I have no words:
Is Mr. Sookdeo trolling here? Over on Bronysay, where I found this, someone claiming to know him says he was serious, just a bit “confused.” The questions seem sincere to me. Ugh.
We Hunted The MammothBucking the Backlash
We Hunted The MammothI have no words:
Is Mr. Sookdeo trolling here? Over on Bronysay, where I found this, someone claiming to know him says he was serious, just a bit “confused.” The questions seem sincere to me. Ugh.
Vindicare:
Look, I get it. I called out the bad physics in your not-funny joke, and that made you feel silly, so you want to insult and embarrass me to make yourself look better. It almost makes me think you’re not interested in learning anything here at all 🙁
And, then there’s the fact that every new question you ask that you think will trip me up just displays more errors.
Take note- when you’re making a pedantic argument based on a dictionary definition, it’s always a good idea to check the dictionary first. For example, from the Oxford English Dictionary:
.
Yes, discrete sort of is a synonym for “quantized”, but it’s also a bit more general. It means “non-continuous”. This is important.
It is the word “quantized” that usually means “there are only certain special values which the measurement can give you”. There is a slight semantic difference between “discrete” and “quantized”- in particular I’d argue that “discrete” does not imply any requirement on how a variable is broken up into disjoint units, only that it is. However, that’s a pretty minor semantic quibble- the words are somewhat interchangeable.
“And also implying that entropy could ever do anything but increase” — me noting how Vindicare failed
“I “imply” exactly what the second law says. The entropy of the universe can’t decrease.” — Vindicare reading the exact opposite of what I said
For someone who supposedly understands quantum mechanics, you might’ve paid more attention in English. “could ever do anything but” = “cannot not” or “must only” — you failed by implying entropy could not increase, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t intend to imply entropy could decrease. Also, “implying that entropy could decrease” just felt too silly to say.
Apparently I need to be blunt with the sentient bong hit though.
@Sharculese:
http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/10/10/ableist-word-profile-cretin/
@QuantumSparkle:
Jesus, the joke was a frickin reference to Starling’s “Schrödinger’s Rapist”, you didn’t get that? So now you know. And ask yourself: Why should I bother to get the physics right?
I don’t care that much about discrete vs. quantized, I want to know why this holds (almost certainly a result of misunderstanding Heisenberg’s uncertainty): “the measurement of position is necessarily discrete because of Heisenberg uncertainty”.
@Argenti Aertheri:
No, I objected to what you said.
It’s already quite sad to feel the need to copy Sharculese’s jokes, it’s even sadder to repeat them three times.
Yeah no, I’m pretty sure everyone “got” your joke. They just didn’t think it was funny and proceeded to make fun of you for getting things wrong when you were trying to be all clever. Do you seriously not get that? Also, this post is like a week old and yet you still can’t let it go. Personally I find that kind of hilarious.
And Sharculese, unlike you, actually makes funny jokes which is why calling you a sentient bong hit has caught on. Don’t be jealous dear, it’s not a good look for you.
I don’t remember what brought this thread about but the comments here are the manbooz version of the most interesting man(feminist?) in the world.
Ahem, if you mean me… most interesting woman (feminist!) in the world 🙂
I now predict that Vindicare’s tone towards me will be even more nasty because trolls hate ladies.
@Snowy:
Bart: Don’t you understand??
Milhouse: Yeah… But you say it first.
Ok, all kidding aside, Snowy, I’m sorry, you still don’t get it. Yes, my joke was an (admittedly silly) reference to Schrödinger’s rapist, but look back at the context “First Vindicare fails at thermodynamics […] Any guess for what’s next?” (lauralot89). I hope you understand that my joke was a self-ironic reply to that and so how it’s very weird to correct me.
And why am I still replying to this old thread?
I always thought that the “angry, bitter feminist” was just a nasty stereotype but now that I these “experiences” with people like you. I think it’s just natural to want to sort that out.
@QuantumSparkle:
No, I’m fine with that, for lack of a better word, and it won’t change my tone. You should also remember, that I’m the one who is constantly attacked for no reason.
Haha yeah sure Vindicare. Keep fucking that chicken!
Hey I heard that tune a few days ago with that one troll being all like “Now I really hate feminists and its your fault!!”
Spare me the weird holding yourself hostage threats XD
Why do I suddenly smell gas?
congratulations on digging up someone who disagrees with me vindicare. do you have your own argument to make? are you capable of that? because otherwise i’m just gonna say that on this nebulous point of etymology i’m right and that jobber is wrong.
“The questions seem sincere to me. Ugh.”
It’s amusing that you’d publicly humiliate someone for asking apparently sincere questions. What a good way to facilitate healthy discussion.
Jumbofish, stop being ridiculous, why should it be feminism’s fault that Snowy and Sharculese can’t control their behavior?
Seriously Vinicare. You came here to make a bad rape joke involving schoedingers rapist. Like feminists wouldn’t get the reference? Then you go on to defend your little theory. Then you go on to disparage the entire field of physics for being wrong. With another little rape joke and reference. Then you go back to defending your theory, this time with mathematical theory. Whilst getting slapped down for bad science you trot out your credentials to support your claim. Ect ect…
Seriously dude, if it had been a simple misunderstanding, you’d have stated so early on and or let it drop. Instead, you’ve tried to convince us of your point of view, disparaged feminists for “shreiking” and or selling out the male gender, used a talk show to back up your claims….and now you’re holding yourself hostage to avoid us calling you on sloppy thinking and trying to say that you haven’t been doing what you’ve been doing.
Gas lighting. What is that?
Yup clearly I said that vindicare you got me! I am actually a troll!
Mf7. If by healthy discussion you mean allowing someone to completely derail a discussion so he can publicly fixate on his boner not being happy, then you and I disagree on what constitutes healthy.
Vindicare: But… why wouldn’t you want to get the physics right??? 🙁 I think overanalyzing humor (and non-humor) is very funny, but apparently you think it’s “very weird”.
If you’re actually really interested in the physics sans the trolling and the apparently deeply hurt feelings, there are physics forums online where physicists hang around and discuss this sort of subject. Also, private tutoring rates are usually ~ $25-$50 per hour.
Now, to the physics.
Actually, I’d agree that your question indicates a misunderstanding of some of the more far reaching implications of uncertainty principle as it applies to measurement. I know you meant this to be some sort of gotcha question,
but it’s actually a really good question for understanding measurement in quantum mechanics. The short answer is that the measurement of the position is not quantized in that it can have only certain values; it is, however, discrete because you cannot ever report a particle’s exact position (i.e. Heisenberg). The most you can report is what region a particle was detected in.
Let’s say we’re trying to find the position of an electron in 1 dimension.
A single position measurement always looks like this: “the electron was detected between x0 and x1”, where x0 and x1 are positions on your measurement scale. You can’t make a measurement like this: “the electron was detected at position x0”, because position cannot be established to zero uncertainty. (It’s debatable theoretically what zero uncertainty in momentum would mean, but you won’t be achieving it in any actual experiment, anyways, so who cares?)
For a position measurement, consider a detector consisting of a series discrete (i.e. non-continuous) regions of length |(x0-x1)|, where |(x0-x1)|=delta_x is the uncertainty in the position (are you thinking Heisenberg yet? That’s what guarantees the region width will always be non-zero). A particle’s position is determined by its detection in region 1 or region 2 etc…
That’s how position acts like a discrete variable, even though under the mathematical representation you’re using, the position “x” is a continuous variable. But other mathematical representations, such as one treating space as a discrete variable, would be just as valid if they make all the same observable predictions. There are sometimes multiple mathematical representations of the same experimental phenomena. They predict the same observable science, but they often have wildly different implications. Compare the “Schrodinger picture” and the “Heisenberg picture” of quantum mechanics. It’s awesome and weird.
QUOTE ME! QUOTE ME!
WHERE HAVE I EVER HAD SAID SUCH A THING??
What?
Vindicare…I am you.
I am also your father.