Theoretically True on the Tuesday NO PO Open Thread

[Z is for Zangie]

Lot's of science is theoretically true. I am curious as to what point it becomes undeniably true. Especially in astronomy. How many experiments, peer reviews, etc before it is accepted? So, a new rabbit hole for me to go down. But, I picked this topic for several reasons, one is I saw this a lot, but, danged if I can think of any of the things I say it about...and sometimes it is kinda tongue in cheek. Also, some things I know are still theories to some extent, or seem to be...like Black holes, the age of the universe etc...seems to be not totally proven. So, what are some things that fascinate you and you would like to turn out to be proven? Or use this any way you want to.

[Randi]

I know black holes are real. Sometimes they take my keys and I can’t find them for days

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

I don't think there is such a thing as underlining truth in science. Everything is theory until disproved.

[Tarmaque]

I know black holes are real. Sometimes they take my keys and I can’t find them for days

I think everyone has a junk drawer somewhere in their house that is so full of stuff that they can never find what they want. Eventually they spawn new junk drawers contain different stuff. This different stuff builds up until you can't find anything in the new drawer either.

This is my Theory of General Drawer Activity.

[Z is for Zangie]

I know black holes are real. Sometimes they take my keys and I can’t find them for days

I think everyone has a junk drawer somewhere in their house that is so full of stuff that they can never find what they want. Eventually they spawn new junk drawers contain different stuff. This different stuff builds up until you can't find anything in the new drawer either.

This is my Theory of General Drawer Activity.

Teehee

[Slip Shod]

quantum computing and quantum theory is fantastic beyond measure and they're finding more and more out about it everyday. I do not have the smarts to understand it, what I'm hearing quantum people say is that an electron can be in two different places at the same time. In different places and all the while able to react sympathetically to what the other electron is doing. Something to do with computing 10000 times faster then what the best computers can do without the quantum effect.
Wish I had smarts - just a humble schmo

[Tarmaque]

quantum computing and quantum theory is fantastic beyond measure and they're finding more and more out about it everyday. I do not have the smarts to understand it, what I'm hearing quantum people say is that an electron can be in two different places at the same time. In different places and all the while able to react sympathetically to what the other electron is doing. Something to do with computing 10000 times faster then what the best computers can do without the quantum effect.
Wish I had smarts - just a humble schmo

By the way, it isn't that an electron is in two places at the same time, but that it's in more than one state at the same time. Put it this way: an electrical switch be it mechanical or a transistor can either be on, or off. Nothing else. In a quantum computer the Q-bit "switch" can be on, or off, or some state in between on or off. How to make use of this requires math, and math and I are not friends.

Watch a bit of Sabine Hossenfelder and you will not understand Quantum at a much higher level.



(I love Sabine with all my heart, but she's too smart and hot for the likes of me.)

[Randi]

I think everyone has a junk drawer somewhere in their house that is so full of stuff that they can never find what they want. Eventually they spawn new junk drawers contain different stuff. This different stuff builds up until you can't find anything in the new drawer either.

This is my Theory of General Drawer Activity.

I heartily concur with your Theory.
When I moved into my grandparents house. They had three junk drawers. I think I must have at least nine now. I had to add a junk drawer just for various chargers I have
And I’m not real sure what is in the original three. And I hate to throw anything out in case I “ need’ it
I brought a bundle of zip ties in from the van last week. I put them somewhere. I still can’t find them. They may have gone off and started their own drawer. I’m not sure.

[Mike]

I cannot stand the conflation of hypothesis with theory.

The former is a guess. Often an educated one, but still a guess. The latter is an explanation of state.

[Slip Shod]

You asked the question ..

pt8qfl2jae651.jpg (73.24 KiB) Viewed 2109 times

~
I'd pull you in and see if we could make the second one better ✔

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

By the way, it isn't that an electron is in two places at the same time, but that it's in more than one state at the same time. Put it this way: an electrical switch be it mechanical or a transistor can either be on, or off. Nothing else. In a quantum computer the Q-bit "switch" can be on, or off, or some state in between on or off. How to make use of this requires math, and math and I are not friends.

@Slip Shod

The problem isn't so much these in-between states (In fact they are the advantage in quantum computing) The problem is something called decoherence. Outside factors can effect the state of a quantum particle. Even the act of observing effects that sate. This gets worse as you bring more particles together. So in essence the faster the computer the more errors it has in it's calculations. We can build in error correction into our algorithms, but at some point the error correction takes up so much resources that the quantum computer ends up slower then standard processing. There was a great Scientific America article about it sometime in the last year or so.

[Z is for Zangie]

You asked the question ..
pt8qfl2jae651.jpg
~
I'd pull you in and see if we could make the second one better ✔

[Tarmaque]

The problem isn't so much these in-between states (In fact they are the advantage in quantum computing) The problem is something called decoherence. Outside factors can effect the state of a quantum particle. Even the act of observing effects that sate. This gets worse as you bring more particles together. So in essence the faster the computer the more errors it has in it's calculations. We can build in error correction into our algorithms, but at some point the error correction takes up so much resources that the quantum computer ends up slower then standard processing. There was a great Scientific America article about it sometime in the last year or so.

I don't know if you're into webcomics or not, but there's a wonderful one called A Miracle of Science. Some of it is utterly silly, but there's a lot of real science in there too. One of the fun ones is what they call a "Decoherence Cannon." A supposed "mining device" repurposed as a space weapon. Fun stuff. It collapses quantum states, which is so much more elegant than a disintegrator.