wford
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by wford on Jun 3, 2005 3:43:02 GMT
"Well, if someone was a little better at instructing, you would have done better," said William, grinning.
"Better that perfect?," asked Joan, grinning back.
"Hey, I do it all the time," said William. Joan rolled her eyes. "I expect more than perfect from now on." William continued, trying (and failing) to sound authoritative.
"So, what were you doing all that time?" asked Joan.
"Oh, just some little Venture-class ship named the Gregorian that almost crashed into the docking area. It got in a fight, ran back here, the crew's fine- by the way, did you know how small those things are? The standard crew is only ten people! And-"
"Why don't you have their chief science officer come and give a little lecture on his last mission?" asked Joan.
William paused. "You know... that's almost better than perfect," he said slowly. "But not quite."
Joan punched him in the arm playfully. "And I supposed you'd better be filing that as an attack on a superior officer."
William laughed. "I'll talk to Redbay - that's the science officer - and see if he agrees."
(TAG: Joan)
|
|
anderson
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by anderson on Jun 3, 2005 21:22:43 GMT
"Well, for teaching for the first time in my WHOLE life I think I did pretty well. Besides you didn't leave much option. We are in a holodeck, but you didn't make the computer leave an instructor in your stead. You do know you can do that right? Maybe if you did you wouldn't have had my lack of talent for a teacher to fill in for you. Oh well even the higher ranking officers have memory problems." Joan says chuckling again.
"Let me know what Redbay says. It would be really interesting to find out what he did on his mission. If that falls through I guess I could talk about our last mission. There wasn't much science used, but I will gladly talk about what science was used." Joan says smiling, and ends up chuckling a little at the thought of last mission... (What a mission!) Joan thought.
|
|
wford
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by wford on Jun 3, 2005 23:30:00 GMT
"Hmmm. That is rather humiliating. The lack of leaving a holodeck instructor, I mean, not the memory problems," said William quickly, Joan still chuckling. "I'll tell you what Redbay says."
After a couple of farewells the officers went their separate ways. William soon found Redbay's quarters.
"Come," said a sleepy voice inside the room.
William entered. "Having fun, Mr. Redbay?"
"I was," said the officer, rubbing the sleep out of his eyes, "until you woke me. What seems to be the problem?"
"I just wanted to check up on you. You're doing fine?" Redbay nodded. "Good," continued William. "In that case, would you mind giving a short lecture in my Quantum Physics/Theory class tomorrow? It wouldn't need to be long."
Redbay gave a small laugh. "If its short, I wouldn't mind. You're lucky, being an Academy instructor, you don't need to write up mission reports all of the time. Just whenever you go out on a training mission."
William smiled. "Thanks. If you need anything, let me know."
As he left Redbay (who quickly went back to sleep), William tapped his commbadge. "Ford to Joan McCormick" He'd almost left out 'Joan,' before he realized he might get Admiral McCormick (assuming she was on the Starbase) instead if he didn't add the first name.
=^=Joan here. What'd Redbay say?=^=
"He'll give a very short talk on how his mission went, focusing on the scientific aspects. If you want, you could give a short lesson, too."
TAG: Joan
|
|
anderson
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by anderson on Jun 4, 2005 0:08:04 GMT
=^=Joan here. What'd Redbay say?=^=
"He'll give a very short talk on how his mission went, focusing on the scientific aspects. If you want, you could give a short lesson, too."
"If you want me too. We didn't have a lot of science on the mission, but I could briefly cover what did happen. It might be a really short lesson. Up to you." Joan says wondering what he might say.
|
|
wford
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by wford on Jun 4, 2005 3:08:12 GMT
"We could get together and go over what you have. How does dinner sound?" asked William.
|
|
anderson
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by anderson on Jun 4, 2005 3:36:13 GMT
"That sounds like you are asking me out. You wouldn't be trying to do that?" Joan says trying not to chuckle, but it doesn't work. She burst out chuckling.
"Dinner would be fine. Let me know when, where, and what I am to bring." She says trying to be nice.
|
|
ariennye
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by ariennye on Jul 26, 2005 23:21:04 GMT
hi i am new here i hoping that i can join the class if that is ok with you
|
|
anderson
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by anderson on Jul 27, 2005 2:50:40 GMT
Class ended a little while ago, but I see no reason why we can't start this up again if others are willing. I wouldn't mind teaching if needed, although this isn't my thread. I will ask Ford if he minds and get back to you on this. If any other cadets are interested, if Ford doesn't object, and if there is time, then we might do this again.
|
|
ariennye
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by ariennye on Jul 28, 2005 7:28:55 GMT
thanks an i hope he does i am a cadet need of training in all areas so whatever comes my way i will be ready for it.
|
|
wford
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by wford on Jul 29, 2005 3:46:28 GMT
Of course I don't object. I just want all Cadets to know that this class will be open to all Cadets, no matter what department they're going into. It will focus on simming as much as technical stuff, and is completely optional.
|
|
ariennye
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by ariennye on Jul 31, 2005 5:29:21 GMT
Of course I don't object. I just want all Cadets to know that this class will be open to all Cadets, no matter what department they're going into. It will focus on simming as much as technical stuff, and is completely optional. thanks an i would love to take this class ;D
|
|
Deleted
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2005 10:33:54 GMT
Of course I don't object. I just want all Cadets to know that this class will be open to all Cadets, no matter what department they're going into. It will focus on simming as much as technical stuff, and is completely optional. thanks an i would love to take this class ;D As the Hanson has gone on training mission, I would recommend sole focus on the training mission.......instead of posting both on ship and on base <which technically is impossible due to timeline/chronology>
|
|
ariennye
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by ariennye on Aug 3, 2005 4:40:24 GMT
Really I thought I could learn some things here an work on the ship as well but if sense you believe that I should focus on the ship instead I hope later I can still come back to this class.
|
|
Deleted
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2005 13:20:25 GMT
If anyone has any genuine questions about Qauntum Mechanics - whether its QED, QCD or just Schrodingers equations - I'll try to be on hand to help field things too. The really eager ones can try PMing me
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by jared on Aug 13, 2005 13:23:32 GMT
Wasn't the original point of Schrodinger's cat to show the futility of trying to measure quantum flux and not a general example to be used whenever the concept needed to be explained?
Also, wouldn't the cat be monitoring itself?
|
|
Deleted
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2005 23:45:02 GMT
The definition of an observation is one the most important controversies of the Copenhagen interpretation (which I myself have found difficult to accept - the important thing to remember is that it's just one of several possible interpretations of the mathematics). The assumption of the hypothetical is that the cat does not itself constitute an observer, but it is just a hypothetical analogy to describe a quantum system.
And yes, Schrodinger did originally coin the idea to show how ludicrous Quantum Mechanis had become and to show that there must be another more sensible answer, but it back-fired majorly on him and everyone generally responded with "wow, you're right - that must be what happens!" Schrodinger must have been kicking himself by that point ;D
It is, however, an analogy that can be applied to almost any quantum state of superposition. A quantum system can exist in two or more states (such as dead and alive) simultaneously at any one time. It is the basis of Quantum Computing and the qubit - a subject on which I wrote an essay a few years ago (I got 85% for it, which was 5% higher than anyone else in my year )
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by jared on Aug 14, 2005 23:58:01 GMT
I think that's the infamous time that Schrodinger placed a lot of physicists in boxes with a 100% chance of death. I believe the story was surpressed, so I don't think you'd have heard about that. Anyway, what constitutes an observer? Do they have to be consious or can non-sentient observers be counted? Surely an atom would know if it decayed or not simply by its state of being. It wouldn't perceive it as we perceive it, but it would have a definite state since its physical properties would be changed due to the decay that it has been subjected to. That would mean that whilst hypothetically a non observing object could be in two states of existence at once, in reality all particles are in a definite state of single existence. Moreover, what is the point of knowing that something CAN exist in two states if it cannot be interacted with whilst in this state? It seems of little value to be able to postulate that the cat is both alive and dead if as soon as you open the box either you have the saddest sight since the Director's Cut of Bambi, or 5 pointed ends of sheer rage. Surely it would only be of benefit if you could find a way to manipulate the content to your will if you were not able to set the original parameters. In a sense if someone else were to put the cat in the box, you would have to both be able to identify what is in the box without changing it and then to manipulate the parameters so that the cat does not die (assuming this to be your goal). Since this is paradoxical and lacking as we do the ability to generate fields of surreality, what is the worth of the possibility of dual states of existence to the real world? Second question, how does the Mark III stay airborne even though the centre of gravity appears to be forward of the wings and the wingspan:mass ratio is too low?
|
|
Elron
Fleet Admiral
[Retired]
?There are no facts, only interpretations? (Nietzsche)
Registered: May 31, 2003 12:23:57 GMT
Posts: 3,080
|
Post by Elron on Aug 15, 2005 0:11:16 GMT
I've tried to discover the definition of an observer, but like I say it's one of the most controversial and philosophical questions from QM. That's why most physicists choose to ignore it completely. If you think about the most basic example - the double slit experiment (something I've performed many times now) - you don't even need to see the results of the measurement. If you create some kind of system that will measure which of the two slits your photon has passed through, you don't even need to know which slit it passed - you only need to have taken the measurement. This alone is enough to collapse the wave-function and change the interference pattern to a single-slit spread. It took me a while to realise this and I was tying myself in knots about the implications for human consciousness, until I realised that our knowledge doesn't play as big a part as I'd thought. It's the measurement itself that matters.
As for what the point is, I'm afraid physics doesn't work that way. It isn't a convenient subject that works the way we would like it to. As it happens though, you can perform operations on the quantum superposition without collapsing the wave-function. This, again, is the basis for Quantum Computing. You can use a tuned laser pulse to affect all of the states in a superposition and therefore perform one massive parallel computation. Of course once you make a measurement of the outcome you will only have one answer, but that answer does follow on logically from the superposition of states and can be used to deduce valuable information. I think it was Peter Shor from the At&T Bell labs who wrote an algorithm using this phenomenon to create a program which can search a list of N items in root-N steps and find the desired result.
It also explains how the sun shines and why the universe is expanding
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by jared on Aug 15, 2005 10:23:53 GMT
But how do we KNOW that this is the case? What's to say that things don't just always have only one state of existence and an erroneous but plausible assumption has been made.
|
|
Elron
Fleet Admiral
[Retired]
?There are no facts, only interpretations? (Nietzsche)
Registered: May 31, 2003 12:23:57 GMT
Posts: 3,080
|
Post by Elron on Aug 17, 2005 21:35:47 GMT
Because if that was the case then when I fired lots of photons through a double-slit apparatus one at a time, I wouldn't have a series of light and dark stripes on screen - instead of an interference pattern I would have two spots around which the photons kept hitting, one from the left slit and one from the right slit. How else can a single particle move through two slits and interfere with itself?
I get what you're saying though. It's an extremely difficult topic to get your head around and any physicist who doesn't spend the first couple of years of their teaching arguing with their lecturers, just isn't giving it enough thought. To quote Niels Bohr: "Anyone who is not confused by Quantum Mechanics hasn't understood it."
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by jared on Aug 18, 2005 22:32:44 GMT
How can you guarantee that in that case a fundamental mistake has not been made on the nature of photons and they cannot be fired one at a time but in fact always occur in pairs or more?
|
|
Elron
Fleet Admiral
[Retired]
?There are no facts, only interpretations? (Nietzsche)
Registered: May 31, 2003 12:23:57 GMT
Posts: 3,080
|
Post by Elron on Aug 19, 2005 17:47:54 GMT
If you're trying to get me to prove that Quantum Mechanics is definitely right then of course I can't do it. It is theoretically possible that there is an alternative, better explanation that we haven't discovered yet, and I actually go out my way not to accept everything I'm told. And of course there's the added fact that as an agnostic I don't believe it is possible to have certain knowledge about anything. Even Descartes failed there.
So I can't prove beyond doubt that Quantum Mechanics is true and you know it. However, in the absence of any evidence that photons are an intrinsic pair of particles (somehow able to interfere regardless of the number of slits), we must go with the best and most plausible solution we have. That's pragmatism
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
|
Post by jared on Aug 19, 2005 18:10:35 GMT
If you're trying to get me to prove that Quantum Mechanics is definitely right then of course I can't do it. It is theoretically possible that there is an alternative, better explanation that we haven't discovered yet, and I actually go out my way not to accept everything I'm told. And of course there's the added fact that as an agnostic I don't believe it is possible to have certain knowledge about anything. Even Descartes failed there.
So I can't prove beyond doubt that Quantum Mechanics is true and you know it. However, in the absence of any evidence that photons are an intrinsic pair of particles (somehow able to interfere regardless of the number of slits), we must go with the best and most plausible solution we have. That's pragmatism Wuold you really want to prove that it's definite though? If you did then you'd collapse the waveform. ;D
|
|
Elron
Fleet Admiral
[Retired]
?There are no facts, only interpretations? (Nietzsche)
Registered: May 31, 2003 12:23:57 GMT
Posts: 3,080
|
Post by Elron on Aug 21, 2005 0:50:03 GMT
Lol. I reckon QM could do with a good collapse
|
|
Deleted
Registered: Apr 25, 2024 5:57:38 GMT
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2005 15:46:40 GMT
... as an agnostic I don't believe it is possible to have certain knowledge about anything. An' might that mean you're not certain o' me own existence, Admiral?
|
|