b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 8287767 (Thread)

# Just pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space, 'cos there's bugger all down 'ere on Earth ...


CFB
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 15:55, archived)
# huh?
*drools*
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 15:57, archived)
# *glees*
Also my washing machine is borked so I had to go to the laundette. I love laundrette detergents. This one appears to be made by International Rescue.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 15:59, archived)
# Siccura Internazional?
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:01, archived)
# HARNESS THE POWER OF RAIN FOREST
RAIN FOREST IS CLEAN
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:01, archived)
# you are barry scott.
AICMFP.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:14, archived)
# I love laundettes
'Limpness al fresco causes profanities'?
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:01, archived)
# only as part of a calorie controller diet.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:03, archived)
# Well that's ok then
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:04, archived)
# never chat up girls in laundrettes
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:08, archived)
# That appears to be advice given from experience.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:08, archived)
# haha!
girls grannies and chavs
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:14, archived)
# That would be good advice anyway
Whether they were in a laundrette or not
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:18, archived)
# =D
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:19, archived)
# err
"Clean fresh and powerful"
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:05, archived)
# Mine's better
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:13, archived)
# EL MAIQUELYASON!
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:07, archived)
# rain forest?
full of spiders and monkey shite?
=)
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:13, archived)
# The bugger all down here thinks it's very pretty
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 15:59, archived)
# Merci
I've long thought the relationship between macro- & micro- to appear to be fascinatingly similar - from an atomic level to interplanetary, though I know little of the laws that govern them.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:05, archived)
# If you get into quantum explanations of the atomic level, it'll be less striking.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:10, archived)
# Unless you believe in hidden-variables
Then it gets a bit tidier again. But you will be called a loon, and with some justification.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:13, archived)
# Ah, I vaguely remember all this.
I think in the end I mostly agreed with Bohm. And this just reminds me how much I've managed to forget in just a couple of years.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:19, archived)
# The problem with the Bohmian approach
is that you assume something totally ridiculous at the outset to justify a result you know to be true. I like it but I don't really believe it for a moment.

Unless I'm meaning something very different by the Bohmian approach but I don't think so. You arbitrarily change you potential and then recover Schroedinger's equation, right?
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:27, archived)
# My memory is a little hazy, but I think he set up something mathematically equivalent to schroedinger, probably with random assumptions, yes.
I remember very pretty drawings showing that instead of a probabilistic approach, you can show deterministic paths for particles diffracting through a slit.
Where basically, the path of the particle is determined by exactly which part of the slit it passes through, under the influence of some kind of 'quantum force field'.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:31, archived)
# Yep, that's the one :)
I like it and in the unlikely event that I ever have to teach people quantum mechanics that's how I'll start it off, but personally I don't take it very seriously although there are people who do. I also don't take the many-worlds nonsense at all seriously although there are people who do.

I pity anyone I'll ever teach quantum mechanics to.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:35, archived)
# Haha, it's more intuitive but the maths was pretty horrible if I remember rightly.
I think the best we can really do is be pragmatic, use the formulas that we know work brilliantly, and leave the interpretation to philosophers.
I can't really see us being able to distinguish between them experimentally.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:40, archived)
# damn straight
my view exactly. feynam once slagged off physicists for being obsessed with a theory of everything and said "they're just algorithms" and i think there's a lot in what he said.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:43, archived)
# Yeah so I've heard
But I'm not nearly intelligenter enough to unnerstand it. I mean - I still have trouble understanding why, when I tilt a picture of a lady in a skirt, I can't see up it.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:14, archived)
# Ah, noone understands that.
Pictures of ladies in skirts will forever be a mystery.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:16, archived)
# I think they're all using gaffer tape
It's the only explanation that makes any sense to me :(
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:18, archived)
# Ah, well this is where we differ.
I think sellotape.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:20, archived)
# Both work
But I'm sticking with the gaffer tape.
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:25, archived)
# "Can we have your liver then...?"
Very nice, by the way. :)
(, Tue 15 Apr 2008, 16:10, archived)