Quantum Physics

[Phoenix]

Thought about hijacking ∞'s thread, but didn't want to derail it too much. So I made this topic to ask a very selfish question:

Can someone explain quantum physics to me in small, kindergarten words? Every time I think I understand part of it, it turns out to be horribly wrong and I feel like an idiot.

My doubt lie primarily with:

1. Things existing as wave functions.
2. How observation makes this wave function collapse into a particle, or however this arcanery works.
3. Quantum superposition. Stop making my head hurt.
4. How can entanglement adhere to the "don't transfer information faster than light please, thank you" law.

Words longer than 3 letters get eaten by C'thulu. Thanks in advance.

[Aegis]

Also, on top of this, could someone please explain how people come to agree with Einstein relativity and yet still believe time exists? How can a constant exist when it's relative?

[Tenyasyugan]

Let's see here... The einstien question i might answer... Time is a constant but the way it acts is dependent on it's surroundings. I think that's how it goes.

[Square Ninja]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Also, on top of this, could someone please explain how people come to agree with Einstein relativity and yet still believe time exists? How can a constant exist when it's relative?

There's something wrong with time being elastic?

[∞]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Thought about hijacking ∞'s thread, but didn't want to derail it too much. So I made this topic to ask a very selfish question:

You bastard. But really, I wouldn't have cared.

Can someone explain quantum physics to me in small, kindergarten words? Every time I think I understand part of it, it turns out to be horribly wrong and I feel like an idiot.

It's kay bro.

My doubt lie primarily with:

1. Things existing as wave functions.

In regards to string theory, or in general?

2. How observation makes this wave function collapse into a particle, or however this arcanery works.

Wish I knew how us 'mere humans' are supposed to be able to look at something and make it suddenly become absolute instead of uncertain. That whole thing seems kind of stupid, but on a higher, as in larger-size level, it makes sense. We can only ascertain what something is by observing it thoroughly and not just guessing or theorising at it's nature, such as with black holes.

3. Quantum superposition. Stop making my head hurt.

As far as I know (which could be inaccurate, but I don't think wrong), it's how an object can not only exist in two different states, possibly simultaneously, but in the same way, exist anywhere between them.

4. How can entanglement adhere to the "don't transfer information faster than light please, thank you" law.

No idea. What's to say something like 'hyperspace' doesn't exist, and the link between entangled objects doesn't just pass through that?

[Phoenix]

In regards to string theory, or in general?

Does it only exist in string theory?

Wish I knew how us 'mere humans' are supposed to be able to look at something and make it suddenly become absolute instead of uncertain. That whole thing seems kind of stupid, but on a higher, as in larger-size level, it makes sense. We can only ascertain what something is by observing it thoroughly and not just guessing or theorising at it's nature, such as with black holes.

But then why do we only observe one state, and not all of them? Why does it collapse?

As far as I know (which could be inaccurate, but I don't think wrong), it's how an object can not only exist in two different states, possibly simultaneously, but in the same way, exist anywhere between them.

And when we look at the object, it innocently exists in only one state while possibly snickering into its hand.

No idea. What's to say something like 'hyperspace' doesn't exist, and the link between entangled objects doesn't just pass through that?

But then you're just replacing one unknown with an even bigger one =/

[∞]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Does it only exist in string theory?

Then I don't see the problem you're having. Things don't exist as wave functions, but exist as strings of varying length and vibrational frequencies which determine what kind of particle they are.

But then why do we only observe one state, and not all of them? Why does it collapse?

I can't help but see this as a 2D-worlder trying to grasp a 3D world. It might be beyond our comprehension to observe something as existing in multiple states, I mean, to an untrained mind that seems nigh on impossible.

And when we look at the object, it innocently exists in only one state while possibly snickering into its hand.

And when we're sleeping, it'll turn itself into the state of a serial killer and murder us in our sleep.

But then you're just replacing one unknown with an even bigger one =/

But it's science fiction and science fiction is awesome.

[Phoenix]

Then I don't see the problem you're having. Things don't exist as wave functions, but exist as strings of varying length and vibrational frequencies which determine what kind of particle they are.

Explain, please.

I can't help but see this as a 2D-worlder trying to grasp a 3D world. It might be beyond our comprehension to observe something as existing in multiple states, I mean, to an untrained mind that seems nigh on impossible.

Then at the very least, I'd expect us to go insane. But it isn't like we can only observe one state, right? It physically collapses. It's not about perception, something in the Universe happens.

And when we're sleeping, it'll turn itself into the state of a serial killer and murder us in our sleep.

Science is scary.

But it's science fiction and science fiction is awesome.

=/

[Square Ninja]

inafterflatland













kek

[∞]

String theory states that every single particle is in fact a miniscule loop of string, a ring of it. It's wobbling and vibrating at a certain frequency, which gives it the properties of a certain currently-observable (or maybe not) particle, such as a qwark. If the string's frequency changes, the properties of the particle change.

[Aqua.]

doesn't even air have string thingies though?

like, in einstein dude's theory of strings and shit, like how you said, the strings where/are gravity or w/e, so everything that moves moves part of that ""space time" shit thingies.

[Square Ninja]

Originally Posted by Aqua.

doesn't even air have string thingies though?

like, in einstein dude's theory of strings and shit, like how you said, the strings where/are gravity or w/e, so everything that moves moves part of that ""space time" shit thingies.

Einstein had nothing to do with String Theory.

[∞]

Originally Posted by Aqua.

doesn't even air have string thingies though?

like, in einstein dude's theory of strings and shit, like how you said, the strings where/are gravity or w/e, so everything that moves moves part of that ""space time" shit thingies.

I don't mean to be rude Aqua, but I have never known you to be intelligent, and certainly not enough for this subject, clearly displayed by the shit you're babbling on about.

EDIT: Oh wait, crappy attempt at trolling.

[Aqua.]

Originally Posted by Square Ninja

Einstein had nothing to do with String Theory.

yes he did! wait i think it was called space time something but maybe im mistaking him for someone else...

well w/e.

it's not shit! you say you want kindergarten words! and infinity boy is speaking in big words! you should be glad im trying to help you in my own dumb easy language!!
oh and no harsh feelings infinity boy.

[∞]

Aqua. By three-letter words, he meant make it simple, not kindergarden-stupid-and-inaccurate like what you're saying. Space-time has a lot to do with virtually any field relating to quantum physics. Einstein was just one of them, mind you, he was a very early one.

Einstein did not make string theory, for the love of God. He had to do with quantum physics and mechanics, which has to do with string theory, but Einstein himself did not develop the concept.