How long is a piece of string?

[ben_h100]

Horizon bbc2 nOw. Quite interesting with alan davies.

[Adrian W]

Brilliant...............can someone tell me what they're going on about!

[dave_s13]

Interesting that.

Always fascinated by physics based telly....is it normal to have no farkin idea how quantum mechanics works, or is it just me?

[saleen836]

Isn't it just twice the distance from the middle to one end?

[Westy Pre-Lit]

saleen836 said:

Isn't it just twice the distance from the middle to one end?

No idea, I got lost so turned over to look at Bikini clad bints on ITV.

[Spacekadet]

I always thought it was twice as long as half its length

[T89 Callan]

A decent show, if you liked it get on 4oD and watch "Stephen Hawking Master of the Universe" (2 nepisodes) takes the explanation and detail of the quantum mechanics two the next level.

[Salgar]

T89 Callan said:

A decent show, if you liked it get on 4oD and watch "Stephen Hawking Master of the Universe" (2 nepisodes) takes the explanation and detail of the quantum mechanics two the next level.

Quantum Mechanics Two?! I don't even understand the first one, and they've already made a sequel

[EDLT]

Comb-over-pony-tail had the most annoying laugh I've ever heard.

A few of this series of Horizon have been about Quantum physics and its starting to get a bit repetitive as they are all talking about it at the same level.

[T89 Callan]

Salgar said:

T89 Callan said:

A decent show, if you liked it get on 4oD and watch "Stephen Hawking Master of the Universe" (2 nepisodes) takes the explanation and detail of the quantum mechanics two the next level.

Quantum Mechanics Two?! I don't even understand the first one, and they've already made a sequel

QM 2: This time it's personal!!!!!!!!!!

[Zad]

So far as I can tell, the thing about quantum mechanics is that it is based on not knowing things. If you could get "inside" the mechanism, it would be explainable, but we can't, so we have to explain it at the next level up, which makes no sense but does produce workable mathematical models.

I get the feeling that in umpty years time, some new Einstein is going to come along and point out a fundamental incorrect assumption, find the correct one and it will all go "aaaah that makes sense now" because to me quantum mechanics just seems like a stop-gap until they actually work out the proper coherent system. But, just as finding the Higgs Boson will get scientists saying "yes, but what is it made of", as soon as quantum mechanics is explained, it will reveal another layer which appears even more unfathomable. I hope that, before then, the governments of the world will stop throwing huge amounts of cash at it and concentrate a bit more on problems that matter now.

To anyone saying "Ah yes but CERN gave us the web browser" a good deal of this web browser technology existed already. Like many discoveries/developments/inventions, it was just a matter of where it happened first.

[varsas]

What's more important?

At the end of the day nothing humans do matters at all, certainly while we're stuck in this tiny, insignificant part of the universe. At the very least it would be nice if the description of the sum total of humanities existence resulted in us being able to say 'we cracked it, we understand how the universe works' Besides it might, just might, lead to time/super light travel...then we can actually get somewhere. The chances are low but without those things nothing matters so we might as well give it a shot.

[Charlie Foxtrot]

I had an interesting train of thought and I'll try and put it accross.

Based on the schrodinger's cat theory I can answer this famous riddle. "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is about to hear it, does it make a noise?" I conclude that there is no tree.

And also by the end of the show I have decided that my dog is better at Quantum tunnelling than I am, but only when I am observing her.



Dangerous stuff this educationally tv.

[varsas]

Makes sense...if something that happens has no observable effect it doesn't happen. Works for me!

Of course that means there were no neutrinos/other galaxies etc in the stone age because no one knew about them and they couldn't be observed...I think that's consistent with quantum physics though. kinda.

I like the copenhagen theory, which says that all quantum phyiscs does is encode what we know about the galaxy. It's a bit of a cop out but your tree falling explanation works well inside it.

[him_over_there]

varsas said:

Makes sense...if something that happens has no observable effect it doesn't happen. Works for me!

Of course that means there were no neutrinos/other galaxies etc in the stone age because no one knew about them and they couldn't be observed...I think that's consistent with quantum physics though. kinda.

Not quite. The observer doesn't have to be a conscious entity, the photons etc don't know they are being observed.

[Charlie Foxtrot]

him_over_there said:

varsas said:

Makes sense...if something that happens has no observable effect it doesn't happen. Works for me!

Of course that means there were no neutrinos/other galaxies etc in the stone age because no one knew about them and they couldn't be observed...I think that's consistent with quantum physics though. kinda.

Not quite. The observer doesn't have to be a conscious entity, the photons etc don't know they are being observed.

but they also don't know they're not being observed. they don't know anything, they're photons.

[him_over_there]

Charlie Foxtrot said:

him_over_there said:

varsas said:

Makes sense...if something that happens has no observable effect it doesn't happen. Works for me!

Of course that means there were no neutrinos/other galaxies etc in the stone age because no one knew about them and they couldn't be observed...I think that's consistent with quantum physics though. kinda.

Not quite. The observer doesn't have to be a conscious entity, the photons etc don't know they are being observed.

but they also don't know they're not being observed. they don't know anything, they're photons.

Which was my point.

People seem to think the term observer implies physically 'seeing' something happen. It doesn't.

[Charlie Foxtrot]

and of course the tree was both upright and fallen at the same time anyway.

[skoff]

him_over_there said:

Charlie Foxtrot said:

him_over_there said:

varsas said:

Makes sense...if something that happens has no observable effect it doesn't happen. Works for me!

Of course that means there were no neutrinos/other galaxies etc in the stone age because no one knew about them and they couldn't be observed...I think that's consistent with quantum physics though. kinda.

Not quite. The observer doesn't have to be a conscious entity, the photons etc don't know they are being observed.

but they also don't know they're not being observed. they don't know anything, they're photons.

Which was my point.

People seem to think the term observer implies physically 'seeing' something happen. It doesn't.

Indeed, an event only has to take place in an environment upon which it has an effect - that's the 'observation' bit...

[Incredible Sulk]

EDLT said:

Comb-over-pony-tail had the most annoying laugh I've ever heard.

How True. When I heard him I thought it was Dr. Evil..................