit that kind of gets at the issue of simplification in talking about scientific phenomena
On August 23 2015 16:14 Simberto wrote: Multiple possibilities, depending on how much effort you are willing to put into it:
a) Accept that everyone in the field thinks it exists, and that those are very smart people. b) Try to understand how it works on a superficial level, and get some basic ideas from these very smart people. c) Take a textbook on quantum mechanics, and understand it. Most of the introductory ones have a few chapters with experiments that show that classical mechanics fail to accurately describe small things. Typical points are the fact that atoms don't collapse (According to the Bohr atom model and classical mechanics they should), Black Body radiation and a few other things. d) c), but also perform some of the experiments to prove that the stuff you calculate actually fits reality.
This way, you can convincingly prove to yourself that quantum mechanics describe reality better than classical mechanics in some cases.
Basically, the more effort you are willing to put into it, the less faith you need.
The easiest experiment to do at home is the double slit experiment. Literally all you need is a light bulb, a wall, a piece of cardboard and a knife. It shows that something is seriously wacky :D
You might be talking about a different double slit experiment than the one i know, but for the one i know you lead a light source that is much more coherent than a lightbulb, usually meaning a LASER. I don't know if cheap laser pointers are coherent enough either. Also very helpful to have slits that are a lot closer to each other and smaller than you can do with cardboard, but i think you can get an interference pattern with stuff you can manage on cardboard.
Also, this is the coolest experiment done in schools. It is incredibly amazing.
You're right, of course. Forgot the little detail that you need coherent light. Still easy to do at home. Just use sunlight!
On August 25 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote: If you want to have a discussion about the shortcomings of today's science (yes, they exist), there are scientists in this thread that will have it with you if you behave.
The second law of thermodynamics claims that information is constantly being lost, while quantum mechanics claims that information is conserved. How do you resolve this inconsistency?
neither of these statements are precisely what those things claim; information is not a well-defined quantity, and a common misconception is that the 2nd law applies to things that aren't closed systems... things can gain more "information" (if you define it as precisely the opposite of entropy) as long as something is losing more in exchange (gaining entropy). i'm not sure which aspect of QM you think claims that information is not constantly being lost (the 'constantly' part is also not part of the 2nd law)
there's a feynman bit that kind of gets at the issue of simplification in talking about scientific phenomena
On August 23 2015 16:14 Simberto wrote: Multiple possibilities, depending on how much effort you are willing to put into it:
a) Accept that everyone in the field thinks it exists, and that those are very smart people. b) Try to understand how it works on a superficial level, and get some basic ideas from these very smart people. c) Take a textbook on quantum mechanics, and understand it. Most of the introductory ones have a few chapters with experiments that show that classical mechanics fail to accurately describe small things. Typical points are the fact that atoms don't collapse (According to the Bohr atom model and classical mechanics they should), Black Body radiation and a few other things. d) c), but also perform some of the experiments to prove that the stuff you calculate actually fits reality.
This way, you can convincingly prove to yourself that quantum mechanics describe reality better than classical mechanics in some cases.
Basically, the more effort you are willing to put into it, the less faith you need.
The easiest experiment to do at home is the double slit experiment. Literally all you need is a light bulb, a wall, a piece of cardboard and a knife. It shows that something is seriously wacky :D
You might be talking about a different double slit experiment than the one i know, but for the one i know you lead a light source that is much more coherent than a lightbulb, usually meaning a LASER. I don't know if cheap laser pointers are coherent enough either. Also very helpful to have slits that are a lot closer to each other and smaller than you can do with cardboard, but i think you can get an interference pattern with stuff you can manage on cardboard.
Also, this is the coolest experiment done in schools. It is incredibly amazing.
You're right, of course. Forgot the little detail that you need coherent light. Still easy to do at home. Just use sunlight!
That's probably how it was done in the first place, because lasers weren't invented yet in 1801!
the significance of the double slit experiment is that photons can behave as particles as well as behave as waves, just not both at the same time
that water experiment just shows how 2 waves interfering looks, but doesn't suggest wave-particle duality
At around 2:09 onwards he explains how he is recreating the experiment with sunlight, and at around 3:31 you see the results in the cardboard box. It might not be easy to recreate at home, but it should be doable.
However, this experiment, as Young's did in 1801, only explains the waveform behaviour as light. To get the particle explanation you need to do it with a very low intensity light source, which was done in 1909; also before the invention of lasers. He used a gas light, some screens and a lot of calculus
I remember my physics teacher doing this experiment with a laser, but I don't remember how he showed the particle part (or whether he even did, or just explained it).
EDIT: actually, he probably explained that light had to be a particle due to the photoelectric effect, and showed that in an experiment (also easy to do):
That leaves you with the fundamental dichotomy that light behaves both as a particle, and as a wave! And that introduces you to quantum mechanics
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1Z7pxlu.jpg)
