[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2017/01/28: An issue regarding the front page of /jp/ has been fixed. Also, thanks to all who contacted us about sponsorship.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 26 KB, 500x336, 20080911-lhc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
1740636 No.1740636 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]
Quoted by: >>1740881

So, how's the academic world feeling about quantum interpretations lately? I'm only a casual science aficionado and I know a few things from here and there. I'm curious as to where are we heading to. How about this Decoherence thing? Is it the hot shit or what?

Inb4 "get a physics degree", yeah right.

>> No.1740649
Quoted by: >>1740661 >>1740731

inb4 only non-physicists think that any of the research at the LHC is actually applicable in the real world or even partially significant to most physicists

>> No.1740661
Quoted by: >>1740723

What's that supposed to mean? Anyway ignore the LHC if you want. I had to use a picture and useful or not is a badass as hell of a thing.

>> No.1740689
Quoted by: >>1740705

We're not here to discuss for your amusement. Stoned amusement, dare I say.

>> No.1740705

Not high, promise.

>> No.1740723
Quoted by: >>1740788 >>1740910


the general public has a skewed perception of what is "cutting edge" and what is "important" in modern science and research.

it is commonly assumed that research dealing with string theory, quantum gravity, black holes, higgs boson, etc. is the "cutting edge"

this is because there are significant amounts of media exposure to this type of science.

in reality, however, the real "cutting edge" of research involves applications of physics, chemistry, and biochemistry.

semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, catalysts, nanostructures, polymers, etc.

that is where the vast majority of research money goes.

it is where the vast majority of research publications come from

it is where the vast majority of tangible scientific advancements come from.

interestingly enough, however, most of the applied physics that is associated with this field was completely developed (at a fundamental theoretical level) by the 1970s-1980s

really, the most signicant development in the field of applied or theoretical applied physics is Density functional theory, which was developed in the 1960s/1970s.

everything else has been application of theory and fine tuning.

quantum field theories have limited use in applications because they are typically too complex to describe macroscopic systems with any accuracy.

no one uses quantum field theory to predict the band gap structure of a novel semiconductor.

no one uses QFT to predict the electronic structure of an organic semiconductor (like "plastic" solar cells, rollable displays, OLED, etc)

no one uses QFT to predict the reaction pathway of a chemical reaction.

most of modern applied theory is concerned with developing approximation algorithms for exchange and correlation integrals, as well as the computer code to utilize new mathematical techniques.

go to any computational physics research group. 80% of the time the graduate students are literally just writing code.

>> No.1740731

Do you happen to be a physicist?

>> No.1740788
Quoted by: >>1740810

Well I think that if it (quantum stuff) gets so much attention, relatively, is because it really is mindblowing. I know that a lot of awesome research is going about things like nanotechnology and yes, it is a more intelligent investment. But, just as you said: >>interestingly enough, however, most of the applied physics that is associated with this field was completely developed (at a fundamental theoretical level) by the 1970s-1980s

That's what bugs me. Although it doesn't matter, I'm surprised that we haven't advanced so much in that field since then. You know, I'm only curious about "hard science". Not my field by a long shot.

>> No.1740810
Quoted by: >>1740830

Then WTF are you doing here?

>> No.1740823
Quoted by: >>1740863 >>1740908

I'm of the school of "shut up and calculate." The philosophy of physics bores me to tears. I don't even eat lunch with the other grad students any more because I can't take their philosophical discussions.

Many worlds? Show me one other one and I'll listen. Hidden variable hypotheses? Why use them when you can do without? The bottom line is that without backing data and testable hypotheses, these discussions are basically just masturbation. (Not that I have a problem with masturbation, or even masturbating while doing physics....) Cat is both dead and alive? Not in any real world scenario. Useful for explaining things to a newbie, but not useful once you can actually do the math.

(Decoherence is totally acceptable to me. It's just a statement about how QM works, it's backed up by rigorous math, and it's a good response to "what about Schrodinger's cat?")

>> No.1740830

Hmm, just chillin'? Don't try to turn this into a "boyz club no girlz allowed!!". Just don't participate if you don't consider me worthy. Or if you have to express your rage, you can always sage the thread! Hell yeah!

>> No.1740863
Quoted by: >>1741246

Cool. Feel free to explain it to a profane in profane terms :)

But don't you think that understanding physics in a phillosophic way can cause you to go "bingo!" and come up with nice stuff? Hasn't it happened before?

>> No.1740881
Quoted by: >>1740916

>quantum interpretations lately

No one gives a shit about "interpretations" but philosopers talking outta their ASS. The only thing that matters is the "math" and the "results", interpretate them however the fuck you want.

>> No.1740908
Quoted by: >>1741246

Hidden variable theories are still being banded around? I thought the Bell experiment showed they were completely incompatible with QM.

>> No.1740910
File: 55 KB, 400x639, 77017-19956-galactus_super.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
Quoted by: >>1740963

You are a fucking faggot who doenst know what he is talking about.

>it is commonly assumed that research dealing with string theory, quantum gravity, black holes, higgs boson, etc. is the "cutting edge"

That is the cutting edge shit. That stuff will have great applications and is very important in the long run. Knowning "fundementals" always outweight everything else.

You sound like some shitty engineering major. Take your homosex outta my /sci/!

>> No.1740911
Quoted by: >>1740924 >>1741000

Around 2010 was when the Chinese began to deploy quantum transcievers, IIRC. That technology laid the groundwork for entanglement transmission protocol-compliant devices, including solarnet and the service I use to post here.

>> No.1740916

Funny how by trying to disregard the question you answered it. So the academic world doesn't give a shit? Cool. That's what I wanted to know.

>> No.1740924
Quoted by: >>1740981

And you're speaking in English? So them chinamen didn't take over the world? Good to hear it!

>> No.1740963

We should master what we can and go from there. Maybe thingies like nanocomputers would help with all that quantum jazz, for instance.

>> No.1740981
Quoted by: >>1740994 >>1741000


They were the first to make use of quantum transcievers, but the US was not far behind. We invented solarnet, if it's any consolation, basically a zero-latency internet for communication between Earth, the moon and mars.

>> No.1740994
Quoted by: >>1741005

Mars too! Gasp! So how's life there? You know what, just open another thread altogether.

>> No.1741000

Hey Future, I'm bored - would you mind starting a thread tonight?

>> No.1741005
Quoted by: >>1741034


Microbes, yes. And I'd rather not. People swarm ETP posters when they expose themselves. It's why most don't. You talk to people from various periods all the time and probably don't realize.

>> No.1741034

So, future guy, try to throw some light here. Where quantum interpretations helpful in the end?

>> No.1741038

Why, excuse me, I meant "were" of course.

>> No.1741049
Quoted by: >>1741059


>>Were quantum interpretations helpful in the end?

For computing and communication, absolutely. For propulsion, tragically, no.

>> No.1741050

Now I'm interested.

>> No.1741059
Quoted by: >>1741080

How so, in short?

>> No.1741080
Quoted by: >>1741135


I'm a solider, not a scientist, but I can tell you what I know. Quantum entanglement is the basis for ETP, which is basically the combination of what the Chinese military is working on in your time, compact heim field generators and plasma wakefield accelerators. Two of those technologies should be familiar to you, perhaps one of them isn't, but it will be.

>> No.1741135
Quoted by: >>1741155

How about a quick Wikipedia search? Still around? I want to know more about them.

>> No.1741155
Quoted by: >>1741171


Wikinet's around, although it's no longer called that. It's part of public infrastructure now, a proprietary hardened network which provides read only access to information and positioning services, stuff like that.

>> No.1741171

Well I meant about them crazy future technologies. But nevermind, I'm off to bed.

>> No.1741246

It has been known to happen in other areas of physics, but QM defies intuition in a lot of ways, so I doubt that it's fruitful in general. I mean, yes, you have to come up with ideas in some way, and if philosophy is the way you do it, then that's okay. But it gets me when people argue about how it "really" is, as though just thinking hard enough can get you answers.

*Local* hidden variable theories are ruled out, but there exist interpretations in which global hidden variables are viable.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.