That I've got no problem with. I just worry about us getting ahead of them before that time It's a very, very cool subject and I love to discuss the possibilities on a hypothetical level, but cable TV and others haven't done us any favors by making that "if" obscure rather than obvious.
Right. Exactly. They can be. There is no proof they exist in all states at once. It is only proof of.uncertainty -yuri
Actually there it gets kind of weird. They've shot photons a single particle at a time and got the same wave pattern, it interfered with itself. That doesn't seem to be proof that it is in all places at once but it does seem to show that it can be in at least two places at once.
Or it proves that observation interferes. Or that the electron could be made out of more smaller particles interfering with eachother. I don't see any hard proof of duality. Its still speculation One thing people seem to forget is that these experiments are done on earth. There are tons of forces affecting things at the quantum level including ones we haven't discovered yet. Remember neutrinos? I think we are forgetting about uncertainty and assuming duality -yuri
Fair enough, I don't know if they've got it proved or not but those are pretty good suggestions and I don't care enough to research it and check Maybe someone else will look it up but even if it is shown somehow that's not a bad job of considering the possibilities.
Exactly. Come back when this benefits me. Where is my soda that can be both healthy and unhealthy at the same time until I drink it and change the outcome?! -yuri
Ah hell, you talked me into it. No soda though. Reputable source and such though the article doesn't seem to be conclusive. Not to me anyway. But I thought you might enjoy it. Now I'm going to go take a nap. http://phys.org/news7144.html
Literally, the entire point of the experiment is proving that things act in crazy ways according to whether or not they are being observed, which is essentially the basis of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. If you failed to acquire that information from the video you probably don't know what you're talking about, sorry.
Thing is, if you're not observing something.. why believe it is acting any different than when you observe it? That's the big issue. I can say that a dog meows like a cat when its not being observed, but barks when it is being observed.. and there is no way to prove that right or wrong.
Personally I suspect Yuri might be wrong about the particle in two places at once thing, but that's not the same as claiming the experiment proved it, it's just my opinion based on the weirdness of quantum mechanics in other respects which are proved such as quantum tunneling. In proved ways it doesn't act like anything else we understand, that makes what's suspected seem more plausible even if not proved. The reason I didn't press that point (one reason anyway) is that when I thought about it I remembered scientists saying it appears to be in two places at once, not it is in two places at once. Different claims. To make an example outside of the quantum world, without understanding gravitational lensing a famous Hubble photo would appear to show multiple galaxies instead of mirrored ones, and so on. Being stubborn in the face of consensus and evidence like the creationists do is just annoying as hell, but pointing out that the scientists are still debating it so why are we so sure is something I like to see. I'd rather skeptical than gullible even when I am the target of that skepticism. A favorite quote of mine is actually lifted from the Introduction to the Scientific Method document at Rochester, it states "As a famous scientist once said, 'Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view'". That's why we have the method in the first place. Logical arguments and reasons to believe are good reason to explore more and try to find proof. They aren't proof in themselves. Yuri, sorry I ducked out earlier, should have either skipped that post or followed through better but I was tired. Wife has hand problems and we normally have some good Sour Bubble but not anymore so she's taking more pain meds, she sleeps like a baby but snores, so I don't We need some good indica, something to help cut down on her pain meds. In any case if you wanted to pursue the discussion I'd be willing to now that I'm a bit more with it. Edit because apparently I can't spell names right. Sorry about that Yuri
There actually is a finite probability, albeit a rather small one , that a 7 gram container of Sour Bubble in Denver will suddenly vanish from the shelf of a particular dispensary and appear on your kitchen table. Better check it out.
As someone who plays trading card a hobby let me.just say that possibility is irrelevant Lots of things could happen, bit they probly wont -yuri
No sign of it here either unless one of my dogs ate it. All they do is lay around and sleep anyway so I'm not sure how I'd tell the difference.
Ah, but the point is, "all quantum states corresponding to all possible values of a (*tangibly) given observable within a quantum system" are arbitrarily presupposed (and presumed) in the MATHEMATICS by the cognizant subject (there being no TANGIBLE evidence which actually demonstrates that 'all' quantum states corresponding to 'all' possible values of a given or a designated observable, within a quantum system, exist at the same exact time; such an assertion being, so to speak, *tangibly untestable). In other words, a percipient, a physicist may arbitrarily start his demonstration of a state of affairs (or his measurement of a state of affairs) at a designated moment or state, and then go on to conclude it at another, whilst (himself, a cognizant subject) asserting that, "in-between" these two discrete moments or states, there are an infinite amount of possibilities (or better yet, an infinite amount of actual possibilities) existing at the same exact time, without actually having any TANGIBLE evidence of this being so or the case; for, in such a scenario or state of affairs, the only TANGIBLE (and not MATEMATICAL-abstract-cognitive) evidence such a physicist would have is of the two discrete and actual moments he perceptually designates (i.e., the cat being in the box; and then, the cat either being alive or dead);- nothing else.