this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
520 points (96.1% liked)

memes

12042 readers
1864 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SirSamuel@lemmy.world 65 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Miphera@lemmy.world 99 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] kokopelli@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

god DAMMIT SHE JUST WON’T STOP

[–] Miphera@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] kokopelli@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Fixed :) I need to remember to use “they” on here

[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago

OP winrars today‽

[–] Miphera@lemmy.world 63 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I kinda wish there was a Lemmy community for Loss edits.

(if there is, I haven't found it)

[–] OsaErisXero@kbin.run 54 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's our secret Cap, they're all communities for Loss edits

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

I look for loss in all things when I don't get a joke. It's become a problem.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Did not get it until I read this

[–] Lemjukes@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

I respect hate you rn

[–] Miphera@lemmy.world 48 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Bubs@lemmings.world 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

If I remember correctly, the ELI5 is it's impossible to measure something without interacting with it in some way. The calculations and science determine it will turn out like the top image. The moment we try to measure it though, we have to interact with it. This changes the calculations and whatnot, thus producing a different pattern.

It's that correct more or less?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

It’s that correct more or loss?

FTFY, LOL

[–] IlIllIIIllIlIlIIlI@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm glad to see people that know this. You are right, to measure implies interaction. The problem is that they call it "look at", When they should Say "measure".

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

But it's weirder than that. You can delay the measurement of which path it takes until after the particle hits the detector and still get weird quantum effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

Yep. The bottom picture is a regular, predictable result of light going separately through the top and bottom slits (behaving like particles that can only be in one place at one time).

The top picture is the light going through both slits at the same time and interfering with itself, producing the pattern you see (behaving like waves that can be in multiple places at once with different probabilities).

Therefore, light is a particle and a wave at the same time, flipping between the two depending on circumstances such as measuring it

[–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago

That's my understanding. On the other hand, the fun conspiracy theory is that we live in a simulation and stuff like this responds differently when observed because of shortcuts taken in simulating reality.

[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 months ago

Yeah, you're close. You seem to be suggesting that any measurement causes the interference pattern to disappear implying that we can't actually observe the interference pattern. I'm not sure if that's what you truly meant, but that isn't the case. Disclaimer: I'm not an expert - I could be mistaken.

The particle is actually being measured in both experiments, but it's measured twice in the second experiment. That's because both experiments measure the particle's position at the screen while the second one also measures if the particle passes through one of the slits. It's the measurement at the slit that disrupts the interference pattern; however, both patterns are physically observable. Placing a detector at the slit destroys the interference pattern, and removing the detector from the slit reintroduces the interference pattern.

[–] Lemjukes@lemm.ee 24 points 11 months ago
[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I come for the loss memes. Sorry if I got any on you.

      | || || |_
[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 14 points 11 months ago (3 children)
[–] teft@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Short answer: Quantum mechanics

Long answer: QQQQQQQQQQQUUUUUUUUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTTUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEECCCCCCCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNIIIIIIIICCCCCCCCCCCCCSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wow, wish I could speak whale!

[–] rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Gracie is pregnant.

[–] IlIllIIIllIlIlIIlI@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Measure implies interaction.

[–] son_named_bort@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I don't know, I'm at a loss.

[–] GrimSheeper@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

Congratulations this is the best (worst) one yet

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

someone photoshopped the experiment images a bit too much this time