/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11689302

42KiB, 777x481, Cloud-of-Atoms-with-Pairs-of-Entangled-Particles-777x481[1].jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Rubidium capable of mass scale quantum entaglement at high temperatures.

Zweistein !!JKvYU4Nb6DE Tue 19 May 17:10:59 2020 No.11689302 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11689802 >>11689861 >>11690158

Rubidium capable of mass scale quantum entaglement at high temperatures, bringing back the posibility that brains are quantum computers.

https://newatlas.com/physics/15-trillion-atoms-quantum-entanglement/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 19:17:13 No.11689798 Report

Quoted By: >>11689851 >>11690725

Interesting piece for the free will vs determinism debate

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 19:17:54 No.11689802 Report

Quoted By: >>11689851 >>11689858

>>11689302

Quantum entanglement is a meme.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 19:29:36 No.11689851 Report

Quoted By: >>11689894 >>11690362 >>11691774 >>11692952

Why does this bring back the possibility that brains are quantum computers?
Why was this possibility ever "dead" and in need of being "brought back"?
>>11689798
Why is this an interesting piece for the free will vs determinism debate?
>>11689802
How is quantum entanglement a meme?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 19:30:46 No.11689858 Report

Quoted By:

>>11689802
>>>/x/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 19:31:48 No.11689861 Report

Quoted By: >>11691774

>>11689302
i dunno about you man but i'm p sure my brain isn't made of rubidium

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 19:39:22 No.11689894 Report

Quoted By: >>11689942 >>11690725

>>11689851
You could take the deterministic side because everything can technically be calculated, but you could also take the free will side since we could be composed of a quantumly-entangled system which is only a set of probabilities and not completely calculable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 19:50:11 No.11689942 Report

Quoted By: >>11689945 >>11690071

>>11689894
And how exactly does quantum mechanics break determinism? Are you implying repeating the same measurement in the same conditions would yield different results?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO superposition mit lecture 2 fact (...).png, 1MiB, 1340x758

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 19:51:19 No.11689945 Report

Quoted By: >>11689982

>>11689942
Quantum mechanics is not deterministic

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 20:00:10 No.11689982 Report

Quoted By: >>11689989 >>11690153

>>11689945
>MIT OCW
So you don't have formal maths training... also, QM does not disprove determinism. Posting a screenshot of a "to-do" list for a lecture isn't going to change that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 20:01:29 No.11689989 Report

Quoted By: >>11690249 >>11690811

>>11689982
>So you don't have formal maths training...
I have a degree in mathematics
Posting an image on an imageboard is the purpose of imageboards and is not indicative of the formal education of the poster. Why would you even assume that?
>also QM does not disprove determinism
False

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 20:22:31 No.11690071 Report

Quoted By:

>>11689942
>Are you implying repeating the same measurement in the same conditions would yield different results?

Yes. At a quantum level we only get probabilities of results rather than a single, determined result for a given input.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 20:48:14 No.11690153 Report

Quoted By: >>11690249

>>11689982
>QM does not disprove determinism
>>>/x/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 20:50:14 No.11690158 Report

Quoted By: >>11692671 >>11693062

>>11689302

If we can establish an entanglement equilibrium by providing energy it could be possible to indefinetly stabilize a large sample of entangled atoms. What applications could come out from this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 21:15:16 No.11690249 Report

Quoted By: >>11691804 >>11692047 >>11693173

>>11689989
>>11690153
How would you go about showing it disproves determinism then? It is impossible to reproduce measurements with the exact same initial conditions, so it is more likely that is is just a chaotic dynamical system. The Heisenberg experiment only verifies that it is chaotic, not that it is nondeterministic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 21:46:08 No.11690362 Report

Quoted By:

>>11689851
See >>11678599

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 23:17:31 No.11690725 Report

Quoted By: >>11693808

>>11689798
>>11689894
Not really. Replacing deterministic mechanisms with non-deterministic ones in no way implies the existence of an 'authoring meta-self' which can precede those mechanisms. Either way, we're still a product of things we don't control.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 23:51:38 No.11690811 Report

Quoted By: >>11690818

>>11689989
True brainlet right here everyone

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 May 2020 23:52:52 No.11690818 Report

Quoted By:

>>11690811
How so?

Zweistein !!JKvYU4Nb6DE

Zweistein !!JKvYU4Nb6DE Wed 20 May 2020 06:43:44 No.11691774 Report

Quoted By: >>11693600

>>11689851
The apparent physical impossibility was a rather strong argument against.
>>11689861
There is a surprising amount of rubidium in the body.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 May 2020 07:07:25 No.11691804 Report

Quoted By: >>11692039

>>11690249
>so it is more likely that is is just a chaotic dynamical system.
try actually studying QM instead of speculating

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 May 2020 09:41:05 No.11692039 Report

Quoted By: >>11692701

>>11691804
Top-tier autism. How is studying QM going to help when this is a question of interpretations. Do you even know what the field pertains to? Do you think physics students just sit in class and jack each other off to expected values of stationary states and universal consciousness?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 May 2020 09:45:42 No.11692047 Report

Quoted By: >>11692058

>>11690249
>not that it is nondeterministic
watch 20min, then kys
https://youtu.be/lZ3bPUKo5zc?t=11m

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 May 2020 09:53:49 No.11692058 Report

Quoted By:

>>11692047
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 May 2020 15:01:36 No.11692671 Report

Quoted By:

>>11690158
Self assembling quantum computers?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 May 2020 15:11:27 No.11692701 Report

Quoted By: >>11693229

>>11692039
if you actually studied QM you would know that all deterministic “””interpretations””” of it are schizo nonsense

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 May 2020 16:33:00 No.11692952 Report

Quoted By:

>>11689851

This guy is asking the real questions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 May 2020 17:04:53 No.11693062 Report

Quoted By:

>>11690158
Spinning a torus of mass entangled rubidium would would warp the fuck out of local spacetime.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 May 2020 17:38:07 No.11693173 Report

Quoted By: >>11693264

>>11690249
>le hidden variables theory
Bell's theorem my dude

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 May 2020 17:50:24 No.11693229 Report

Quoted By:

>>11692701
Embarrassing post.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 May 2020 17:58:33 No.11693264 Report

Quoted By:

>>11693173
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism I wasn't talking about independent states.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 May 2020 19:21:48 No.11693600 Report

Quoted By:

>>11691774
>0.36g+-0.09g is a lot of rubidium

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 May 2020 20:03:29 No.11693808 Report

Quoted By:

>>11690725
Was gonna post this.
The concept of a 'ghost in the machine' will always be incoherent and simply a wish or projection imposed on reality for whatever complicated reason.
And I always dislike the readiness at which *purely science orientated types will make their own philosophical judgements as though they had some understanding or even actual interest.
Philosophy has been ruined due the enforced mingling of the two and shamed for not looking the exact same although rather ironically science is the one paling in comparison to the immense weight and scale of philosophizing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 00:10:29 No.11694606 Report

Quoted By: >>11694756

It is very annoying how pop sci and even science personalities keep describing entanglement as spooky action at a distance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 May 2020 01:06:21 No.11694756 Report

Quoted By:

>>11694606
I'm still confused as to what entanglement is
>take two motorized gyros and attach them togheter
>put it in a box
>spin them up (one will be spinning one way, the other the exact opposite direction)
>measure direction of rotation for one
>instantly know the direction of rotation of the other.
except for quantum mechanical system the result is random and measurements have a significant effect on what's being measured, is this at all correct?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches