Nothing is Real- Science says so

[DesiPower]

Nothing real > nothing matters > size does not matter

 

[MongGrel]

We're all a giant organic computer built by a couple of mice.

Didn't anyone get the memo ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdLHLW1YhlA

 

[MrDudeMan]

Everything is being lazy loaded?

haha. A+ would read again.

 

[Jeff7]

This is most excellent grounds to argue exam results, "My answer was not incorrect until you checked it."

this goes right with "nothing is illegal until you get caught"

"Officer, I swear she wasn't under 18 until you looked into it!"

We do limit processing in games by not drawing invisible things (occlusion culling) and turning off the simulation of distant things. I guess there are lots of situations in games akin to this quantum physics simulation where the state of an object is not determined until right when the player reveals said object and needs to interact with it.

And you never expect the Sims to be capable of measuring and questioning the occlusion culling lag in your simulation.

"32 bits should be good enough, right?"

 

[Captante]

"And nothing to get hung about .... Strawberry fields forever"

 

[Regs]

One more step forward in opening up the gates of hell and unleashing doom upon us all. On a more serious note, I will no longer pay my taxes since we don't really exist and everything is a illusion of particles and atoms traveling around infart circle s. Cause that was what the big bang was, god's big fucking fart.

Why not? No one believes in that "taxes are not constitutional" shit no more. This looks like the next big thing.

 

[brianmanahan]

OK Jaden Smith, Whatever You Say.

How Can Molecules Be Real If Atoms Aren't Real

 

[unokitty]

We can always ask Schrodinger's cat.

Oh, wait!

 

[Phoenix86]

"Officer, I swear she wasn't under 18 until you looked into it!"

The quantum defense, scientifically proven.

 

[Phoenix86]

"32 bits should be good enough, right?"

THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT FUCKING QUOTE.

"640K ought to be enough for anyone" and even then it's not a quote.

It's almost like you never loaded DOS and jumped straight to win 3.1x

 

[zinfamous]

I already knew that all of you were a figment of my imagination. How does this study help me?

 

[SSSnail]

I should have taken the blue pill.

 

[Jeff7]

One more step forward in opening up the gates of hell and unleashing doom upon us all. On a more serious note, I will no longer pay my taxes since we don't really exist and everything is a illusion of particles and atoms traveling around infart circle s. Cause that was what the big bang was, god's big fucking fart.

Why not? No one believes in that "taxes are not constitutional" shit no more. This looks like the next big thing.

The IRS can ignore quantum effects and, if needed, basic causality.

THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT FUCKING QUOTE.

"640K ought to be enough for anyone" and even then it's not a quote.

It's almost like you never loaded DOS and jumped straight to win 3.1x

a) I think that's been debunked. b) I wasn't going for that.
It was more a reference to IPv4 vs IPv6.
(Or "No one will still be using Unix in 2038.")

 

[Charmonium]

99% of the proton's mass is from gluons which have no mass - the mass comes from 'sea quarks' that pop in and out of existence.

So in essence, you are 99% energy and only 1% matter.

 

[Naer]

Everything is fake until someone gets killed

 

[z1ggy]

99% of the proton's mass is from gluons which have no mass - the mass comes from 'sea quarks' that pop in and out of existence.

So in essence, you are 99% energy and only 1% matter.

Can you explain further? I thought gluons only held the quarks (which make up the proton) together. I thought scientists were saying mass is giving to particles via the Higgs Boson?

 

[bigi]

Makes perfect sense.

 

[dank69]

Can you explain further? I thought gluons only held the quarks (which make up the proton) together. I thought scientists were saying mass is giving to particles via the Higgs Boson?

I thought nothing has mass and what we call mass is just the effect of everything else in the universe repelling you away from it. The the earth, for example, is blocking the repelling forces not in line of sight which creates the gravity effect. :hmm:

 

[z1ggy]

I thought nothing has mass and what we call mass is just the effect of everything else in the universe repelling you away from it. The the earth, for example, is blocking the repelling forces not in line of sight which creates the gravity effect. :hmm:

Honestly, I'm not even sure science as a whole understands gravity 100%. I think they have postulated the gravitron particle, as a means of "carrying" gravity between particles, but they haven't found evidence.

I just use the concept of thinking of space as a big trampoline and earth and other matter which has mass, as large bowling balls sitting on top of it, causing it to sag down. If you rolled something near the heavy balls, it would be attracted to it, because in this case, there's a hill/gradient formed going toward it.

I wanted more info from above about the user who just said about some kind of virtual quarks or something. I know about virtual particles, but I don't quite get (based on what I have read about gluons, higgs) how those particles give rise to mass.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I just use the concept of thinking of space as a big trampoline and earth and other matter which has mass, as large bowling balls sitting on top of it, causing it to sag down. If you rolled something near the heavy balls, it would be attracted to it, because in this case, there's a hill/gradient formed going toward it.

I know it's a useful mental image, but thinking about it that way still hurts my head. Even if that's true, the earth is somehow sitting on a trampoline that is all around it. How can it be possible to make a dimple in something in every direction at once that you can then "roll down" from any angle? Is the medium it's sitting on in some kind of extra dimensional space over the top of this one so that an object pressing into another object in that space is actually expressed as a kind of field in this one? I dunno..

 

[Charmonium]

Can you explain further? I thought gluons only held the quarks (which make up the proton) together. I thought scientists were saying mass is giving to particles via the Higgs Boson?

Here's a great article that talks about sea quarks and QCD generally - check your pm's. Here's an excerpt.

The answer comes by scaling the sheer cliff face that is quantum chromodynamics, or QCD. Just as particles have an electrical charge that determines their response to the electromagnetic force, quarks carry one of three "colour charges" that explain their interactions via another fundamental force, the strong nuclear force. QCD is the theory behind the strong force, and it is devilishly complex.
Electrically charged particles can bind together by exchanging massless photons. Similarly, colour-charged quarks bind together to form matter such as protons and neutrons by exchanging particles known as gluons. Although gluons have no mass, they do have energy. What's more, thanks to Einstein's famous E = mc2, that energy can be converted into a froth of quarks (and their antimatter equivalents) beyond the three normally said to reside in a proton or neutron. According to the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, these extra particles are constantly popping up and disappearing again (see animation below).

 

[BD231]

Force + Trajectory = Win

 

[inachu]

that is why if you wish very very hard then you truly will win the lotto.

 

[Ferzerp]

When I saw this, I thought to myself, the double slit experiment has already been done with matter as opposed to light (pretending that they are different for the moment). Clicked the link, yes, this is from 2013. It was done a year or two earlier than that if I recall correctly.


Interesting and completely pseudo-sciency conclusions you're making from it though, OP.

 

[dank69]

When I saw this, I thought to myself, the double slit experiment has already been done with matter as opposed to light (pretending that they are different for the moment). Clicked the link, yes, this is from 2013. It was done a year or two earlier than that if I recall correctly.


Interesting and completely pseudo-sciency conclusions you're making from it though, OP.

I followed the links and it says it was published 5/25/2015? Submitted in 2014?