Difference between revisions of "Talk:2933: Elementary Physics Paths"
(Chemistry and Biology are way more complicated.) |
(ChatGPT was used in the creation of this article. Please advise?) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
It seems like there should be a third branch for chemistry, leading to biology. Just putting a bunch of atoms together gives a bunch of new, unrelated properties in the new molecules compared to their constituent atoms. When you look at organic chemistry, especially the self-perpetuating version (life), then the level of complexity is ''huge''. | It seems like there should be a third branch for chemistry, leading to biology. Just putting a bunch of atoms together gives a bunch of new, unrelated properties in the new molecules compared to their constituent atoms. When you look at organic chemistry, especially the self-perpetuating version (life), then the level of complexity is ''huge''. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I was reading it, and as 172.68.23.215 said, it looks like Kyrodes put in multiple overriding edits which directly erased the original explaination in lieu of a ChatGPT version (analysis courtesy of gptzero). I'd personally prefer there being more human-made stuff here, and some of the writing isn't exactly coherent... But this isn't up to me to decide, eh? [[User:Eelitee|Eelitee]] ([[User talk:Eelitee|talk]]) 21:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:25, 17 May 2024
First comment, heh. Psychoticpotato (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- See also 1258: First. --162.158.159.7 23:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Let me have my first "first" moment, man. Psychoticpotato (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I assume the cosmology comment from the alt text is related to the speculative nature of dark matter and dark energy, but I am too ignorant of of cosmology to know if there is something more specific being referenced.172.69.23.203 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think its more jokinly questioning the knowlege of the cosmos, saying "space is big, so are we 100% that EVERYTHING is made of these complicated little things, or just the parts we can see?" Apollo11 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I thought it was a reference to the incompatibility of the leading cosmological theory (Relativity) with Quantum theory. 172.68.210.117 02:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Am I the only one where it seems like the explanation was written by an AI? It seems like obvious things are left out, like the presence of dark matter in astronomy, or saying “quantum physics” instead of “quantum field theory”. It’s like in some areas it could be convincingly explaining without knowing, a little like chatgpt does. However, I’m thinking a lot of the explanations are like that and I’ve probably participated in it myself … 172.68.23.215 00:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- The reason we're using "Quantum Theory" (at least my reason) is because that's what the comic used Apollo11 (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, it's not determined whether a physicist studies Condensed Matter or Quantum Field Theory until we open his box. Doctorhook (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- According to the Communist Russia Interpretation, the Universe studies physicists.172.71.178.172 08:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
you guys really need to solve your chatgpt problem --172.70.143.28 03:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Schrodinger's 'cat box thought experiment' is more complex than even Schrodinger realised, since for the duration of the experiment the cat assumes EVERY possible quantum state, including 'not actually in the box' and 'suddenly not being a cat anymore'. 172.70.91.231 05:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Schrodinger did not argue against QM; he argued against a certain interpretation of it. Specifically, he argued that QM does not tell us how things really are; at most, it tells us what we can detect about those things. His cat in a box idea aims to make clear that we do not know what happens between observations and that using QM to describe this leads to nonsense. 172.70.46.13 06:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I removed the "further examples" and the mention of Schrödinger. Interesting for sure, but not relevant for the explanation of the comic. Schrödinger isn't even mentioned in the comic... Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
It feels like Randall has gone down the same Wikipedia rabbit hole that I have (spurred on by another comic). The universe is full of extremely weird things on every level. Even the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM isn't actually one interpretation. Everyone has different ideas because it's all so weird. I remember my physics teacher telling me about the time before QM was discovered when it seemed like we had figured out most of physics and now it seems like we barely know anything. Brycemw (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems like there should be a third branch for chemistry, leading to biology. Just putting a bunch of atoms together gives a bunch of new, unrelated properties in the new molecules compared to their constituent atoms. When you look at organic chemistry, especially the self-perpetuating version (life), then the level of complexity is huge.
I was reading it, and as 172.68.23.215 said, it looks like Kyrodes put in multiple overriding edits which directly erased the original explaination in lieu of a ChatGPT version (analysis courtesy of gptzero). I'd personally prefer there being more human-made stuff here, and some of the writing isn't exactly coherent... But this isn't up to me to decide, eh? Eelitee (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
