explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1240: Quantum Mechanics

2013-09-01T18:02:09Z

85.164.251.29:

To me, it's not about "probably wrong" it's about irrelevant. QM itself says nothing about anything but quantum (particle component) probable vector(s).
Recent success of Bayesian probability in these regards implies more about lack of "common sense" understanding or meaning, than about subjectivity of universe (as if there was a difference?).
QM is not really knowledge in itself, it's just illuminating math (in a very limited realm).
not wrong, just fuzzy [[User:Monteletourneau|Monteletourneau]] ([[User talk:Monteletourneau|talk]]) 05:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is CueBall talking to? It is not Meg, unless she dyed her hair. [[Special:Contributions/65.215.93.238|65.215.93.238]]
:[[Ponytail]] --[[Special:Contributions/92.230.59.41|92.230.59.41]] 14:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Are "almost" against common sense? I see you don't know much about quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, common sense is about as usefull as in {{w|Alice's Adventures in Wonderland|Alice's Wonderland}}. Possibly less. And that bit about {{w|Quantum tunnelling|going through the wall}} is used in {{w|Flash_memory#NAND_flash|Flash memories}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
:Sure. You can see that people do not understand anything about something because you think you know a lot about that something. WRONG! I know exactly what I was talking about and "almost" was a word that I did not chose lightly.[[User:Claudionico|cinico]] ([[User talk:Claudionico|talk]]) 13:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
It applies to us all - the more you think you know the more wrong you are, the more you actually know, the less right you think you are.
[[User:Monteletourneau|Monteletourneau]] ([[User talk:Monteletourneau|talk]]) 05:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"You can safely ignore any sentence that includes the phrase 'according to quantum mechanics'" Including, of course, that one. [[User:Tbrosz|Tbrosz]] ([[User talk:Tbrosz|talk]]) 16:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

awe some
[[User:Monteletourneau|Monteletourneau]] ([[User talk:Monteletourneau|talk]]) 05:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"Albert Einstein being famously ''wrong''", isn't that a bit subjective? Although there is little evidence supporting the hidden variable theory, it is not out of the question to consider it, Einstein might've been right you know. --[[Special:Contributions/79.160.93.211|79.160.93.211]] 21:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
:Einstein was not ''wrong'', he just was searching to unify relativity mechanics with quantum mechanics. That sentence "God does not play dice" is often misunderstood and in wrong context here. I did remove it.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
::I don't know about ANY evidence supporting {{w|Hidden variable theory}}, on the other hand I heard that {{w|Bell's_theorem|Bell inequalities}} were experimentally tested and results are against Einstein. Wikipedia itself states that "Most advocates of the hidden variables idea ... are ready to give up locality". Einstein {{w|Principle_of_locality|assumed that the principle of locality was necessary, and that there could be no violations of it}}. Are you seriously saying that someone managed to put their subjective position into that many articles on wikipedia? ; The point of "wrong content" may be more valid, especially considering that Einstein probably was able to understand quantum mechanics, just didn't believe it. It would be very interresting what he would say about the issue if he wouldn't died 9 years before the Bell inequalities were formulated. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Exactly! The EPR paper does not claim that QM is wrong, it just points out the (to Einstein paradoxical) consequences of entanglement. In the same way you can claim that Schroedinger said QM was wrong, because of his famous thought experiment involving an angry cat (he made up the example to criticize the kopenhagen interpretation of "his" wave mechanics).[[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 18:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I recall hearing an argument along these lines... Something about the "fact" that a dog observing a quantum wave form will cause it to collapse, thus the observer is "conscious", and thus has a "soul". How exactly you explain all the misnomers in that set of assumptions, let alone test the hypothesis to begin with, I've no clue. Can we train monkeys to read particle detectors? And what consequence might this have for Schrodinger's poor cat? ;) [[Special:Contributions/99.42.81.32|99.42.81.32]] 06:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how they managed to actually prove dogs can collapse quantum wave form, but I'm definitely sure that if dog can do that cat can too. Remember that {{w|Schrödinger's cat}} was THOUGH experiment, we don't know if someone really tried it (unless {{w|Cheshire Cat|Lewis Carol did}}). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dog = soul, cat does not, it's proven all right!
Isn't it right there in the equation?
I thought S = soul???
Besides, the bible (NO the devil) tol' me so.
[[User:Monteletourneau|Monteletourneau]] ([[User talk:Monteletourneau|talk]]) 05:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this not a reference to the Einstein quote that a mouse wouldn't change the universe by observing it? (In German: "Ich kann mir nicht denken, daß eine Maus das Universum verändert, dadurch, daß sie es betrachtet"){{unsigned ip|91.45.17.43}}

Talk:1206: Einstein

2013-09-01T08:16:26Z

85.164.251.29:

I think left Cueball was just trolling. [[Special:Contributions/81.23.24.48|81.23.24.48]] 05:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Disproving Einstein" is usually thought to be disproving special or general relativity theory --[[Special:Contributions/83.20.253.13|83.20.253.13]] 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

: I am pretty sure the joke is that disproving anything Einstein said is "disproving Einstein". [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 09:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

:Wasn't the "disproving special or general relativity theory" already sort of done with quantum physics? Or do we only suspect that but lack the actual proof until we have confirmed {{w|Quantum_gravity|Quantum gravity}}? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hakmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

::In physics an experimentally likely theory is disproved by making an experiment that gives different results than the theory predicts. As none of the theories of relativity say anything about the statistical properties of electrons and photons, quantum experiments do not really disprove relativity. If you could measure gravitation on atomic scales you might, but there are no guarantees, as it might behave as relativity predicts, which would mean that some part of quantum field theory is either wrong, or not yet discovered (interestingly nine fold SUSY with local invariance might still reproduce general relativity at large scales, the theorists are still calculating). Generally, one wants to modify quantum theory, and keep relativity as it is (in a way what string theory does) and not the other way around.[[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 08:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or did Cueball travel back in time to 1947? That would certainly be a bigger way to disprove Einstein than to go after his opinion of sandwich shoppes. -- [[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]]
:<code><nowiki>{{Like}}</nowiki></code> [[User:PinkAmpersand|PinkAmpersand]] ([[User talk:PinkAmpersand|talk]]) 19:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

;LOL, wrong patent
:''Moved from [[Talk:Main Page#LOL, wrong patent|Talk:Main Page]] -- [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 04:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC) ''
I googled patent number 39561 and got [http://www.google.com/patents?id=EA0AAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false this], which is a patent for carriage wheels, not a gravel sorter. I'm like, "You bet Einstein was wrong if he called that a gravel sorter!" Then I realized that he wasn't a patent clerk in the US patent office, but rather the Swiss. --[[Special:Contributions/138.67.184.240|138.67.184.240]] 03:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
:I googled "patent 39561 gravel sorter". [https://www.diigo.com/item/image/3edhj/qcu0 Screenshot]. Notice that first 9 links are about this comic xD --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 22:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
:The Swiss Patent Office has a FAQ page, which also includes a link to [https://www.ige.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Institut/d/i109401.pdf Patent 39561 Gravel Sorter] Full FAQ: [https://www.ige.ch/en/about-us/einstein/frequently-asked-questions.html Swiss Patent Office]--[[User:Philster|Philster]] ([[User talk:Philster|talk]]) 12:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Has terminology changed since Einstein was an examiner. Provisional patents are not reviewed for patentability {{unsigned ip|96.248.90.153}}

I think part of the joke is that by "I am currently...", Cueball is describing what he is doing right now in the diner, i.e. eating a sandwich. [[Special:Contributions/94.101.35.45|94.101.35.45]] 11:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1050: Forgot Algebra

2013-08-30T20:44:51Z

85.164.251.29:

Actually, I always use Megan's argument whenever I'm in World History Class.--[[User:Castriff|Jimmy C]] ([[User talk:Castriff|talk]]) 21:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It allways seems strange to me that there are places in the world where preparing your own meals is not an everyday task to most people. Living in Norway it just seems extremely decadent![[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 20:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:916: Unpickable

2013-08-29T07:11:19Z

85.164.251.29:

2x2 rubik's cubes are harder. Just sayin'. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This would likely be found in the residence of my colleague ['''REDACTED'''], as he has a collection of odd Rubik's Cube clones.{{unsigned|173.72.159.14}}

I solve the cube with corner pieces and edge pieces in separate steps, so I find 2x2s harder. I just have to do the corner steps. 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC){{unsigned|184.11.73.88}}

2x2s are certainly not harder than any other Rubik's cube by ANY standard. As the corners of any Rubik's cube have the same rotational moves, you have to solve a 2x2 at some point when solving any cube. 4x4 is harder than 5x5 though, because you can rotate away the middle pieces.[[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 07:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:764: One Two

2013-08-25T09:03:19Z

85.164.251.29: Created page with "I believe this is also a reference to the discworld universe, where the trolls have a base three number system which is mistaken to be primitive by most (basically one, two, m..."

I believe this is also a reference to the discworld universe, where the trolls have a base three number system which is mistaken to be primitive by most (basically one, two, many, many-one, many-two, many-many and so on)[[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 09:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:702: Snow Tracking

2013-08-24T13:11:54Z

85.164.251.29:

The title-text could also be a reference to Bugs Bunny, many episodes had such play-on-words as title.
("A witch's tangled hare", "A Feather in his Hare", "Compressed Hare", many more...) {{unsigned|‎Gegueure}}

It could be mentioned that the Higgs signature shown is probably a Higgs->top anti-top/bottom anti-bottom->jet-jet signature, and most certainly not the clearest observed channel right now of Higgs->gamma gamma (as there is no neutral signature, which would be a track appearing some space from the center, and there are clearly two jets to be seen). This is a difficult channel to observe, and is much more important in higher Higgs mass regions than the now observed, where b-bbar is present, but gamma gamma is much easyer to observe.[[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 13:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:564: Crossbows

2013-08-23T17:48:00Z

85.164.251.29:

Is there ''any'' evidence for involvement of velicoraptors in this comic?[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 17:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
:I did add the incomplete tag. Physicists are unsure on gravity? I also can't see any hints for Velociraptors at the comic. The explain does need a major review. When I have enough time I will give a try.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The "explanation" is really bad and contains many errors. The first sentence "Physicists are unsure of most of the forces that govern our everyday lives" is extremely vague; "attraction" is a certain sign of a force (i.e. the force pulls two particles together instead of pushing them apart), "gravity" is a certain type of force (like electromagnetism or the nuclear forces). The Higgs Boson is not a force, it wasn't theorized in the late 1900s, and it acts on the scale of fundamental particles which are several orders of magnitude smaller than atoms. The LHC was not set to be released, but to be activated. No serious particle physicist expected that the experiments at the LHC would have drastic ramifications. That accelerator had a malfunction shortly after its first activation had nothing to do with the Higgs Boson. etc. I Think this needs to be completely rewritten. --[[Special:Contributions/37.209.61.239|37.209.61.239]] 15:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Err yes. This piece was a train wreck which I turned into a rundown shack. It needs a few more citation links (for the confirmation, and to Cueball and Randall), a few more examples of infestations, and a more fleshed out explanation of why a crossbow in particular (and if velociraptors come in). --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 21:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The point of this was missed completely by this explanation. The physics Nobel price has never been avarded to more than three people and is only awarded to people alive when the price is given. As the discovery of the Higgs certainly will give a Nobel price to someone, and there are more than three people working in that particular lab on the Higgs, they prepare for some kind of battle royale until there are less than three researchers left, such that they can be awarded the price. {{unsigned ip|176.11.125.174}}

I did add the incomplete tag again because a summarize of some theories doesn't help.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more likely to be option number 2, as they talk about how Cueball hasn't yet done the maths. If it was just a Nobel prize, they would've already known they were close to a breakthrough, without having to do any calc. Obviously the maths reveals the possibility of some sinister mutation as explained in point 2. Just a random opinion floating through. [[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 10:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No 2 might also be a reference to the quote by an American physicist that the LHC might discover dragons (see eg
http://blog.iandavis.com/2008/09/15/the-lhc-may-discover-dragons/). I still like explanation 1 best though, even dispute the math thing. Maybe it just refers to counting the lab members? [[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:564: Crossbows

2013-08-23T17:45:38Z

85.164.251.29: