havoc wrote:yea and what makes you think quantum physics is stupid?
natirips wrote:I think it's stupid, but it's also useful. Most modern microchips are as efficient as they are thanks to it.
eXtr33m wrote:OHhh this is awful..
Watch this vid @ Youtube (new Window)
cuz of this i write... but i see this video is just a shitty lie.
+ one another link
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/2 ... ement.html
aaaand to the quantum mechanics => when you dont know the state of something (which has two possible states) it doesnt mean it is in 'third' state..
Also I dont like to believe that there exist some Random thing... and i dont think nobody can ever prove that
"Randomness" of the fate of all particles in the universe is only one out of many possible explanations. This one happens to be standard, but not all physicists agree with that. Just like not everyone in a country thinks their president was the best possible choice, only the majority that voted for him does.eXtr33m wrote:Also I dont like to believe that there exist some Random thing... and i dont think nobody can ever prove that
While we may not have "quantum computers" from the sci-fi, our knowledge of how an electron behaves inside metals and semi-conductors would've been far from enough to construct a silicon-based chip without the knowledge gained from quantum physics.havoc wrote:natirips wrote:I think it's stupid, but it's also useful. Most modern microchips are as efficient as they are thanks to it.
no, microchips have nothing to do with quantum physics/mechanics yet. they are still plain old transistors, just very small. but we are getting there, slowly.
AFAIK this phenomena (entanglement) is still being researched. They originally thought that neutrinos never slow down below the speed of light in vacuum, but we know now that they never exceed the speed of light in vacuum.eXtr33m wrote:1)The video says when you have entangled electrons you change a spin of one the spin of second one changed too which i think in a practical way could lead transferring real informations faster then light..
Like I explained above, according to Einstein, this is only statistical prediction. Once we take a look at the cat, it will indeed be either dead or alive, and only either dead or alive.eXtr33m wrote:2)Schrodinger's cat -> Cat is neither alive, neither dead it is half dead and half alive. (AFAIK)
Sounds a bit outdated, but this is what they taught me at the university.Liboff's 'Introductory quantum mechanics' (1980) wrote:Measurement of the observable A that yields the value a leaves the system is the state φ_a, where φ_a is the eigenfunction of Ᾱ that corresponds to the eigenvalues a.
"Random" here is too often interpreted literally (unfortunately even by physicists). Random only means "we don't know exactly". At least according to Einstein, with whom I agree on this one.eXtr33m wrote:3) Random thing is a thing which happened absolutely without any pattern. It would mean the world dont have exact future.
RAM modules used to be like that for a while. The workaround for the problem was a feedback loop on read to re-write the information for future use.havoc wrote:unfortunately it leads us right into sci-fi tv series style of computers, you know, when the information is read once, it disappears from the original media
No, the two of you are traveling at light speed against each other. It's explained in Einstein's theory of relativity. If you have a space ship traveling in one direction at 0.99c, and another space ship traveling in opposite direction at 0.99c, and one of them sends a light signal, the other one will get the signal. Speed of light in vacuum and electrical charge are the only universal constants ever discovered so far.havoc wrote:also, slightly off topic, moving at speed of light, pretty much as any other speed, is relative thing. like you can travel at speed of light in one direction, and me in the opposite direction, and you, relative to me, will move at 2x speed of light.
I am to teach kids in school about physics in a few years (hopefully). Apparently, I'm supposed to know at least something* about it. *Most of all, I am supposed to know how to (re)learn any information I may need in case I don't know it already or if I forgot something.havoc wrote:also, its so nice to see young peoples like you are into science natirips. you really warmed my heart :)
natirips wrote:No, the two of you are traveling at light speed against each other. It's explained in Einstein's theory of relativity. If you have a space ship traveling in one direction at 0.99c, and another space ship traveling in opposite direction at 0.99c, and one of them sends a light signal, the other one will get the signal. Speed of light in vacuum and electrical charge are the only universal constants ever discovered so far.havoc wrote:also, slightly off topic, moving at speed of light, pretty much as any other speed, is relative thing. like you can travel at speed of light in one direction, and me in the opposite direction, and you, relative to me, will move at 2x speed of light.
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests |
Misc
|