What new understanding? It makes this statement:
"They found that 'wave-particle duality' is simply the quantum 'uncertainty principle' in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one. "
I didn't notice any explanation that provided any new understanding of wave/particle duality. Did you?
Perhaps I overlooked something, but it looks like they didn't explain anything new and interjected meaningless jargon to hide it.
@metal-brain saidYes, you certainly have. You overlooked the fact that there are people much smarter than me or you and that know things about quantum mechanics much better than me or you, especially you. Thus it is no surprise you don't understand it; it's not because it is nonsense, because it isn't, but rather because it's too difficult for you to understand. I confess I only half-understand it but at least that's far better than both completely not understanding it (no shame in that) but having the delusional arrogance to think that must mean it is nonsense (shame in that).
Perhaps I overlooked something,
20 Apr 19
@humy saidYet you offer no explanation. Do you always assume people who use jargon know what they are talking about?
Yes, you certainly have. You overlooked the fact that there are people much smarter than me or you and that know things about quantum mechanics much better than me or you, especially you. Thus it is no surprise you don't understand it; it's not because it is nonsense, because it isn't, but rather because it's too difficult for you to understand. I confess I only half-understand ...[text shortened]... in that) but having the delusional arrogance to think that must mean it is nonsense (shame in that).
https://collegeinfogeek.com/feynman-technique/
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
21 Apr 19
@humy saidAnd yet, in this case, because he goes the other way, Metal Brain is right. It's not nonsense because it's too hard, and MB doesn't claim that. What he said is that it's too trivial and already well-known, so it's not worth making a fuss about.
Yes, you certainly have. You overlooked the fact that there are people much smarter than me or you and that know things about quantum mechanics much better than me or you, especially you. Thus it is no surprise you don't understand it; it's not because it is nonsense, because it isn't, but rather because it's too difficult for you to understand.
Well, it was, and it's not, and he's right about that. But trust phyzzog to make a mountain out of someone else's molehill in the secure knowledge that people who don't inderstand science as well as they think thet do confuse them for a credible source of news. I'd call them the Asylum of science publishing, but at least The Asylum does write its own sludge-level material. All Phyzzog does is copy press releases - often, as here, badly.
21 Apr 19
@shallow-blue said-but it isn't "well-known" by him so he is in no position to judge if it is trivial even if we are and if it is.
What he said is that it's too trivial and already well-known,
21 Apr 19
@humy saidI know meaningless jargon when I see it. You need to as well. How will you excel if you can't distinguish meaningful contributions from meaningless jargon?
-but it isn't "well-known" by him so he is in no position to judge if it is trivial even if we are and if it is.
Richard Feynman knew even very educated people will hide what they don't know with jargon. Sometimes smart people will do that to hide the fact that the funding they received didn't give meaningful results. Even smart people try to hide their blunders. Scientists are human too.
22 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidOne thing for sure. You are not Feynman and never will be even CLOSE.
I know meaningless jargon when I see it. You need to as well. How will you excel if you can't distinguish meaningful contributions from meaningless jargon?
Richard Feynman knew even very educated people will hide what they don't know with jargon. Sometimes smart people will do that to hide the fact that the funding they received didn't give meaningful results. Even smart people try to hide their blunders. Scientists are human too.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
26 Apr 19
@sonhouse saidAnd you're no Jack Kennedy yourself, boyo.
One thing for sure. You are not Feynman and never will be even CLOSE.
26 Apr 19
@shallow-blue saidI took a look at the original paper [1], the claim is that the entropic uncertainty principle (EUP), defined in terms of information entropy rather than standard deviations as is Heisenberg's, is related to Wave Particle Duality Relations (WDPRs). So phys.org is correctly reporting the claims in the paper.
And yet, in this case, because he goes the other way, Metal Brain is right. It's not nonsense because it's too hard, and MB doesn't claim that. What he said is that it's too trivial and already well-known, so it's not worth making a fuss about.
Well, it was, and it's not, and he's right about that. But trust phyzzog to make a mountain out of someone else's molehill in t ...[text shortened]... rite its own sludge-level material. All Phyzzog does is copy press releases - often, as here, badly.
The paper itself is 25 pages long so I haven't finished it, but by coincidence the introductory paragraph finishes with a quote of Feynman. According to the introduction the equivalence of EUP and WPDR is controversial and they claim to have shown that they are equivalent. This is what I'd have guessed anyway since if there is no uncertainty relation it is difficult to see how there can be any wave particle duality.
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4687.pdf
27 Apr 19
@deepthought saidSo like he said, just another worthless BS article😉
I took a look at the original paper [1], the claim is that the entropic uncertainty principle (EUP), defined in terms of information entropy rather than standard deviations as is Heisenberg's, is related to Wave Particle Duality Relations (WDPRs). So phys.org is correctly reporting the claims in the paper.
The paper itself is 25 pages long so I haven't finished it, bu ...[text shortened]... ficult to see how there can be any wave particle duality.
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4687.pdf
