| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On September 05 2015 01:54 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: he's saying that's what the book claims. not that that's what he believes Or at least the Amazon summary of the book says that, and that's all I read.  | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
On September 02 2015 17:24 Cascade wrote: As usual, I have a very hard time following you... :/ - What do you mean by "purely theory stuff"? - Not sure how old you are, but QM has been on very solid footing since 1950 or so at least. Essentially nothing has happened in the field after the seventies, apart from more empirical support. But that may not have been reflected in popular media of course. Today popular media is well ahead of the science, in the sense that they happily report new "discoveries" that don't have any empirical evidence whatsoever, such as parallel universes, string theory and all all that crap. - I am familiar with the movie quote, but I struggle to understand that sentence... who are "we*"? Is it different from the usual "we"? How is the matrix spoon related to the role of the observer in QM? "Pretends to have passed"? I'm confused. :/ To answer your question, I ate yoghurt with a spoon this morning, and I believe it is real, or at least it successfully transported the yoghurt to my mouth.  "purely theory stuff" as opposed to concrete ways to make you want to understand it. (I'm 41 now) at 12/15, when I was "into" sciences there was no internet, you had to go to a library, ask people etc, informations about QM were not accessible as you aptly "put it" (it is now, but in a sea of other stuff). The tip of the science sword which you are referencing (people that are knowledgeable enough to forge one's self an opinion and keep to it (even with a peer arguing against it)) are few, they were even less two decades ago. QM was not talked to like you are doing now. My point was that in such a loose conversation (posting in this thread) "time" is in there somewhere a vital component you seem to disregard. A librarian, a teacher might be inclined to respond (when asked about QM) "not for you".. "plus they are probably wrong", instead of your professed "everything happened 20 years ago*.. it is awesome go for it". * That would put it in the 80ies = when I was looking into QM. As for your yogurt, "if you choose to stop believing in it, it would not be there at all" is what most people understand by QM's observer procedural questioning and while I may be less short sighted I am inclined to remain skeptical about the whole cat business. Why would not my consciousness forge its surroundings? (in reference to the "there is no spoon" bit). On September 04 2015 05:26 Cascade wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 04 2015 04:46 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: not sure if its relevant but their are books on quantum mechanics and its relation to consciousness http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Consciousness-Guide-Experiencing-Psychology/dp/0962618489/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441309467&sr=1-1&keywords=quantum consciousness http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Physics-Encounters-Consciousness/dp/0199753814/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441309467&sr=1-2&keywords=quantum consciousness not sure if their using consciousness in a different meaning or something though There are also books on Amazon about how creationism is better than evolution: http://www.amazon.com/God-vs-Darwin-Intelligent-Creationism/dp/1512030104/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441311894&sr=1-3&keywords=creationism Doesn't mean that there is any merit to the idea. edit: Trying to be less condescending, for understanding QM, I find the "sum over histories" (or "path integral" if you want to be mathematical) image the most intuitive, and the closest to the actual maths going on in modern QM (quantum field theory, aka QFT. And by modern, I mean like 60ies or so). The first section of this page explains it pretty well in a couple of paragraphs: + Show Spoiler + A fundamental difference between classical physics and quantum theory is the fact that, in the quantum world, certain predictions can only be made in terms of probabilities A travelling particle As an example, take the question whether or not a particle that starts at the time tA at the location A will reach location B at the later time tB. Particle travelling from A to B Classical physics can give a definite answer. Depending on the particle's initial velocity and the forces acting on it, the answer is either yes or no. In quantum theory, it is merely possible to give the probability that the particle in question can be detected at location B at time tB. The path integral formalism, which was invented by the US physicist Richard Feynman, is a tool for calculating such quantum mechanical probabilities. Feynman's recipe, applied to a particle travelling from A to B, is the following. Step 1: Consider all possibilities for the particle travelling from A to B. Not only the boring straight-line approach, but also the possibility of the particle turning loopings and making diverse detours: IMAGE (go to site) Particle travelling from A to B along multiple paths The illustration hardly does the particle justice. It shows a mere six from an infinity of possibilities. It neglects to show the cases in which the particle visits New York, Ulan Bator, or even the moon or the Andromeda Galaxy before arriving at its destination. Last but not least, it does not contain information about velocities. The first part of the particle's trajectory may be travelled at break-neck speed and the final millimetres at a snail's pace - or the other way around, or completely different; another infinity of possibilities. In short, for the first step, take into account all ways of travelling from A to B, however outlandish they may seem. The second step is to associate a number with each of these possibilities (not quite the kind of number we're used to from school, but we will not bother with the difference here). Finally, the numbers associated with all possibilities are added up - some parts of the sum canceling each other, others adding up. (Readers whom this makes think of waves are on the right track - it is an example of an interference phenomenon.) The resulting sum tells us the probability of detecting the particle that started out at A at the location B at the specified time. Physicists call such a sum over all possibilities a path integral or sum over histories. This sum over (wave) amplitudes contains contributions of different sign (or complex phase) so they can cancel out, aka interference, like in the double-slit experiment. But the final probability of the end state (s) is the absolute square of the sum of the amplitudes, which is always positive. And if you want to consider the probability of arriving at any of several end states (s1 or s2), they are summed at probability level, ie AFTER you absolute-square the sum, which will never cancel anything out. So sums on the amplitude level (different histories to the same end state) can have interference, but you will never have interference between different end states as they are summed on the probability level. So in the case of the double slit experiment, the end state of the electron ending up on a certain position on the detector can be reached by having the electron travel through either of the slits, and the two paths will be summed up on amplitude level, and we can get interference. However, if the electron emits a photon while passing one of the slits (that someone can observe if they feel like), then the two paths are NOT summed at amplitude level, as the end states are not the same: the emitted photon will be coming form different positions. For quantum mechanical interference to happen between two possible paths (left/right slit, live/dead cat), the end states (of the entire universe) need to be exactly, EXACTLY identical. If there is any possibility at all to detect which path was used (electron emitting photons, live cat meowing), it means that the two end states aren't identical, and you do not get interference. That's the maths that explain (almost) everything happening anywhere. No consciousness (or even observer at all) needed. "Trying to be less condescending" "That's the maths that explain (almost) everything happening anywhere. No consciousness (or even observer at all) needed." We agree  the thing though is I'm personally only interested/invested in that. Consciousness projected unto said "maths that explain (almost) everything happening anywhere". How we came to it (QM) seems just as important as the fact that we do not have yet the means to jump forward in time and space with this information. Our* minds/souls are arguing, and most often "our reach exceeds our nerve" (a D Bowie N Tesla quote from C Nolan's "The prestige") My derailment albeit not strictly about science was simply put my cv. I love science in a broader sense of the word. Otherwise I despise what human beings do with its "cyclic findings" and find it hard to be enthusiastic about it. Do you know www.tm.org? Is it as much a science to go inward as much as it is going outward? Since discovering the professed existence of what science deems is a vast untapped "mental" potential "never to be reached" (again, this 25 years ago), I have always dreamed of what interaction exists between the two. I guess that is what my whole spiel (me posting about it) is about, seeing science's limits, I will never see the wonders up ahead, will die of old age just dreaming. Not seeing science's achievements as such, but often just the temporary well crafted "bandage lie" "specialists" shaped to satisfy our most avid race power/sin: curiosity. Edit: Again, thank you for fun discoursing. Awesome thread, sorry for derailing, will stop promise. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
Zeilinger also notes that there remains one last, somewhat philosophical loophole, first identified by Bell himself: the possibility that hidden variables could somehow manipulate the experimenters’ choices of what properties to measure, tricking them into thinking quantum theory is correct. Leifer is less troubled by this ‘freedom-of-choice loophole’, however. “It could be that there is some kind of superdeterminism, so that the choice of measurement settings was determined at the Big Bang,” he says. “We can never prove that is not the case, so I think it’s fair to say that most physicists don’t worry too much about this.” I was thinking the more philosophical of you would be interested. I am personally with "most physicists" on this and won't bother much with things that can't be measured. Edit: in other news from my twitter: LHC is a Stargate! www.gizmodo.com.au :D | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18366 Posts
| ||
|
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
On September 05 2015 18:04 Cascade wrote: Edit: in other news from my twitter: LHC is a Stargate! www.gizmodo.com.au :D I don't care that I'm a physicist, I want to believe that so bad :D | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 07 2015 14:03 whatisthisasheep wrote: Why do people make such a big deal about NWA when Run DMC did more for rap music? Because that's not how notoriety is earned. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 07 2015 14:56 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I was watching a (fictional) cop show and was wondering if its legal to plant evidence to trick someone into confessing and then arresting them based on said confession.(if it matters they didn't explicitly lie to them.they just made it look like they had proof to tie them to the crime.) For the most part, if you're smart, you will remain silent no matter what they put in front of you. There is nothing that they do that is true until you're in court in front of the judge. Anything you say whether from lies or misdirection will be recorded and used against you. At no point should anyone ever say anything unless you know you're guilty and you make a plea bargain. | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
On September 07 2015 15:03 Thieving Magpie wrote: For the most part, if you're smart, you will remain silent no matter what they put in front of you. There is nothing that they do that is true until you're in court in front of the judge. Anything you say whether from lies or misdirection will be recorded and used against you. At no point should anyone ever say anything unless you know you're guilty and you make a plea bargain. Many guilty culprits have been "saved" from prosecution precisely because the defense proved entrapment, it all depends on the particulars and mostly on geography (which country it happens in). | ||
|
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
On September 07 2015 14:56 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I was watching a (fictional) cop show and was wondering if its legal to plant evidence to trick someone into confessing and then arresting them based on said confession.(if it matters they didn't explicitly lie to them.they just made it look like they had proof to tie them to the crime.) In the US, no. Also no in France, I don't know about other countries. Additionally, confessions are not regarded as very trustable proofs, since they can easily be fabricated to protect someone or thing like that. Prosecutors will rely on more solid material evidence | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11922 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9319 Posts
On September 07 2015 14:56 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I was watching a (fictional) cop show and was wondering if its legal to plant evidence to trick someone into confessing and then arresting them based on said confession.(if it matters they didn't explicitly lie to them.they just made it look like they had proof to tie them to the crime.) I think it is legal but confession alone is very weak evidence unless the suspect will tell you everything about the crime (which usually leads to more evidence) like they always do in cop shows. | ||
|
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
On September 07 2015 23:47 whatisthisasheep wrote: Do I have as many Tour De France championships as Lance Armstrong? yep. congrats ! | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On September 07 2015 23:47 whatisthisasheep wrote: Do I have as many Tour De France championships as Lance Armstrong? Yep, and without putting in a tenth of the effort. Nice performance ! | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 07 2015 18:59 oGoZenob wrote: In the US, no. Also no in France, I don't know about other countries. Additionally, confessions are not regarded as very trustable proofs, since they can easily be fabricated to protect someone or thing like that. Prosecutors will rely on more solid material evidence There's a lot of confusions here--so lets parse everything out. Police can arrest you for anything--absolutely anything. But being arrested does not mean you're convicted. So long as there is evidence linking you, then they can put you under their custody. Now, with a lawyer, you can then put yourself in your own custody (along with a bunch of other things) but that's about the limits of police power. Think about protests when everyone in the "crowd" gets arrested whether or not they did anything illegal and then having the judge sort people out as guilty/not guilty afterwards. Or think of traffic tickets being given willy nilly and being told "if its a mistake get a lawyer and get in front of the judge" which most people don't do and so they pay the fine whether its a right or wrong ticket. Now, with that in mind, lets move to the scenario initially described. Cops bring in what "seems" like evidence to try to get a confession. That's not how it actually works though because of all the things that must happen prior to that. 1.) Step one, they arrest someone (because they have evidence that was deemed solid enough to make the arrest in the first place). 2.) Step two, the bring the person in for interrogation. Step three, the show the person the evidence linking him and I will assume he has no explanation for that. 3.) Step three, suggest that there is more evidence present that you have not actually found yet--but you know what it would be from other clues available in the crime scene. If the person confesses, his conviction will hinge on his confession and the evidence initially acquired to make the arrest. And so long as the police find the "fake evidence" that they told the felon they had (and he confessed to being true) then all is well and good. The problem with this scenario, however, is that if you were certain enough about this piece of evidence that you would fake it in front of a suspect--you could just go fucking find it while making sure the guy doesn't leave the city. Charge him with suspect of _____, have prosecutors muck up the timeline with red tape for a bit, find the evidence, and then get him in front of the judge. But that's kind of boring and makes the cops look like dicks so I can see why that's not on TV. | ||
|
Bloody
Sweden194 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
I have Linear Algebra I, Calc I-III (Differential, Integral, Basic Multivariate), 1 Differential Eqn's + 1 Numerical Methods course in my math repertoire, as well as some self-taught Linear Algebra II from Khan Academy and sprinkles of Calc IV as needed for Engg classes (Stokes, Divergence Theorem, etc). I don't really know where to begin, the Numerical methods I've done, was always done in 2D... I suppose I'd start with how to define a line in 3D. Now this is not possible with a f(x,y,z)=A type function, since that'll give you a plane. So my initial opinion is to use parametric curves (which essentially no time was spent on in courses). So in 2D, making any explicit function a parametric curve is easy... say x=t, and replace y=f(x) with y=f(t), and you have two equations. Now I don't really know how you go about parameterizing implicit functions... Like sure, I know x^2+y^2=1 will be x=cos(t) and y=sin(t)... And if you give me the parametric curves, I can get to x^2+y^2, but going the other way is a lot more difficult for me. And then I could add say a z=t^2, and voila... I have a helix that is increasing in pitch with the z-axis. So I'm thinking that I need to break the function down into x(t) = f(t), fit that curve, y(t) = f(t), fit that, and do it for z as well. So then I can curve fit a nice polynomial or exponential or whatever for it... But then, I don't really know what to do with it, I don't know how to combine it all together. Do I then treat it as a system of 3 equations of t?... How do I operate on it? So if I am on the right track with the parametric curves to solve my problem, does anyone have any suggestions where to go from here? What mathematics I need to go study (or maybe just revisit some previous math - currently redoing it with Lin Algebra, now that I actually know what kind of problems it can be used for), etc? Or is it a more complex (or less complex) problem than I'm giving it credit for? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 5618Bisu  1941Sea  1885Mini 1840Shuttle 1696Jaedong 1231Soulkey 749Soma 437EffOrt 380firebathero 364[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games singsing2043 FrodaN1450 hiko815 B2W.Neo623 Lowko468 crisheroes242 Liquid`VortiX181 ToD139 Livibee78 Trikslyr29 ZerO(Twitch)13 Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
RSL Revival
Classic vs Trap
herO vs SHIN
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
