What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- wifirewire2, on 11/20/2008, -43/+8CeilingCat says
Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.- snea, on 11/20/2008, -14/+15Shut the ***** up you retard.
- 16777216, on 11/21/2008, -8/+6Shut the retard up you *****.
- chron, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2Wow, snea, having a bad day?
You don't have to be here, you know.
- snea, on 11/20/2008, -14/+15Shut the ***** up you retard.
- SenorBabyMan, on 11/21/2008, -29/+8I can has citizenship?
- miggyb, on 11/21/2008, -3/+1Dugg up because of an appropriate name. Well, almost. Should have used the "ñ."
- drex8, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1You can yes, SenorCatMan.
- harrisbradley, on 11/21/2008, -6/+65Oh 'Cliffs'!!! I thought it said 'Chins', and I was about to tell my wife.
- FuckTheNWO311, on 11/21/2008, -15/+0SOAD ROCKS!
http://zero.co.nz/music/images/s/System%20Of%20A%2 ... - dafragsta, on 11/21/2008, -1/+23Are your balls small enough to apply the laws of quantum physics?
- harrisbradley, on 11/21/2008, -2/+9An object does not need to be small to be effected by quantum physics. However her chin is quite small, which is why we have the rolling off issue.
serve returned... - dafragsta, on 11/21/2008, -1/+4A subatomic particle sized chin. That was pretty ***** good. Well played sir! Technically you served. I volleyed, but I'll give you the point.
You could at least tell us if her chin has it's own universe inside it or not. My theory is that everything is infinitely large and small simultaneously. It's probably all still a singularity. - JayD16, on 11/21/2008, -0/+4Small potatoes makes the steak look bigger...
- harrisbradley, on 11/21/2008, -2/+9An object does not need to be small to be effected by quantum physics. However her chin is quite small, which is why we have the rolling off issue.
- baberim, on 11/21/2008, -4/+2Best comment on Digg ever.
- FuckTheNWO311, on 11/21/2008, -15/+0SOAD ROCKS!
- Azohko, on 11/21/2008, -16/+11Is there anything Quantum can't do?
Make a good James Bond movie!- grungegbunny, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3In one parallel universe there is.
- AdamKernes, on 11/21/2008, -10/+5prepare to trip balls...
- aComa, on 11/21/2008, -10/+3The balls are inert.
- jacobu9, on 11/21/2008, -10/+2A head spinner, or a head spinor?
- latticebug, on 11/21/2008, -4/+6Quantum field theory, to be precise.
- EatChex89, on 11/21/2008, -11/+6My head asplode.
- Zeigy, on 11/21/2008, -7/+1I see what you did there.
Instead of typing "e" and "x" on the top and bottom keyboard rows you typed "a and "s" to the left and right of "e" and "x".- UndeadZmobie, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2It's a reference to the vector game created by Strong Bad from HomeStarRunner.com.
Though it's not very funny, or a good place to use the reference.
Also, both "a" and "s" are on the left side of both "e" and "x" on my computer. - EatChex89, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2I thought it was funny. *shrug*
- UndeadZmobie, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2It's a reference to the vector game created by Strong Bad from HomeStarRunner.com.
- Zeigy, on 11/21/2008, -7/+1I see what you did there.
- mut3, on 11/21/2008, -1/+29This is a BASIC example in quantum physics/mechanics textbooks... no new science here. Even Griffiths mentions its in his textbook.
- nepidae, on 11/21/2008, -0/+19I prefer PASCAL
- Rivetgeek, on 11/21/2008, -0/+15*****, I didnt see a single GOTO
- einstevo, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2griffiths is my hero. i didn't appreciate him until i tried reading other quantum books.
- zip000, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3Jeez, if this is a basic example then I'm really out of my league. I'm gonna go kick around in the shallow end.
- jongurizzy, on 11/21/2008, -3/+0i dont really buy this quantum theory. before this devolves into a god/religion discussion, i want to state im an atheist and firm believer of science. i just feel they are making this ***** up as they go along. what they are studying i think is stuff far beyond human comprehension and technological capability, so they create all these models to make sense of it all. we all know that the simplest answer in science is usually the right one, so i think quantum physicists have basically gotten so bogged down in the complexity of everything they have forgotten that the theory is too convoluted to be really whats going on. quantum theory might help explain phenomenon, and maybe even predict it, but i think they are far off base.
- Rivetgeek, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1Just because YOU cant comprehend it, doesn't mean other people can't. Quantum physics led to particle physics, nuclear physics, and eevntually nanotechnology. Standard Science uses gravity to explain things like orbits, quantum theory describes what really causes things like mass and gravity.
tl;dr: u r dumb.
- Rivetgeek, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1Just because YOU cant comprehend it, doesn't mean other people can't. Quantum physics led to particle physics, nuclear physics, and eevntually nanotechnology. Standard Science uses gravity to explain things like orbits, quantum theory describes what really causes things like mass and gravity.
- ShadowFoxxx, on 11/21/2008, -7/+2"In tunneling, the particle can do something the ball never does. Conversely, the particle might not do something the ball always does. If you kick a soccer ball toward the edge of a cliff, it will always fall off. But if you kick a particle toward the edge, it can bounce back to you. The particle is like one of those little toy robots that senses the edge of a table or staircase and reverses course, except that the particle has no internal mechanism to pull off its stunt. It naturally does the exact opposite of what the forces acting on it would indicate." -- Antitunneling.
Another thing to ponder about...two of my favourite quantum mechanics is Superposition (the idea one thing can be in two or more places at once) and Schrödinger's Cat. How about the Double Slit experiment with particles and waves?- postitnote, on 11/21/2008, -1/+9You didn't actually say anything meaningful.
- heyblue, on 11/21/2008, -1/+5Wow. You've now heard of 3 things related to Quantum Physics. Congratulations.
- Cerebron, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3Particle may be reacting to gravity/magnetism, or any number of as yet undiscovered forces, so I tend to interpret 'quantum' as 'we don't really know yet'.
- lostlyrics, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2now schroedinger's cat (unless dead
always falling onto its paws) but a jam
toast (always falling onto jam side) tied
up its back - what happens if ... uh oh -
wahhhHHH *blink blink* HAR HAR HAR !
- Avaseal, on 11/21/2008, -4/+5Only the kids chasing them.
- crh3f, on 11/21/2008, -5/+1wait...so if the particle "does the exact opposite of what the forces acting on it want it to do"...then when you kick it...it would...what?
*POP*
(that was my head exploding. anyone got a mop?)- frazw, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2QM doesn't quite work like that.
It is not that it WILL behave unexpectedly but that it CAN behave unexpectedly.
Also if your head exploded how did you ask for a mop? Shenanigans!!!!!- crh3f, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1apparently, according to this article, ANYTHING can happen...so don't be so surprised I can still ask for a mop!
- frazw, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2QM doesn't quite work like that.
- thirdeyeopen, on 11/21/2008, -15/+7W
- thirdeyeopen, on 11/21/2008, -6/+22T
- FuckTheNWO311, on 11/21/2008, -8/+1Why is the letter T or the word THE less offensive than "what" or "*****?"
I'm going to go back to PRYING OPEN MY THIRD EYE,.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShiShKN_v7s- NathanielJ, on 11/21/2008, -0/+6Did you just ask why the word "the" is less offensive than the word "*****"?
- KingGorilla, on 11/21/2008, -0/+4T is the superior letter
- aptanalogy, on 11/21/2008, -0/+5Actually, I've met a lot of people who seemed really enthused about the letter "t", as in lowercase. I've seen it in front of many large building where many seem to be congregating...
- RutgerB, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2-shirt
- FuckTheNWO311, on 11/21/2008, -8/+1Why is the letter T or the word THE less offensive than "what" or "*****?"
- thirdeyeopen, on 11/21/2008, -15/+7F
- vsujohn2, on 11/21/2008, -7/+6Quantum Mechanics and balls, I'm strangely turned on.
- FuckTheNWO311, on 11/21/2008, -8/+1Blah blah blah...it all comes down to the fact that we are part of something greater than we can conceive and if we ignore the spiritual realm we are doomed to cease due to the physical realm.
(thirdeyeopen....TOOL ROCKS!!!)- tehzombie, on 11/21/2008, -0/+7I bet the band hates fans like you who drag them into every possible conversation.
"*****, I'd hate to inform you that your mother just passed away."
"Really? Wow, that's kind of like that TOOL song about his mother dying. Even cooler is the fact that it's a two-part epic! Don't TOOL rock?"- FuckTheNWO311, on 11/21/2008, -5/+0Nope.
You lose your bet.
See what I did there? I just asserted my perception of reality as the true perception of reality. Just like you did...
- FuckTheNWO311, on 11/21/2008, -5/+0Nope.
- acetv, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2The "fact".
/bait - Harabeck, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2This has nothing to do with a spiritual realm. And, its beyond what we can conceive, right now, but that doesnt mean that will last forever. Look at the incredible progress physics has made in its short lifetime... In a few hundred years, who knows what we will understand?
- FuckTheNWO311, on 11/21/2008, -1/+0When you can define the innate random activities of quantum particles I invite you to give a definition of what exactly quantum particles can do.
It is my belief that the inherent properties of quantum particles allows for "supernatural" things to occur. They USUALLY don't but knowing that things like that CAN happen, in my opinion, moves quantum particles to a spiritual realm of "mind over matter." - noumuon, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2you sound like you know very little to nothing about quantum mechanics.
- FuckTheNWO311, on 11/21/2008, -1/+0When you can define the innate random activities of quantum particles I invite you to give a definition of what exactly quantum particles can do.
- tehzombie, on 11/21/2008, -0/+7I bet the band hates fans like you who drag them into every possible conversation.
- TheCheeks, on 11/21/2008, -6/+7My head asplode.
- Zeigy, on 11/21/2008, -3/+1I see what you did there.
Instead of typing "e" and "x" on the top and bottom keyboard rows you typed "a and "s" to the left and right of "e" and "x".- RobotLeAwesome, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3or he quoted an internet cartoon
- NathanielJ, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2@Zeigy - I see what you did there.
You posted the exact same comment twice under the same story.
- Zeigy, on 11/21/2008, -3/+1I see what you did there.
- sslemon, on 11/21/2008, -3/+2Air does not "roll" off a cliff, even though it may, depending on a lot of different parameters, so why is this hard to picture?
- miggyb, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2It would if it was in a vacuum.
- einstevo, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2dude if air was in a vacuum it wouldn't be a vacuum anymore. and sslemon, this is a super idealized picture of a single particle stuck inside of a potential, not a huge ensemble of particles buzzing around like in a gas. when that single particle encounters any change in the potential, it can either transmit through the boundary or reflect off of it. that's all we're talking about here.
- GothAlice, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Uh… huh. Air /does/ roll off a cliff. Any time you have a pressure differential, the material moves, and if it's moving over the ground, it's said to "roll over the ground". Predominantly it's rolling over itself, but…
- miggyb, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2It would if it was in a vacuum.
- happyzombie, on 11/21/2008, -6/+0Quantum computing means a computer that searches you for porn?
- tehknotte, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2you seem to have completely missed the point. by like 10,000 miles.
- Dylson, on 11/21/2008, -3/+6Pics or it doesn't exist.
- GarrettGrimsley, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3Heh, you could apply this to a number of other things as well, does not prove that they are not real though.
- JimSartor, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Actually, it doesn't really matter if any of this exists. Hawkings has stated many many times that asking if an "electron" is real is a pointless question. The fact that our perception of an electron as a real object allows us to conceive theories which are useful to predicting the nature of the universe. The fact that electrons might never even exist, don't really effect the predicting power of the theory. This is why ALL scientific knowledge is provisional.
- GarrettGrimsley, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3Heh, you could apply this to a number of other things as well, does not prove that they are not real though.
- bodisatvah, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3Remember, the higher an object is the greater its potential energy. It appears to "predict" because its wave-like properties are in space as well as time.
- Harabeck, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Higher? Were talking about a particle rolling along a flat surface. And it doesnt appear to predict anything, the wave hits a barrier and relfects back.
- bodisatvah, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1"Garrido and his colleagues undertook a numerical analysis to rule out the possibility that the phenomenon was an artifact of idealized assumptions. They also calculated how long a particle will tend to roll around the table before going over the edge; it gets longer the higher the table is."
This implies that the potential force of gravity on the object is affecting the outcome and that the possibility of its "falling". The reflection off of the "barrier" is based off of the probability of its location.The force with which it reflects is based off of its wave-like temporal characteristics relating to the probable locations it may occupy in this range of time.
- bodisatvah, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1"Garrido and his colleagues undertook a numerical analysis to rule out the possibility that the phenomenon was an artifact of idealized assumptions. They also calculated how long a particle will tend to roll around the table before going over the edge; it gets longer the higher the table is."
- karmabandit, on 11/21/2008, -1/+0I don't think you know what half the words mean that you just used. Either that or English is not your forte.
- bodisatvah, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2Care to point out what I said that was incorrect? I am happy to learn from my mistakes ^___^
- Harabeck, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Higher? Were talking about a particle rolling along a flat surface. And it doesnt appear to predict anything, the wave hits a barrier and relfects back.
- diggydougie, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3I've seen stuff like this in TV documentaries before. The way I see it there is a huge flaw in the analogy. If it doesn't make sense it is because we don't really understand it. And by "we" I mean the physicist. The fact that the rules break down at the small scale means that we don't have the math right.
- Harabeck, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1It's not that the rules break down, its that they change. There are definately still rules though.
- frazw, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2I hate to be a grammar nazi but...
Definitely has an I not an A. Derived from finite. - karmabandit, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1The rules don't change. Quantum mechanics always works. It's the stupid "balls fall off cliffs" rule that doesn't work-- and that's because it isn't a rule.
- diggydougie, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Of course there are rules. What I am saying is that we don't really understand what the rules are. We are missing something somewhere. Just as Newtonian physics would never explain a nuclear reaction we need a major leap in our understanding to get it right.
- frazw, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2I hate to be a grammar nazi but...
- Harabeck, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1It's not that the rules break down, its that they change. There are definately still rules though.
- Briandt75, on 11/21/2008, -3/+3Gee... I wonder if the author of this is trying to ride the coattails of Quantum of Solace.
- Harabeck, on 11/21/2008, -1/+5Stop connecting to this bond movie, a "quantum" just means the most basic unit of something, youre really stretching this to connect it to an article about quantum mechanics.
- BigManOnCampus, on 11/21/2008, -0/+18Quantum mechanics *DOES NOT* predict the opposite of what you might expect, It is simply UNEXPECTED (both in predictions, and it's existence).
- iancgi, on 11/21/2008, -3/+2No, we have no idea how the reality around us works.
- mrsaturn42, on 11/21/2008, -2/+8This is pretty stupid.
Sci-am continuously reads way too much into quantum mechanics and all physics(read their ****y article about nature breaking the 2nd law of thermo)
What is happening is an undergraduate evaluation of elementary QM. Also known as a simple solution to the shcrodinger equation.
Basically particles act as particles AND waves. In this case(and the case of tunneling) its like a wave that either reflects off of a something(ie a mirror) or goes through it(ie a piece of glass) or a little of both.
QM is a LOT less interesting than whoever wrote this crappy article made it seem.
There may be some new science in here, but really its just romanticizing old science, and then mentioning that someone might have found a use for it, but not really.- n00854180t, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3Agreed, journalistic science articles like this are less than worthless. Give me a white paper any day (assuming the topic were actually interesting, and not just another random and crappy interpretation of QM).
- TheMoniker, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1I mentioned this somewhere else, but it does seem as though whatever the original results of the journal article were, they were lost along the way. Particles reflecting off of wells (and I'm not talking about particles in wells, but rather, free particles that encounter a well as opposed to a barrier) has been known and understood for several decades now. We had it as an exercise in 3rd year quantum.
I will say though that certain things about QM are puzzling and extremely interesting e.g. why exactly (in light of Bell's paradox) a particle choose to take a stand at location x as opposed to location y when an observation was made, or the details of QCD.
- Schmope, on 11/21/2008, -4/+2I think I just ***** a brick.
- ClevelandBrown, on 11/21/2008, -3/+2Everybody dance!
Yay, hurray, yipee!
Everybody dance!
Yay, hurray, yipee!
My anus is bleeding...
Yay, hurray, yipee!
MY A-NUS IS BLEEEDING!- TheMoniker, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1The two things (that didn't involve being up at odd hours with friends) that made me laugh hardest:
1) Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas
2) That cartoon.
My spoon is too big.
- TheMoniker, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1The two things (that didn't involve being up at odd hours with friends) that made me laugh hardest:
- ClevelandBrown, on 11/21/2008, -3/+2Everybody dance!
- rainwolf1031, on 11/21/2008, -5/+3GOOOOOOAL!!! | !!!LAOOOOOOG
- Zeigy, on 11/21/2008, -6/+1That's assuming that when you kick the ball it goes forward in the first place.
- chesscat, on 11/21/2008, -5/+1My head just exploded.
- Checkerd, on 11/21/2008, -2/+4These comments suck. Including this one.
- centran, on 11/21/2008, -4/+1I will go back to thinking about temporal paradox becuase surprisingly that hurts my head less then thinking of quantum mechanics.
- Xihix, on 11/21/2008, -2/+2Balls are touching.
- frazw, on 11/21/2008, -2/+2In soviet russia you touch balls
Wait that's not right...
- frazw, on 11/21/2008, -2/+2In soviet russia you touch balls
- AmazingSteve, on 11/21/2008, -3/+4Does this mean Quantum Leap is coming back?
- Lewie, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2Oh boy....
- TheMoniker, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Damn you! Now that theme song is stuck in my head!
- entropysteak, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3Bu7Vz5D_o
- kookbutt, on 11/21/2008, -6/+1String theory is not science but snake oil alchemy.
- jas2701, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2Who mentioned string theory?
- RoboDonut, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1We wouldn't have modern chemistry if it weren't for alchemy...
- WatchDragon, on 11/21/2008, -3/+0I was wondering why my quantums were not rolling off the table this whole time. And now i know.
- hahahin, on 11/21/2008, -4/+1There are still wonders to be had.
- HillerMylife, on 11/21/2008, -4/+1Imagine four balls on the edge of a cliff. Say a direct copy of the ball nearest the cliff is sent to the back of the line of balls and takes the place of the first ball. The formerly first ball becomes the second, the second becomes the third, and the fourth falls off the cliff. Time works the same way.
- karmabandit, on 11/21/2008, -1/+0Certainly the time I wasted reading this might as well have been thrown off a cliff.
- TheMoniker, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It sounds like--and this is a bit of a stretch--you're alluding to the possibility that time is discrete at the Planck length; well, okay... But whatever else you're getting at isn't clear.
- woofers07, on 11/21/2008, -3/+1FTA,
"They also calculated how long a particle will tend to roll around the table before going over the edge; it gets longer the higher the table is."
That's pretty effed up if you ask me. - aptanalogy, on 11/21/2008, -2/+3"It’s a solid analysis, and it points out an interesting phenomenon I hadn’t been consciously aware of.”
Well, perhaps it exists now only because you're consciously aware of it? - drex8, on 11/21/2008, -1/+5Seriously, who dugg this up? No possible way the commenters. I mean except for a few comments here and there, none of the others make any sense or are relevant.
I bet whoever dugg it up, did just because of the word "Quantum" in the title, because it's such cool scientific word, and not because they understood the article.
(Disclaimer: Atleast I didn't. Digg up the article that is. Because I barely understood what the article was trying to say. But felt compelled to provide my 2 cents of retarded text. And I'm not making any excuses for that or apologize for it.)- karmabandit, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2Wow, well said. And here I was getting pissed off at all of the stupid comments-- glad that I could end the page with this one.
- ZeroCubed, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1I thought this was discussed in The Elegant Universe...
- RWFG, on 11/21/2008, -4/+1Thats so cool!
Better worry though...gays might sue to marry it cause it has balls.- MrColdheart, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1That's such a Rat Bastard thing to say.
- MrColdheart, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1That's such a Rat Bastard thing to say.
- noctambulist, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2Oh my oh my. This is a terrible, terrible article. Please don't believe that explanation of quantum mechanics has any value.
Particles behave as waves (until you look at them) and all waves exhibit this phenomenon. Quantum mechanics has been around for 80 years and our understanding of waves goes back centuries. Nothing new or weird to see here. - tzon, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2Ahhhh. That explains the mountain goats.
- Digital.Totem, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1quantum mechanics for children is a better title.
- jhails, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1A Quantum of Solace = 3 stars, Rent it.
- bigbangbuddha, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2How long before this becomes a weapon?
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is 