0967: Prairie

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
radtea
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:57 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby radtea » Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:47 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:This is important because it is the mis-interpretation of this that results in the whole "conscious observer" issue. An "observation" does not require an actual mind to perceive it. Rather, a particle/wave is "observed" as having certain characteristics whenever it interacts with any other particle/wave in a way that would require it to have those characteristics. As in Eogan's example. if a particle/wave is involved in a collision, then its wavefunction must "collapse" into a subset that is compatible with it having been at that particular time and place and having the particular energy and vector required for the collision. In short, particles observe each other wherever and whenever they interact. It is actually quite difficult to get any large number of particles to interact without collapsing.


This is a nice statement of what's wrong with all quantum interpretations, including Many Worlds and decoherence approaches: they assume what they should be explaining, which is why the unitary classical world is what we are conscious of, when their theories contain nothing like it.

What is this "collision" thing? If we just focus on Schrondinger's equation you'll see no such thing is represented anywhere. All wavefunctions evolve smoothly. Where does the classical world come from? Everrett never explains why we aren't aware of other worlds--he just takes for granted that we aren't. But why aren't we? Components of our initial wavefunction are entangled with different components of the scattering particle's wavefunction, but how come we're only aware of ONE such set of components? Decoherence approaches say we are only aware of quantum effects via what amounts to interference phenomena, and so when they go away we are no longer aware of them, but again, how come?

No quantum interpretation does anything but obfuscate and dance around the fundamental question, which is why we are only aware of the classical world, and why there is an entire phenomenological substrate--the world described by classical physics--that obeys rules (causality, locality) that are not part of the quantum corpus. This is the central mystery, and contra Penrose et al it is clear that consciousness is a purely classical phenomenon: if it wasn't we'd be aware of the quantum world, whereas manifestly we are not.

The question is not "why is the quantum world so weird?" but "why is there a classical world at all?"
Coming on Midsummer's Day to a Web Browser Near You: http://www.songsofalbion.com

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby dp2 » Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:54 pm UTC

I'd much prefer "America the Beautiful" as our national anthem.

Ajonymous
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:07 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Ajonymous » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:11 pm UTC

First reaction was to revoke Randall's pun license, but he'd probably like adding that to his list...

Hinermad
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:21 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Hinermad » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:24 pm UTC

Once coherent waves of grain are developed, can coherent beer be far behind?

Wow. Using "coherent" and "beer" in the same sentence makes me feel weird.

Oktalist
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:13 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Oktalist » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:32 pm UTC

Eogan wrote:What really bugs me is the use of the term "observe". You can't "observe" a photon because photons don't emit other photons. In order to observe a particle, you hit it with other particles and measure what happens after the collision. Just pointing your eyes towards light does nothing. So whenever a physicist says "observe", mentally replace it with "hit with shit".

In related news, observation and entanglement are one and the same thing. When two quantum systems are entangled, they are observing each other. When you observe a quantum system, you and it become entangled with each other. And the equations of QM say nothing about collapsing wavefunctions.

radtea wrote:The question is not "why is the quantum world so weird?" but "why is there a classical world at all?"

You just blew my mind.
philip1201 wrote:Not everything which maps countable infinities onto finite areas is a Lovecraft reference.

Andrusi
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:43 pm UTC
Location: YES TOWN
Contact:

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Andrusi » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:33 pm UTC

dp2 wrote:I'd much prefer "America the Beautiful" as our national anthem.

Isn't it already someone else's national anthem? I know a bunch of our patriotic songs are knockoffs of other countries' patriotic songs.
Not named Dennis Miller.

User avatar
jqavins
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:50 pm UTC
Location: Eastern panhandle, WV

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby jqavins » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:44 pm UTC

nowhereman wrote:[not repostinbg the comic, but that's what I'm responding to directly]

Ouch. LOL, but ouch.
MrGuy wrote:All corn waves are also grain waves.
All grain lasers use grain waves.
Billy has a grain laser.

Does Billy's laser use corn waves?
A.) Definitely
B.) Possibly
C.) Definitely Not
d.) Impossible to determine.

Man, I could make WAY awesomer SAT questions....

Umm, 'fraid not. B and d are equivalent*, so both are borrect, so it's a poor question. Sorry to be so blunt about it.

*Proof (well, explanation) of equivalence:
  • "Possibly" means "maybe and maybe not, but you can't really tell."
  • The final clause of that sentence, "you can't really tell" is precisely synonymous with "Impossible to tell."
  • Since a part of B is the same as d, B implies d.
  • On the other hand, "Impossible to tell" means that it is both impossible to establish and impossible to rule out.
  • Thus, It might be and it might not, which means it is possible.
  • Therefore d implies B.
  • Since both B implies d and d implies B, B and d are equivalent.
  • (A possible interpretation of d is that "it is impossible to determine whether or not it is possible," which seems different, but as this still leaves both Yes and No "in play" it really is not.)
-- Joe
"[Some people don't believe in coincidence, but] I believe in coincidence. Coincidences happen every day. I just don't trust coincidence."
Elim Garak

Jeff S
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:55 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Jeff S » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:57 pm UTC

jqavins wrote:
nowhereman wrote:[not repostinbg the comic, but that's what I'm responding to directly]

Ouch. LOL, but ouch.
MrGuy wrote:All corn waves are also grain waves.
All grain lasers use grain waves.
Billy has a grain laser.

Does Billy's laser use corn waves?
A.) Definitely
B.) Possibly
C.) Definitely Not
d.) Impossible to determine.

Man, I could make WAY awesomer SAT questions....

Umm, 'fraid not. B and d are equivalent*, so both are borrect, so it's a poor question. Sorry to be so blunt about it.


I had the exact same thought. BTW, I love how you faithfully reproduce his change in case from B to d. :lol:

pezguy
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:53 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby pezguy » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:00 pm UTC

Wouldn't that be "gasar" instead of "lasar?" I know for some people here, the more serious question is going to be "Wouldn't that be 'gasar' instead of 'lasar'?"

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Fire Brns » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:11 pm UTC

Sofie wrote:Agriculture is NOT prairie.
Today very little of the original prairies survive, only one to two percent. Much of the land has been turned into agricultural uses, urban areas are moving in, and fires are being suppressed. The genetic and biological diversity of the plants are disappearing. The herds of thousands of buffalo were all but wiped out.

grain itself doesn't grow in praries, that's the tall grass.
2% seems to low, for some other facts I know, the big one: The black plague is kept alive by prarie dog populations in the midwest by moving from colony to colony wiping one at a time out. And genetic diversity pshaw: The Buffalo is an over glorified cow too that tastes too gamey for my liking and most North American animals seem under
developed for survival compared to other continents.

I kept thinking of another song for some reason. America the beautiful makes it funnier.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
ethereal_fire
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:42 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby ethereal_fire » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:13 pm UTC

jqavins wrote:
MrGuy wrote:All corn waves are also grain waves.
All grain lasers use grain waves.
Billy has a grain laser.

Does Billy's laser use corn waves?
A.) Definitely
B.) Possibly
C.) Definitely Not
d.) Impossible to determine.

Man, I could make WAY awesomer SAT questions....

Umm, 'fraid not. B and d are equivalent*, so both are borrect, so it's a poor question. Sorry to be so blunt about it.

*Proof (well, explanation) of equivalence:
  • "Possibly" means "maybe and maybe not, but you can't really tell."
  • The final clause of that sentence, "you can't really tell" is precisely synonymous with "Impossible to tell."
  • Since a part of B is the same as d, B implies d.
  • On the other hand, "Impossible to tell" means that it is both impossible to establish and impossible to rule out.
  • Thus, It might be and it might not, which means it is possible.
  • Therefore d implies B.
  • Since both B implies d and d implies B, B and d are equivalent.
  • (A possible interpretation of d is that "it is impossible to determine whether or not it is possible," which seems different, but as this still leaves both Yes and No "in play" it really is not.)


I was wondering about that.
Be precise. Be creative. Be courageous. Be shameless. Be GISHWHES.

User avatar
jqavins
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:50 pm UTC
Location: Eastern panhandle, WV

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby jqavins » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:21 pm UTC

nowhereman wrote:
Hughes wrote:I...don't think I'm smart enough to understand this one. Not even after reading (more like scanning, really) the Wikipedia article on the Copenhagen Blah Blah Blah Interpretation Words.


The comic itself refers to Quantum Dynamics, and in particular, the idea of a wave function collapse. According to this, all particles (and macroscopic objects, though you will never notice it) behave as waves until they are 'observed' [i.e. interacts with something.] At that point the wave collapses into a single point, the location of the particle.
I nice illustration of this is the so-called "two slit experiment" which can sometimes be found in Physics 101 textbooks. It's usually offered up as a demonstration of particle-wave duality, but also works for wave function collapse.

There are a number of ways to perform the experiment, but the best for current purposes is with an electron emitter. The electrons are aimed at a plate with two parallel slits; beyond the plate is a phosphor screen that glows when electrons hit it. The screen shows an interferance pattern perfectly consistant with wave difraction at the slits, showing that the electrons are a travel as a wave front. Then, coils of wire are placed around each slit in order to determine how many electrons go through each. (A beam of electrons is a form of electric current, so it interacts with the coil through Maxwellian EM mechanisms.) While this works - you can measure the current passing through each slit - it also causes the interferance pattern to dissapear and be replaced by two bright lines consistant with streams of particles passing through the slits. Thus, the electrons are able to behave as waves in one case and particles in another, which establishes the principle of duality. But it is important to note that it is the interaction with the coils that seems to cause the particle behavior; when the electron wave interacts with the coils the wave function collapses into particle beams.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment.

What happens of a single coil is placed arount the two slits together I don't know. Can anyone answer this?
-- Joe
"[Some people don't believe in coincidence, but] I believe in coincidence. Coincidences happen every day. I just don't trust coincidence."
Elim Garak

User avatar
jqavins
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:50 pm UTC
Location: Eastern panhandle, WV

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby jqavins » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:23 pm UTC

Jeff S wrote:I had the exact same thought. BTW, I love how you faithfully reproduce his change in case from B to d. :lol:

Thanks. I like to put in the little touches.
-- Joe
"[Some people don't believe in coincidence, but] I believe in coincidence. Coincidences happen every day. I just don't trust coincidence."
Elim Garak

Zylon
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:37 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Zylon » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:32 pm UTC

radtea wrote:This is the central mystery, and contra Penrose et al it is clear that consciousness is a purely classical phenomenon: if it wasn't we'd be aware of the quantum world, whereas manifestly we are not.

With just the naked eye, we're not any more or less aware of the quantum world than we are of the subatomic, atomic, or molecular worlds either. Therefore you're a loony.

User avatar
ethereal_fire
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:42 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby ethereal_fire » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:34 pm UTC

I don't know about the USA's amber waves of grain. (Freaking heck people, America is bigger than just your one country! There's a whole lot of us here both north and south of you that are still part of America!!!... though I guess since that line is from "America The Beautiful" it includes all of us not just the USA :D Now what was I saying...). I don't know about the USA's amber waves of grain, but if there's a grain laser to be built than Saskatchewan has the advantage. The whole province is one giant grain field and is bigger than Oregon, Nebraska, or Kansas. About the size of the 3 states put together maybe, but given that it's prairies extend into Manitoba and Alberta its gonna win in size. So look out USA, Canada's grain laser might take out your Northern states while you fight amoungst yourselves! (And if we get Mexico to help us from the south you are so screwed. Introducing Mexicada! Meanwhile the USA becomes the United states of Alaska and Hawaii. :D hehehe, just kidding. Don't take offense now. :roll: )

Also I agree with Sophie that:
Sofie wrote:Agriculture is NOT prairie.

Pretty sure Canada's still got real prairies, however, for the purpose of grain lasers, I'm not sure it matters whether its a natural field or a man made one...
Be precise. Be creative. Be courageous. Be shameless. Be GISHWHES.

perlhaqr
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:22 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby perlhaqr » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:35 pm UTC

Ooooooh. I'd always wondered what a "graser" was. Now I know.

I heard Kansas was trying to weaponise their remaining bison, though, into a sort of counter-grazer.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Kit. » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:39 pm UTC

jqavins wrote:
MrGuy wrote:All corn waves are also grain waves.
All grain lasers use grain waves.
Billy has a grain laser.

Does Billy's laser use corn waves?
A.) Definitely
B.) Possibly
C.) Definitely Not
d.) Impossible to determine.

Man, I could make WAY awesomer SAT questions....

Umm, 'fraid not. B and d are equivalent*,

Not when we speak about quantum interpretations, where "impossible to determine" has its own specific meaning.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Fire Brns » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:40 pm UTC

ethereal_fire wrote:Don't take offense now. :roll: )
To late my contacts in the dod are enacting the preemptive operation: [redacted] sky.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
ethereal_fire
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:42 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby ethereal_fire » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:40 pm UTC

perlhaqr wrote:Ooooooh. I'd always wondered what a "graser" was. Now I know.

I heard Kansas was trying to weaponise their remaining bison, though, into a sort of counter-grazer.


Nice! Won't help against the Canada graser (see post above), Alberta has bison too. Thanks for the idea though. Gives us an even stronger front.
Last edited by ethereal_fire on Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Be precise. Be creative. Be courageous. Be shameless. Be GISHWHES.

User avatar
drachefly
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:25 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby drachefly » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:41 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I recently read, and now cannot find, a rather amusing bit of fiction about an alternate universe where the Everett (many-worlds) interpretation became dominant before the Copenhagen (waveform-collapse) interpretation did, and the latter is now (in said alternate universe) considered a crazy crackpot theory.


Here it is, starting in the fifth paragraph

So, anyway. Wave-particle duality is shit. It's all waves all the time.
Last edited by drachefly on Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ethereal_fire
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:42 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby ethereal_fire » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:43 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
ethereal_fire wrote:Don't take offense now. :roll: )
To late my contacts in the dod are enacting the preemptive operation: [redacted] sky.


Ahahahaha, you might get Mexico, but Saskatchewan has an aurora entity shielding it. It is the "land of the living sky" after all. :P

Edit: Nice name by the way. Fire Brns and Ethereal_Fire? Sounds good together. How be we team up and over through both our governments? Rule Mexicada together? Any thoughts on the Quebec problem though? If we conquer you they are liable to separate while we're not watching...
Be precise. Be creative. Be courageous. Be shameless. Be GISHWHES.

bscarlet
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:59 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby bscarlet » Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:10 pm UTC

Particles of grain are what, wheatons? Hmm.

descent
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:05 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby descent » Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:16 pm UTC

@radtea

wave function collapse/collision/interaction would really mean that a particle that did not carry information of something that it could possibly carry information about (lets say momentum) acquired that information (from another particle that carried that information) and simultaneously lost information about something else (lets say position), in order to not exceed the maximum information that it could carry.
A particle, in that sense, is just a string of numbers describing the state of some point in space, where the total information carried by that string can never exceed a certain value (and some parts of the string might be blank).

A big lump of matter made of lots of particles can have information of all 'classical' states/properties (rather than just some of them), because the particles in it would be in constant interaction with one another and information of the overall object would be shared between the constituent particles. Simplistically put, if you tied together two particles (== made them interact constantly with one another), one of the particles would carry information of the position of the two-particle object, and the other would carry information of the momentum, and they would be swapping it constantly, leaving you with an object that has both position and momentum - i.e. an object that is more 'classical' than its components.

Me thinks :).
Last edited by descent on Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:45 am UTC, edited 4 times in total.

SamSam
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:00 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby SamSam » Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:24 pm UTC

radtea wrote:No quantum interpretation does anything but obfuscate and dance around the fundamental question, which is why we are only aware of the classical world, and why there is an entire phenomenological substrate--the world described by classical physics--that obeys rules (causality, locality) that are not part of the quantum corpus. [...] The question is not "why is the quantum world so weird?" but "why is there a classical world at all?"


I think that quantum mechanics explains this quite clearly. The answer involves two fundamental properties of quantum mechanics: the size of Planck's constant (i.e., scale) and probability.

All matter, large and small, does behave like a wave and does obey quantum mechanics. The wave associated with every particle defines a probability as to where it may be found at any moment. This notion of probability is a fundamental change in our understanding of the universe, and, at the "quantum" level, the best you can ever say, no matter how precise your measurements are, is that a particular electron has a particular probability of ending up in one location or another. This is what causes the interference pattern in the double-slit experiment, even when you are only firing one photon at a time -- each photon just has a particular probability of ending up at various points on the screen behind.

But the wavelength of this wave that defines this probability is tiny -- Plank's constant, which defines the wave length, is the very smallest constant known to physics. To an electron or a quark, which is also very tiny, this wave is big enough that there is a significant probability that it might be in one place or another. But to a coffee cup, this wave length is so tiny that the probability that it remains it one place is ginormous, and the probability that it jumps to another part of the room is vanishingly small.

Both the macroscopic world and the microscopic world obey the exact same laws of quantum mechanics, but those laws show that big things -- things we can see with our eyes -- tend to move as dictated by "classical" physics. Classical physics says that if a body bounces off another body it will move in direction X. Quantum mechanics says that if a large body bounces off another body, it has 99.99999...% chance of moving in direction X, but as the bodies grow smaller, the probability of it moving in direction Y instead starts to grow. This is why it seems as if classical physics "rules" the macroscopic world that we can see, while quantum mechanics "rules" the microscopic world. In fact, quantum mechanics rules both worlds. But quantum mechanics agrees classical physics at large scales.

User avatar
thedufer
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:11 am UTC
Location: Northern VA (not to be confused with VA)
Contact:

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby thedufer » Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:35 pm UTC

nowhereman wrote:The comic itself refers to Quantum Dynamics, and in particular, the idea of a wave function collapse. According to this, all particles (and macroscopic objects, though you will never notice it) behave as waves until they are 'observed'. At that point the wave collapses into a single point, the location of the particle. So the take off for this comic is that the "Amber waves of grain" have collapsed into Amber particles of grain when they looked upon it.


"Amber fields of grain" collapse into particles upon observation. That's the funny part.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Yakk » Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:37 pm UTC

SamSam: no.
Planck length: ~e-35 meters
Visible light: ~e-7 meters
Human: ~e0 meters

The subatomic world is ridiculously closer to human scales than Planck scales. Planck scales are really, really, really far down. Your just so story, while amusing, is not correct.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

typo
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:12 pm UTC
Location: East of the Don and west of the Rouge

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby typo » Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:50 pm UTC

On The Colbert Report Stephen Colbert is currently using for his opening tagline "From C to silent T". This is another joke based on a line from the same song, which says "From sea to shining sea". Get out of Stephen's head, Randall.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Fire Brns » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:49 pm UTC

ethereal_fire wrote:Edit: Nice name by the way. Fire Brns and Ethereal_Fire? Sounds good together. How be we team up and over through both our governments? Rule Mexicada together? Any thoughts on the Quebec problem though? If we conquer you they are liable to separate while we're not watching...

I look forward to our plans of conquer.
I despise the French, putting that out there so probably scorched Earth policy.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Copper Bezel » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:53 pm UTC

thedufer wrote:"Amber fields of grain" collapse into particles upon observation. That's the funny part.

What? No it's not. Wave is the word, both in the song and in the theory. It helps that both have something to do with fields, but still.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
willpellmn
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:05 am UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby willpellmn » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:56 pm UTC

Thank you for this very pretty and clever comic, Randall. I'm digging your return to the artsier stuff that you did a lot of in the very early days of the comic.

David_CA
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:53 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby David_CA » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:57 pm UTC

Finally an explaination for why Schrödinger had that cat -
Spoiler:
He needed it to catch the mice that either had or had not eaten all his grain.

bhoot
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:12 am UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby bhoot » Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:08 pm UTC

Such a great comic! Simple and really funny. The title text isn't that great, but I still like it.

User avatar
Vash
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:14 pm UTC
Location: The planet Gunsmoke

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Vash » Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:32 pm UTC

I'm disappointed. I expect more from NASA than stick figures shopped on top of a picture of a grain field.

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby dp2 » Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:43 pm UTC

Andrusi wrote:
dp2 wrote:I'd much prefer "America the Beautiful" as our national anthem.

Isn't it already someone else's national anthem? I know a bunch of our patriotic songs are knockoffs of other countries' patriotic songs.

Not that one. Which is all the more reason it should be the anthem. Maybe you're thinking of "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" (God Save The Queen), which was the anthem for a while.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:56 pm UTC

drachefly wrote:So, anyway. Wave-particle duality is shit. It's all waves all the time.

ITYM turtles. HTH. HAND.

User avatar
A_of_s_t
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby A_of_s_t » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:20 pm UTC

nowhereman wrote:
Hughes wrote:I...don't think I'm smart enough to understand this one. Not even after reading (more like scanning, really) the Wikipedia article on the Copenhagen Blah Blah Blah Interpretation Words.


The comic itself refers to Quantum Dynamics, and in particular, the idea of a wave function collapse. According to this, all particles (and macroscopic objects, though you will never notice it) behave as waves until they are 'observed'. At that point the wave collapses into a single point, the location of the particle. So the take off for this comic is that the "Amber waves of grain" have collapsed into Amber particles of grain when they looked upon it.

As for my joke (or poor attempt at one), the Copenhagen interpretation in an over-simplified nutshell is that these waves do not really exist, nor does it make sense to talk of the particle outside or inside the wave. As such, the mathematics is just all there is and there is no underlying reason for the Wave collapse. Contrast this with other popular theories like the many-world theories and the conscious observer theories. The last one is alot of crack pot, but does have a small devoted following.

Ok, thanks for explaining the joke. I thought it had something to do with quantum mechanics, but I couldn't figure it out.
Check out my web interzones powered by Web 3.0 technology running on Mozzarella Foxfire:
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image

wagner
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby wagner » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:39 pm UTC

Heavenslaughing wrote:If we are going to replace 'observe' with 'hit with shit,' I suggest we try creative applications of the reverse, as well. E.g., "What did you just say about the conscious observer theory?"


The conscious observer got hit in the head with shit, and dreamt up his crackpot theory.

SamSam
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:00 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby SamSam » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:54 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:SamSam: no.
Planck length: ~e-35 meters
Visible light: ~e-7 meters
Human: ~e0 meters

The subatomic world is ridiculously closer to human scales than Planck scales. Planck scales are really, really, really far down. Your just so story, while amusing, is not correct.


I'm sorry, but it is correct. My explanation of the wavelength was simplified slightly because the post was already long, but the fact of the matter remains that, for quarks and electrons and whatnot, the wavelike character of their matter causes a massively greater effect on them than it does for more massive particles.

The wavelength of matter is given by the de Broglie equation as wavelength = Plank's constant / momentum.

If you calculate this out, you will find that a photon might have a de Broglie wavelength of about 1e-6 m, while an electron moving fast might have a wavelength of around 1e-9, about a thousand times smaller than that of the photon. (This is why an electron microscope has much higher resolution than an optical microscope.) A baseball, on the other hand, moving at 40 m/s, will have a wavelength that is absurdly small -- about 1e-34 m. This is many, many orders of magnitude smaller than the difference between the electron wavelength and the photon wavelength.

So that will immediately account for the reason you wouldn't see interference patterns when shooting baseballs through double-slits. But what about the uncertainly principle and other things that could be said to be things we don't notice in the macroscopic, "classical physics" world (which is what radtea's post I was originally responding to was asking)?

Well, our uncertainty about a particle's position -- the delta-x in an object's x co-ordinate in Heisenburg's uncertainty principle -- is in fact the de Broglie wavelength of that object. And so there are two factors here: the wavelength of an electron is much, much bigger than that of a baseball, and an electron itself is much, much smaller. So if you are uncertain about the position of an electron such that it could be anywhere with 1e-9 m, that's a very noticeable uncertainty for something so small. If you are uncertain about the position of a baseball so that it could be anywhere within 1e-34 m, that is a tiny, unmeasurable uncertainty. This is why quantum mechanics looks like classical physics at our large, macroscopic scale. And yes, as I have shown it is directly related to Plank's constant being so small. (If it were bigger, the wavelength of the baseball would be bigger.)
Last edited by SamSam on Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Catalyst23
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:38 am UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby Catalyst23 » Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:18 pm UTC

Is Phil Plait involved with this Colorado thing? Also, where can I sign up? My boss is from Kansas and I'd love to take that place out!

mitra
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:02 pm UTC

Re: 0967: Prairie

Postby mitra » Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:22 pm UTC

Randal - don't be lazy on your homework. Particle, by definition, is an entity that have well defined, sharp, unchanging energy spectrum. That's how one can detect particles - by observing interactions again and again at the same, well defined energy levels. And amber waves (even coherent!) do not have that property. Spectrum would be a generic mush, different every time. Not particles by definition.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 93 guests