They talk about warping space as a method of going faster than the speed of light, but it seems that space warps whenever there is motion, so maybe the math is just a little off or just not reflected in speech, or the connection isn't made in physicists heads.
Now this is the one that was wrong based on facts on hand. An argument for why time is not a dimension is applicable to making space not dimensional as well.
Now you border on something that begins to make sense with the only one speed bit, but here is an observation for you: An object at motion is also an object at rest.
Well that bit about clocks was helpful... in the sense that it jogged something in my mind that allowed me to find an article that explains the clock situation and how it doesn't have anything to do with gravity. So your article's assessment of the countertheory is wrong. https://www.quora.com/Does-acc...
From the article:
1. It would take more than eight minutes for changes (caused by its motion around the Milky Way galaxy) in the sun's gravity to reach the earth and even longer for the more distant planets.
2. So the earth's orbit around the sun would depend on where the sun was eight minutes ago, the time it takes changes in the gravitational field to reach the earth, and not on where it is now.
3. This is not observed.
So how is what would be observed given 1 and 2 be different from what is observed?
First, the United States is not a monolithic entity. Second, educational standards across the country and over time are different, and lately have been generally regarded as poor. Third, 9/11 happened and many people think that everyone getting a trophy affects kids more than being raised by parents affected by this tragedy and the subsequent clamp-down by US authoritarians.
When they describe quantum computers they mostly ignore trying to describe operations and throw the word superposition in front of 0 and 1. Only, superposition, it turns out, has a mathematical meaning, one that has to do with wave functions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So qubits apparently involve encoding of functions, not just states.
Well when you are talking about waves, it's generallly better to talk about areas. But we're talking at this point about the double-slit experiment and how from my experience it isn't explained very well. Subsequent science seems to support a wavicle model, but the experiment remains poorly explained. The limitations in most languages can be highly alleviated by how one couches one's terms.
I found that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... answered questions I had better than the one on quantum superposition, possibly because the latter requires the reader to understand concepts in this one in order to understand it.
Nothing you have said indicates that I have failed. Perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote. This would not be entirely your fault, not because I am somehow so brilliant, but that I seem to have a completely different take on reality than other people. But both I and everyone else is still here, so neither of us is entirely wrong.
Not sure what is happening, but one explanation I've come up with that is consistent with science from other sources is that when matter encounters space, space curves. Now people seem to think that space springs back after the matter passes, but what if there is a deformation left on space that future particles interact with?
Above I said an experiment has never been explained very well. Then a bunch of people made a bunch of extremely unhelpful replies.
Your statement makes sense, and is pretty much topical and if people feel they don't understand it, could stand to read it several times until they get a better understanding. Better yet they should take a moment and think through what a good question might be and ask it.
The conclusion, "two places at once" is as good a layman's description as we're going to come up with; does not follow from the premise, since we can't observe it's position before we.... observe it, and it's position can only be defined as a probability of being in a certain set of locations.
I haven't seen any evidence to suggest anyone has actually measured an electrons location and velocity at a given time to absolute accuracy. That's a problem I have with much of the surrounding physics claims.
Oh, physics breaking things. I'm so scared. Wait, no I'm not. What have you got against "physics breaking things"? From what I've been able to figure out however is that nothing, electrons included, are all that well defined.
All the comments so far are just people who like to type and do nothing at all to clear matters up and for that matter don't seem to understand the experiment themselves. The Wikipedia article, for that matter speaks of an experiment involving light, not electrons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well, of course I've heard of it. How would I be saying that nobody explains the experiment in a way that makes sense if I hadn't heard of it. You have some serious reading comprehension issues.
The two of you seem to have an odd definition of what an apartment and a house is. The main criteria of an apartment is that it is part of an apartment building and can be larger than a given house.
Because the alternative involves you having less to go around for you. You can insist that you don't want to pay for things that have no obvious benefit to you directly but that results in you having less things that do benefit you directly.
Slashdot Mirror
How does any of that require magical thinking? For that matter, define "magical thinking".
They talk about warping space as a method of going faster than the speed of light, but it seems that space warps whenever there is motion, so maybe the math is just a little off or just not reflected in speech, or the connection isn't made in physicists heads.
Perhaps by surveys that ask people how happy they are with it.
As for your more recent stuff, AI neural nets do not model reality, either.
Depending on your definition, pretty much everyone involved with government is Leftist. https://www.reddit.com/r/expla...
Now this is the one that was wrong based on facts on hand. An argument for why time is not a dimension is applicable to making space not dimensional as well.
Now you border on something that begins to make sense with the only one speed bit, but here is an observation for you: An object at motion is also an object at rest.
Well that bit about clocks was helpful... in the sense that it jogged something in my mind that allowed me to find an article that explains the clock situation and how it doesn't have anything to do with gravity. So your article's assessment of the countertheory is wrong. https://www.quora.com/Does-acc...
From the article:
1. It would take more than eight minutes for changes (caused by its motion around the Milky Way galaxy) in the sun's gravity to reach the earth and even longer for the more distant planets.
2. So the earth's orbit around the sun would depend on where the sun was eight minutes ago, the time it takes changes in the gravitational field to reach the earth, and not on where it is now.
3. This is not observed.
So how is what would be observed given 1 and 2 be different from what is observed?
First, the United States is not a monolithic entity. Second, educational standards across the country and over time are different, and lately have been generally regarded as poor. Third, 9/11 happened and many people think that everyone getting a trophy affects kids more than being raised by parents affected by this tragedy and the subsequent clamp-down by US authoritarians.
When they describe quantum computers they mostly ignore trying to describe operations and throw the word superposition in front of 0 and 1. Only, superposition, it turns out, has a mathematical meaning, one that has to do with wave functions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So qubits apparently involve encoding of functions, not just states.
Well when you are talking about waves, it's generallly better to talk about areas. But we're talking at this point about the double-slit experiment and how from my experience it isn't explained very well. Subsequent science seems to support a wavicle model, but the experiment remains poorly explained. The limitations in most languages can be highly alleviated by how one couches one's terms.
I found that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... answered questions I had better than the one on quantum superposition, possibly because the latter requires the reader to understand concepts in this one in order to understand it.
Nothing you have said indicates that I have failed. Perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote. This would not be entirely your fault, not because I am somehow so brilliant, but that I seem to have a completely different take on reality than other people. But both I and everyone else is still here, so neither of us is entirely wrong.
Not sure what is happening, but one explanation I've come up with that is consistent with science from other sources is that when matter encounters space, space curves. Now people seem to think that space springs back after the matter passes, but what if there is a deformation left on space that future particles interact with?
From what I understand, when talking about things as waves, the most accurate layman's term would be that it is spread out over an area.
Above I said an experiment has never been explained very well. Then a bunch of people made a bunch of extremely unhelpful replies.
Your statement makes sense, and is pretty much topical and if people feel they don't understand it, could stand to read it several times until they get a better understanding. Better yet they should take a moment and think through what a good question might be and ask it.
And what was that smashing of keys supposed to clear up? It's not like the article offers any details of the experiment, merely noting that it exists.
The conclusion, "two places at once" is as good a layman's description as we're going to come up with; does not follow from the premise, since we can't observe it's position before we.... observe it, and it's position can only be defined as a probability of being in a certain set of locations.
I haven't seen any evidence to suggest anyone has actually measured an electrons location and velocity at a given time to absolute accuracy. That's a problem I have with much of the surrounding physics claims.
Oh, physics breaking things. I'm so scared. Wait, no I'm not. What have you got against "physics breaking things"? From what I've been able to figure out however is that nothing, electrons included, are all that well defined.
All the comments so far are just people who like to type and do nothing at all to clear matters up and for that matter don't seem to understand the experiment themselves. The Wikipedia article, for that matter speaks of an experiment involving light, not electrons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well, of course I've
heard of it. How would I be saying that nobody explains the experiment in a way that makes sense if I hadn't heard of it. You have some serious reading comprehension issues.
Alright, you have one electron. How do you detect the interference pattern?
I would expect all matter possessing a Higgs boson would generate gravity waves. Which is pretty much all matter.
The two of you seem to have an odd definition of what an apartment and a house is. The main criteria of an apartment is that it is part of an apartment building and can be larger than a given house.
Because the alternative involves you having less to go around for you. You can insist that you don't want to pay for things that have no obvious benefit to you directly but that results in you having less things that do benefit you directly.