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.
Nonsense, of course you can. You misunderstood Heisenberg’s uncertainty. End of the story.
Yeah, QuantumSparkle, as they write in the Bible: “Assuming a position of moral indignation is not recommended for any but the most experienced blogmen, and even then the donning of kid gloves is advised. This is because any overt display of sanctimony or outrage is vulnerable to a simple condescension play or, worse, a keep-your-hair-on counter.”
I’m nearly cured, maybe just a few posts and I’m cured for ever. It’s really so predictable, including the
simplesnappy and clever keep-your-hair-on-counter from jumbofish.Is it just me, or does Vindicare start to make even less sense the more defensive and flustered he becomes?
Of course you can *what*? Make perfect measurements? Nope. Fundamentally nope.
Wait, a second… you didn’t care about the physics at all, did you? I knew it! You just wanted to find some way to say “I win”? If you wanted to bow out without looking like a sore person-who-doesn’t-know-everything (not an insult- nobody knows everything), you should’ve said, “Hey, nevermind. This is boring.”
But instead of trying to understand my response (and perhaps learn something), you just said essentially, “nu-uh, you’re wrong. Of course you can*! IwinIwinIwin! Haha you’re stupid!”. So uncurious.
Disappointing.
“Is it just me, or does Vindicare start to make even less sense the more defensive and flustered he becomes?”
You’re not alone.
Though, seriously QuantumSparkle, the physics stuff is damn interesting. And I only have a VERY VERY NARROW understanding of it all. (Actually, true story, I took a Philosophy of Science course, which dealt with philosophical questions/debates surrounding Science. The professor actually played a clip from “What the (Bleep) Do We Know?”. Oy. But I at least I learned of Karl Popper and Thomas Khun, which is a plus).
Sometimes, vindicare I like to imagine myself as a slice of pie too. *pats you on the back*
Agreed. No idea what that last post was about. And I’m almost certain that wasn’t in the Bible.
Clearly vinicare is the “atheist” of science, as he is steadfastly refusing/ questioning what’s taught in all the universities through textbooks. Vindicare’s science is revolutionary and cutting edge.
You know that bit in every movie with robots where the robot breaks and starts to babble gibberish before slowly going silent? That’s what Vindicare’s last post reads like.
The Bible of Internet Arguments, you fools!
Ah… blah…
Griffiths, D. J.: Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (yeah… the for Dummies book 😉 ) p. 19:
“Like position measurements, momentum measurements yield precise answers – the “spread” here refers to the fact that measurements on identically prepared systems do not yield identical results.”
And we circle ALLL the way back to what? Was it Vindicare that started off with Derailing for Dummies or was that some other troll? It gets so hard to keep them straight when they are uniformly tedious.
Vindicare’s about to devolve into ARGLEBARGLE goo any second now.
Arguing from the for Dummies books, really? At least you know your level.
Wait, everybody, Vindicare invoked “end of the story.” That means we have to stop talking, right?
Daiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisy, daiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisy, give me your an-swer…do…
Other commenter may actually work in scientific research, but he has a For Dummies book!
(This is the part where he starts to make random bleeping noises and spin in a circle.)
“Ahem, if you mean me… most interesting woman (feminist!) in the world”
I should just say most interesting feminist.
I don’t always mock misogyny, but when I do I do it on manboobz.
Yay! I love reading the random derails on this blog (LOTR was really interesting the other day). I thought I’d contribute to one for a change.
Oh, actually, Griffiths is a really decent undergraduate textbook- it’s not the ultimate reference text or anything, and it’s uses some simplifications, but it’s a valid text. And yes, that’s actually a real quote from the Griffiths.
Vindicare: The last question was better. This one’s just tedious nit-picking, but I went ahead and cross checked with Merzbacher and Landau/Lifshitz, since Griffiths is not a reference text.
Fine, yes, technically Heisenberg uncertainty places no formal upper limit to the precision of your measurements, but infinite precision? Zero uncertainty in the position must necessarily imply infinite uncertainty in the momentum, but Is 0*infinity >= hbar/2 ? 0*infinity is undefined even in mathematics, so is it actually > or = some number? It’s totally nonsensical to talk about infinite precision, especially considering it’s totally impossible to achieve in the real world.
It’s debatable whether Heisenberg uncertainty prohibits infinitely precise measurements, but it’s kind of a stupid point since physics cannot be applied to stuff that isn’t real and measureable. Once again, physics is an empirical science, and theoretical implications that cannot be tested do not belong in the realm of physics. And infinite precision? Profoundly untestable.
My broader point still stands. And because infinite precision doesn’t make any sense in the real world, where real physics happens, it doesn’t matter if your minor infinite-limit quibble is right. When you asked
I naturally assumed you meant POSSIBLE results. And in real life, you make measurements with uncertainties. Always. But whatever. You’re super pedantic in trying to prove me wrong, and it’s getting more and more tedious and desperate.
@CassandraSays:
So what’s wrong with the For Dummies series? Just because it makes the physics understandable and accessible, that doesn’t mean it’s scientifically inaccurate, ok?
@pillowinhell:
Where did I imply that you weren’t getting the reference? Where?
Could you quote me please, where I did say anything against feminism? I can’t imagine that I did, I’m a pro-feminist who is actively supportive of feminism and of efforts to bring about gender justice and equality.
Oh, snap! That one uses the word “discrete” like in discrete energy levels of the harmonic oscillator.
Clearly the text failed to make physics understandable and accessible to at least one reader (you), since you still seem a bit confused. It’s true that in your case this is probably not because of any issue with the text itself, though.
Now go make your tedious rape jokes somewhere else. While on your way there, contemplate the fact that no one is going to take your claims of being pro-feminist seriously as long as you keep making rape jokes. If you’re going to gaslight you really need to be smarter about it.
Can we just drop all the logic bombs on the trollbot already? I wanna see the sparks fly.
Hey Vindicare: This statement is untrue. Calculate pi to the final digit. Why did the dead baby cross the road? What is love?
And I’m the Tooth Fairy.
@hellkell: I just had jaw surgery. Is there some sort of Tooth Fairy compensation for that?
Vindicare: Jesus, the joke was a frickin reference to Starling’s “Schrödinger’s Rapist”, you didn’t get that?
We got that. It wasn’t funny, and you decided to reinforce failure. Rarely a good option, and a damnfool one when the audience has experts in the field.
But hey, if you want to keep fucking the chicken, we’ll make more popcorn.
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.
No. There is reason. I don’t expect you to see it, but there is reason.
You are an ass. That’s the reason. If you’d made a joke, and no one got it, the smart thing to do would be to let it go. Move on. They can’t all be winners.
But you didn’t. In part because it wasn’t a joke. It was an attack (on the idea of Shrödinger’s Rapist), dressed as if it were a joke (this is your idea of supporting feminism).
So you could do what you did, and claim we didn’t have a sense of humor; which made us blind to, “the joke”.
We didn’t let you play by that script. We called you on it, and made reference to the stupid way you tried to defend it by trying to make the thought problem a real thing, in the macro-level.
And now you are butt-hurt because you don’t like the jokes being made at your expense.
Sucks to be you. I’m ok, though; I put truffle oil on the popcorn.
Vindicare: Nonsense, of course you can. You misunderstood Heisenberg’s uncertainty. End of the story.
Oh, well that explains it then. Thanks for clearing that up.
Will you be publishing the GUT this afternoon? Or waiting for the weekend?