Talk:Quantum woo/Archive1
Move[edit]
"Quantum woo" seems to this same phenomenon and a more well known derivation for it. I propose moving this to that title. Thoughts? tmtoulouse 16:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It be more in keeping with the format of the other woo articles that way.
bomination 16:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Aww... fun article with matching name (once you remove the word "sham" it won't be as fun anymore). Oh well, perhaps it's a lame joke to begin with. If you guys move the page perhaps you guys should rewrite/delete the fun space article. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with proposed move, old title worked in its day, new title fits what we tend to do in these modern times. What does it have to do with fun article? Template allows parameters, I think... ħuman
02:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The fun article was pretty much depending on the equivocation of the word "sham", so it may be less fun if the main article does not use that word. but that's just me, I have no idea how much less fun it would be (it perhaps is a really lame joke to begin with). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with proposed move, old title worked in its day, new title fits what we tend to do in these modern times. What does it have to do with fun article? Template allows parameters, I think... ħuman
- Aww... fun article with matching name (once you remove the word "sham" it won't be as fun anymore). Oh well, perhaps it's a lame joke to begin with. If you guys move the page perhaps you guys should rewrite/delete the fun space article. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm probably over thinking this[edit]
If humans typically live about 70 years, wouldn't they have a half-life of about 20 or 30 years? --Paradox (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Stupidity has special robustness and durability - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Humans are not radioactive, so no. — Unsigned, by: 108.180.92.37 / talk
Quantum consciousness?[edit]
Seems to be a longstanding dispute on Wikipedia regarding microtubules' putative role in consciousness. Anybody able to help out over there? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
With any luck this is now dead.
Wave / Particle Duality[edit]
This part of the entry is incorrect. The equation E=ħw can be used to derive the angular frequency for all quantum objects. In other words, everything is 100% a wave. But as the frequency is determined by Planck's constant, we can often treat them as particles. Of course this itself is a simplification and there are other concerns. For example, the wavelength becomes so infinitesimal in any non-quantum mass that it's much smaller than the object's own dimensions. It's unclear what happens to the wavelength at this point, but the "duality" issue has been solved definitively. We treat things as particles for the same reasons we still use Newton's Laws... they're good enough for most applications.66.233.38.120 (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- De Broglie's relationship holds for independent objects in that sense, suggesting everything is a wave, but it doesn't quite explain the apparent "quantum collapse" observed up observation of a superpositional state, nor for things such as the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. Even in the standard double-slit experiment particles are detected as if they were particles, but their distribution implies a wave-like nature during transit through the split. That all particles have an associated frequency as determined λ = h/mv has no impact upon this observation. More broadly, it does it explain why interactions between photons and matter are particle-like. For example, consider that the wavelength of a visible photon is on the order of 500 nm but atoms and molecules (which absorb them instantly as if they were point-mass particles) are 1000 times smaller. moral
13:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Quantum Medicine[edit]
Just cruising the Internets... doop, doop, oh, what's this? "Imagine you are 20 years old and your doctor tells you that you have a “terminal” illness with one-year left to live. That’s what happened to Dr. Paul Yanick, AAQM President and founder 45 years ago. Today, as the national director of national board-certification for doctors and practitioners in Quantum Medicine, he is announcing FREE monthly webinars to members on a wide range of health topics. The AAQM is funded primarily by tax deductible, charitable contributions and accepts gifts in a variety of ways that most befit the donor." "Dr" Yanick, conveniently, has his own supplement business where he thoughtfully reminds you that "97.5% of Dietary Supplements currently sold are toxic, moldy, heat damaged and ineffective at restoring inner physician health and fail to nourish the human microbiome" so of course, you're MUCH better off buying your supplements from him! Imagine that. --Pere Ubu (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)