Hawking radiation as proposed does offer an a way for a Black Hole to not remove information from the universe (A thing that would break QM).
It scales very quickly with the size of Black Hole though. A tiny one would almost instantly annihilate, but a stellar (or supermassive...) Black Hole doesn't dent its own mass in any finite proposition for the life expectancy of the Universe.
Black Holes without mass near them just keep moving and spinning. Outside of their event horizon all they do is exert gravity.
I think the whole problem is that you can't use Hawking radiation to unpick what has gone into the Black Hole. And if the Black Hole evaporates, then the information is lost forever, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics I think?
The ring you see on the radar is a gust of denser air that's been cooled by heavy rainfall underneath a small, nearly stationary thunderstorm. They've been popping off all afternoon. Driving home I went from a baking dry summer day to the aftermath of a monsoon a couple of blocks from my house. The gutters were running like crazy under a half-clear sunny sky.
One thing I didn't really understand until recently is that a particle is unobserved as long as it is informationally isolated from the rest of the universe (quoting Arvin Ash), the particle is a probability wave as long as there is no information encoded about it in the rest of the universe
As far as I personally understand it, this seems to point towards reality being a really granular thing
Pretty sure this isn't quantum.
I don't think beams that are polarised at 90 degrees from each other will constructively/deconstructively interfere with each other.
So what you have is:
Unpolarised: interference pattern
Polarised opposite to each other: image as from two sources, no interference
Polarised parallel to each other: interference pattern
A blackhole is simply an object whose mass is large enough to have an escape velocity that is faster than the speed of light. Due to the amount of mass required to do that and the Pauli exclusion principal there is thought to be a minimum size of a black hole of about 3 solar masses. A black hole at the absolute minimum mass would become a neutron star if it lost mass due to Hawking radiation. If the Pauli exclusion principal doesn't actually exist, then there might not be a true lower limit of a blackhole since you can stuff enough mass into a small enough area to have a very tiny black hole. The smallest observed black hole is about 3.8 solar masses with a 15 mile diameter.
The smallest hypothetical black hole is known as a Planck particle, which has an event horizon that is one planck length (1.616288x10^-35m) in diameter, is one planck mass (21.76470 micrograms), and would evaporate due to hawking radiation in about 5x10^-39 seconds. This would require violating the Pauli exclusion principal to squish that much mass into a space that is much smaller than a proton, so it's not actually possible unless the Pauli exclusion principal is not a real thing or we find a way to put about 2GigaJoules into that small of a space
It might be the same in the actual experiment honestly, but going photon by photon instead of using a beam.
But then the same would apply?
I don't see how you could conclude particle behaviour when you've eliminated the possibility of interference by using orthogonal polarisations at the slits.
Also interference can only happen in this case because of the quantum nature of light, the beam is made out of individual photons
Two streams of classical particles would not interfere with each other
The point of the filters is to destroy the interference pattern in order to recreate it, the filters impart "which way" information on the passing particles
Also interference can only happen in this case because of the quantum nature of light, the beam is made out of individual photons
Two streams of classical particles would not interfere with each other
The point of the filters is to destroy the interference pattern in order to recreate it, the filters impart "which way" information on the passing particles
No no, the interference occurs due to the wave nature of light, and the quantum nature is evidenced when you start registering individual detections of the interference (and then build the wave pattern from individual points of impact).
I'm sorry if I misunderstood the issue with the filters
One variant of the double slit experiment does work exactly as you describe
This particular experiment builds on it, it doesn't set out to demonstrate the same thing - despite the filters, the system doesn't behave in a fully classical way
Haha
My brain might be melting considering a photo-screen that detects individual photos as they come staggered through the setup, and how those photons might be choosing which maxima to appear at on the screen.
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
also, you figure scientists would know the bystander effect is largely a crock of shit and people DID in fact call the cops and try to help kitty genovese and that there were far less witnesses than actually reported
Tynnanseldom correct, never unsureRegistered Userregular
edited July 2020
Worms are neat. Ask a worm scientist over a beer about models of aging disease and you might get the same response as Eisen, there. It’s true of all the other animal models we have, too. Everything is an approximation. Even humans and clinical trials are an approximation.
I think Eisen thought he was making a joke and didn’t think about the power of his pulpit. He’s the editor of a large journal, not some random PI.
I’ll pick on his phrase, “they fuck themselves,” though. That’s a shitty thing to say. Not because of the verbiage, but because it’s not actually how that works. They’re hermaphrodites and readily self-fertilize internally. It’s basically taking a dump, except viable embryos come out.
My brother works with mosquitos. His lab's end goal is to exterminate the species that bites humans by replacing it with a species that doesn't. Naturally this involves lots and lots of hatching, rearing, and breeding of mosquitos for research
+3
Options
Tynnanseldom correct, never unsureRegistered Userregular
Posts
It scales very quickly with the size of Black Hole though. A tiny one would almost instantly annihilate, but a stellar (or supermassive...) Black Hole doesn't dent its own mass in any finite proposition for the life expectancy of the Universe.
Black Holes without mass near them just keep moving and spinning. Outside of their event horizon all they do is exert gravity.
So your knowledge here is a
Black hole
The ring you see on the radar is a gust of denser air that's been cooled by heavy rainfall underneath a small, nearly stationary thunderstorm. They've been popping off all afternoon. Driving home I went from a baking dry summer day to the aftermath of a monsoon a couple of blocks from my house. The gutters were running like crazy under a half-clear sunny sky.
Pretty sure this isn't quantum.
I don't think beams that are polarised at 90 degrees from each other will constructively/deconstructively interfere with each other.
So what you have is:
Unpolarised: interference pattern
Polarised opposite to each other: image as from two sources, no interference
Polarised parallel to each other: interference pattern
The smallest hypothetical black hole is known as a Planck particle, which has an event horizon that is one planck length (1.616288x10^-35m) in diameter, is one planck mass (21.76470 micrograms), and would evaporate due to hawking radiation in about 5x10^-39 seconds. This would require violating the Pauli exclusion principal to squish that much mass into a space that is much smaller than a proton, so it's not actually possible unless the Pauli exclusion principal is not a real thing or we find a way to put about 2GigaJoules into that small of a space
I'm not sure how the actual experiment does the measurements.
But this home version is not doing what it's advertising it's doing.
But then the same would apply?
I don't see how you could conclude particle behaviour when you've eliminated the possibility of interference by using orthogonal polarisations at the slits.
Two streams of classical particles would not interfere with each other
The point of the filters is to destroy the interference pattern in order to recreate it, the filters impart "which way" information on the passing particles
No no, the interference occurs due to the wave nature of light, and the quantum nature is evidenced when you start registering individual detections of the interference (and then build the wave pattern from individual points of impact).
One variant of the double slit experiment does work exactly as you describe
This particular experiment builds on it, it doesn't set out to demonstrate the same thing - despite the filters, the system doesn't behave in a fully classical way
My brain might be melting considering a photo-screen that detects individual photos as they come staggered through the setup, and how those photons might be choosing which maxima to appear at on the screen.
You can AFAIK, but even if you detect without absorbing that act of measurement still results in waveform collapse.
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
wormcon 2020 is gonna be hella awkward
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
I think Eisen thought he was making a joke and didn’t think about the power of his pulpit. He’s the editor of a large journal, not some random PI.
I’ll pick on his phrase, “they fuck themselves,” though. That’s a shitty thing to say. Not because of the verbiage, but because it’s not actually how that works. They’re hermaphrodites and readily self-fertilize internally. It’s basically taking a dump, except viable embryos come out.
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
Mental
Da
is humans
they are the worst
mirite
I dunno
cats ain't doing much
geneticists just like to watch fruit flies fuck a lot
admit it you pervert
My brother works with mosquitos. His lab's end goal is to exterminate the species that bites humans by replacing it with a species that doesn't. Naturally this involves lots and lots of hatching, rearing, and breeding of mosquitos for research
No don't bug scientists they're busy right now
mite
I did spend an awful lot of time in my mid 20s literally watching them bone down for our mate choice project.
Ahem, actually neither worms nor fruit flies are bugs as they are not members of the order Hemiptera wait where are you going