Physicists love hyping up "mind-blowing" quantum discoveries like they prove how dumb we are. Lawrence Krauss once claimed an electron can be in two places at once and that people reject it because their brains can't handle it. That’s bullshit. If something's here and something's there, they’re two different things. Period.Maybe physicists just decided to call the electron in two places the same electron because, for their purposes, it works. Like if 20 students have identical textbooks, you could technically say "the textbook" is in 20 places at once—but that’s just wordplay, not some deep truth. I suspect this "electron in two places" nonsense is the same kind of linguistic trick.Can anyone actually explain how an object can be in two places at once without playing word games?
one electron theory
>>16765001Thanks chatgpt. I'll answer you directly in my own prompt
>>16765001It's good to note that Lawrence Krauss is jewish
>>16765001>Can anyone actually explain how an object can be in two places at once without playing word gamesIt's because they travel at the speed of light so we can only guess where it is.It's a quantum bell curve. We only be "somewhat." sure of where it is but because the little things are so fucking small and fast we can't get a lock on it. So the electron in your brain is PRETTY SURE it's in your brain. But there is also an astronomically chance that it's on the moon. Until we get better ways to track subatomic particles the uncertainty principle remains.
Entertainers are all clowns. Interpreting De Broglie as one particle in two places is equivalent to the flower water gun gag, except it's your choice to get wet here.
>>16765001>>16767078
>>16765001 I can relate to your sentiment, but the thing is that the more you think about the universe, the more you realize it can't be what you thought it was. That's why I disagree with Roger Penrose when he utters this same sort of objection about observing planets and so forth and so on. Like the objection is basically "that's ridiculous therefore it's wrong" but it's only ridiculous in your existing framework. The same framework you've unscientifically just assumed into existence.
>>16767667>framework you've unscientifically just assumed into existence.those are my favorite
>>16765001>Can anyone actually explain how an object can be in two places at once without playing word games?By not being an object to begin with. Electrons are energy excitations in a field which "occupy" an area with a probabilistic distribution of where you may cause a particle-like effect.
>>16765001>Can anyone actually explain how an object can be in two places at once without playing word games?The word they often forget to mention is POTENTIALLY. Thus it's either there or here with 50% chance.Copenhagen interpretation was just a symptom of a campaign to curb science. I hope soon ai is able to investigate all the baseless scientific concepts and what forces promoted them into the mass education all over the world regardless of political orientations and economic formations.
>>16767906>I hope soon ai is able to investigateand make an entertaining movie about it.
>>16767868stop replying to yourself and go back to the jew board
>>16765001Dr Dave explains has a good video on this. You should check him out.
Why does Sabine make redditors seethe?
>>16767906"ai" cant even tell you how many r's are in strawberry my guy
I never took no overgraduate physics class but I have a commanding grasp of the fundamental levels of reality. Trust me.The tl;dr is that particles are bullshit. A "particle" is just a mathematic abstraction that represents the qualities of some matter. Air isn't really full of little tiny particles all slamming into each other, that's just a crude way of understanding its properties, with a description that relies on objects more easily known to a human mind on the macro scale: the "knocking billiard balls." 500 ml of H2O is not a bunch of sticky little balls, but rather a contiguous smear of entity that all behaves identically. Reducing the density of air does not tear air apart, so to speak (though it will vaporize liquids).Think of your particle formulas as like labels on jars. It describes the substance in a manner that hints at the rules the substance will obey, but the label is not the same thing necessarily as the substance.Theoretically you might be able to follow a single isotope of Oxygen-18 in a jar of otherwise identical Oxygen-16 but in reality and all practical purposes the single 18-isotope is represented everywhere in the jar as an abstraction, the whole jar is a single entity of 1-10000000 oxygen-18 to oxygen-16. The particles will reveal their structure with enough scrutiny but the still images of them conceal their otherwise completely ephemeral nature.Quantum consciousness is real, but inanimate matter has its "base level of consciousness" that similarly makes the whole concept seem stupid. This "base level of consciousness" could be understood as merely its compliance with the rest of natural laws, in a strict sense, which requires a non-zero level of self-knowing. Acid-heads apparently like to peek into this level of awareness outside one's own body.
Physicists are too obsessed with numbers and equations and not tapping into the feelings of inanimate objects, which can often be persuaded. You cannot measure these feelings in numbers and so the concept is derided. The Eastern monks would envy the secret self-denial of the scientific Western mind.
>>16765001>Can anyone actually explain how an object can be in two placesIts clickbait to sell books. Lawrence Krauss is a useless eater that makes money as a science communicator and public figure. Hes a celebrity not a researcher. Nothing has been discovered in fundamental physics since like 1990 and you know any alleged discoveries are so insignificant that you have to be a researcher in the field to even know they happened, while any dumb person knows who Newton or Einstein were.
>>16765001>Can anyone actually explain how an object can be in two places at once without playing word games?It's not word games, it's about being sure of what you are talking about.A ping pong ball is what we call an object and you can evaluate its position and motion.Can we really think about an electron as a little ball?When you study its properties you can see it isn't.
