Geek Jokes

[SCEtoAUX]

67Dino said:

Not as I understand it. Perhaps the best way to answer this is with a question: what’s the alternative? If not an exchange of energies with the atom, then what is it that the photon hits that it ‘bounces off’? And how would you know it’s the same photon that came back? But like I say, I’m rusty on this stuff, so hopefully someone here is better able than I am to explain the moment of interaction between photon and atom.

Or perhaps even tell a joke...

It's early and I'm still half asleep but how about "A Qbit enters a bar and the barman says 'What can I get for you gents'?"

[Halmyre]

havoc said:

Halmyre said:

The sunlight impinging on the moon is absorbed and re-emitted, so it's not the same light...

Quoted for posterity.


Or, more precisely...absolutely not. Nope. No-siree.


SOME sunlight is absorbed by the moon, sure...same applies to everything except a (theoretical) perfect reflector. But NO light is re-emitted by the moon. The ONLY light we see from the moon comes from simple reflection.

Simple reflection is not simple. It's not photons bouncing off atoms. Well, it is, but only on a simple level.

[MartG]

[67Dino]

Tachyon
Knock Knock
Who’s there?

[havoc]

Halmyre said:

Simple reflection is not simple. It's not photons bouncing off atoms. Well, it is, but only on a simple level.

OK, point taken.

...but as above - quantum levels don't 'reflect' reality very well...most scientists who don't have to deal with it choose not to, preferring the (empirically provable) Newtonian level of measurement.


I am a long way out of date though - last formal course was over 20 years ago, so since then it's been grey literature only.

[glenrobbo]

havoc said:

OK, point taken.

...but as above - quantum levels don't 'reflect' reality very well...most scientists who don't have to deal with it choose not to, preferring the (empirically provable) Newtonian level of measurement.


I am a long way out of date though - last formal course was over 20 years ago, so since then it's been grey literature only.

50 Shades?

[MartG]

[NoddyonNitrous]

67Dino said:

Clockwork Cupcake said:

67Dino said:

Simple reflection is re-emitting too.

No it's not! They are completely different concepts!

Obviously you can’t label and trace an individual photon so any behaviour is probabilistic rather than real, but think the concept of absorption and re-emission is as good as a way I know it describing what happens when a photon meets an atom. That said, my QED is nearly 3 decades old, so if there’s a more modern way of describing reflection then be interested to hear it.

The absorption / re-emission bit I get, but where does the direction component come from? Surely re-emission could be in any direction?

(Have we dissected the joke enough yet, or should we keep going?)

[Einion Yrth]

NoddyonNitrous said:

67Dino said:

Clockwork Cupcake said:

67Dino said:

Simple reflection is re-emitting too.

No it's not! They are completely different concepts!

Obviously you can’t label and trace an individual photon so any behaviour is probabilistic rather than real, but think the concept of absorption and re-emission is as good as a way I know it describing what happens when a photon meets an atom. That said, my QED is nearly 3 decades old, so if there’s a more modern way of describing reflection then be interested to hear it.

The absorption / re-emission bit I get, but where does the direction component come from? Surely re-emission could be in any direction?

(Have we dissected the joke enough yet, or should we keep going?)

Has to do with sum over histories Richard Feynman explains it here rather better than I can, and quite entertainingly. Set aside an hour, grab a glass of anything you fancy.

[K12beano]

What a thread


The admins just want to tell you that each and every one of you matter

Unless of course you multiply yourself by the speed of light squared, in which case each of you energy.

[Dr Jekyll]

[Prak]

Dr Jekyll said:

Perhaps if we understood the mechanism by which sunlight destroys vampires then we would be better able to assess the risks of moonlight to members of the blood consuming community.

Says you!

[Abbott]

Einion Yrth said:

Has to do with sum over histories Richard Feynman explains it here rather better than I can, and quite entertainingly. Set aside an hour, grab a glass of anything you fancy.

Feynman's ability to simplify the the extremely complex is fascinating. I am going to have to watch it a least two more times before I can take onboard everything. Thanks for that.

[RizzoTheRat]

Dr Jekyll said:

Perhaps if we understood the mechanism by which sunlight destroys vampires then we would be better able to assess the risks of moonlight to members of the blood consuming community.

Won't somebody think of the Hematophages!

[ajprice]

Me, watching this thread, after the Rick Astley and vampire posts...

[ZesPak]

[MartG]

[Dapster]

[MartG]

[MartG]