Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
Burnem Wizfyre
Log Wizard
- 11,841
- 19,760
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,616
- 24,826
Or malus's law. What a bizarre coincidence that it exactly follows malus's law. Of course a classical explination for quantum phenomenom is unacceptable, so there's a renamed 'quantum malus's law' to explain it in quantum terms.
Valishar
Molten Core Raider
- 766
- 424
There are so many things that pure classical physics can't explain that it's basically pointless to assume that quantum mechanics is false. For example, the atom.
Thomson's atmoic model was one of electrons suspended in a positive charged body, this was because there was no discovery of a positively charged particle. Then in the next few years Rutherford discovered both the Alpha particle and the atomic nucleus leading to the Rutherford model of the atom. You know the one where the electrons are spinning around the nucleus willy nilly.
The problem with this model is that electric charges that are under acceleration emit electromagnetic radiation. A rotating electron around a nucleus is -constantly- undergoing acceleration, so it should be emitting light/radio/UV etc.. which would reduce it's energy causing it to fall in more, which makes it emit more radiation, which causes it to lose more energy and fall in more, and so on until it crashes into the nucleus and destroys the atom. Classical atoms are unstable things.
This doesn't have a solution unless you say that the energy an electron can have is quantized (as in it is limited to certain discrete values), therefore it can't continuously shed off radiation, it can only do so in discrete values. Of course this is proven over, and over, and over for the last 80 years it's been proven that energy levels are discrete, it's the basis for all modern physics and chemistry and is at the heart of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics doesn't break the laws of physics, the old laws of physics didn't explain nature so they had to develop to incorporate new observations. Just like how science is supposed to work.
Thomson's atmoic model was one of electrons suspended in a positive charged body, this was because there was no discovery of a positively charged particle. Then in the next few years Rutherford discovered both the Alpha particle and the atomic nucleus leading to the Rutherford model of the atom. You know the one where the electrons are spinning around the nucleus willy nilly.
The problem with this model is that electric charges that are under acceleration emit electromagnetic radiation. A rotating electron around a nucleus is -constantly- undergoing acceleration, so it should be emitting light/radio/UV etc.. which would reduce it's energy causing it to fall in more, which makes it emit more radiation, which causes it to lose more energy and fall in more, and so on until it crashes into the nucleus and destroys the atom. Classical atoms are unstable things.
This doesn't have a solution unless you say that the energy an electron can have is quantized (as in it is limited to certain discrete values), therefore it can't continuously shed off radiation, it can only do so in discrete values. Of course this is proven over, and over, and over for the last 80 years it's been proven that energy levels are discrete, it's the basis for all modern physics and chemistry and is at the heart of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics doesn't break the laws of physics, the old laws of physics didn't explain nature so they had to develop to incorporate new observations. Just like how science is supposed to work.
If the only proof that QM is wrong is that its "self-evidently absurd" then we have an issue. Because calling yourself "furry", talking about Einstein like he's your bro, and dismissing large chunks of scientific consensus is all "self-evidently absurd".
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
Malus law aka garlic, Needs a polarizer. On the double slit experiment, there is no extra medium added, so there is no polarizer, just opening two holes very close to each other.
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
I wonder how they built this device. Must have been using garlic, I mean malus law.
Scanning tunneling microscope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The STM is based on the concept of quantum tunneling. When a conducting tip is brought very near to the surface to be examined, a bias (voltage difference) applied between the two can allow electrons to tunnel through the vacuum between them
Scanning tunneling microscope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The STM is based on the concept of quantum tunneling. When a conducting tip is brought very near to the surface to be examined, a bias (voltage difference) applied between the two can allow electrons to tunnel through the vacuum between them
Burnem Wizfyre
Log Wizard
- 11,841
- 19,760
DNA and Evolution beat us to using Quantum mechanics.
Jim Al-Khalili and the Quantum Robin - YouTube
Burnem Wizfyre
Log Wizard
- 11,841
- 19,760
We owe are very existence to quantum mechanics.
Quantum Tunnelling to the Origin and Evolution of Life
Quantum Tunnelling to the Origin and Evolution of Life
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
Yep. Or you could be the dumbfuck who took a college algebra course years ago and thinks they are in touch with the secrets of the universe because feels.
Grayson Carlyle
Golden Squire
- 225
- 9
I think this article explains the problem that Furry has with QM:Measurement problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia(the gist of it is that, why, when everything is probabilistic in QM, are measurements decidedly deterministic: why don't we ever get any half-locations when measuring particle locations from a superposition?)
There are a few possible ideas on how this can be rectified, what we might be missing, or to alter Shrodinger's equation (Objective Collapse) to explain this gap between theory and reality, when theory is so accurate at predicting reality. Or perhapsit's just not a thing at all. I think we will find the answer in my lifetime at least.
There are a few possible ideas on how this can be rectified, what we might be missing, or to alter Shrodinger's equation (Objective Collapse) to explain this gap between theory and reality, when theory is so accurate at predicting reality. Or perhapsit's just not a thing at all. I think we will find the answer in my lifetime at least.
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,616
- 24,826
I assumed you guys knew how double slit experiments work specifically in regards to quantum entanglement when I made that statement. I realize now that this was very wrong for me to do.
So I'll explain some basics. What is a polarizer, it is basically a series of lines that breaks up light. Two slits is basically an extremely minimal polarizer. Now in reference to quantum entanglement specifically, photons are entangled through typically a crystal that divides each photon of light into two separate photons of different intensity, essentially a doubled image. The two images are then sent onto different courses and subjected to tests remotely to each other. The crystal in these experiments, or gas in some versions, acts as a polarizer. It inherently taints all results, because you can't know if the result you are reading is because of entanglement or because of the polarizing effect of the crystal on the light.
This is just one specific example of a loophole that has made every quantum entanglement experiment that has ever been devised inconclusive.
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
That is not what a polarizer is. A polarizer is a medium , aka a psychical substance that waves go through.
A whole in a wall does not make the hole a polarizer as the hole is filled with air. There is no other substance for the light to go through.
Please find a definition of a hole in a medium as been a polarizer.
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,616
- 24,826
The most interesting thing about your augment is that you are are arguing against proven theory and I am arguing for it. Entanglement has not been proven by scientific standards. I taught you that microwaves are a light, perhaps I can educate you a bit on a polarizer.
You can make a very basic polarizer by stretching fine lines in a uniform direction across a gap. The light will be polarized in the direction perpendicular to the direction of the lines. This is a very basic and well understood concept that you can find plenty of references on. So yes, two slits as they get narrow turn into a very crude and unusual polarizer. Now the polarization that could happen in a crystal is far more complicated, but the fact that it could happen is enough to invalident experiments, and the agreement of entanglement detector experiments with malus's law is further evidence that it could be happening. As for what is medium? Air can be a medium, the crystal or gas could be a medium. Anything that light travels through is a medium for it.