Talk:1731: Wrong - Revision history

KnotQbol: Comment on the scratched-out "I'm wrong"

2026-02-23T17:57:02Z

Comment on the scratched-out "I'm wrong"

HumaneEngineer: First discussion I've ever joined

2018-09-27T00:11:19Z

First discussion I've ever joined

WamSam at 10:08, 19 June 2017

2017-06-19T10:08:17Z

141.101.99.77 at 12:15, 16 June 2017

2017-06-16T12:15:55Z

BradleyRoss: Discussion of particles as abstractions

2017-06-13T15:58:35Z

Discussion of particles as abstractions

162.158.75.39 at 22:59, 24 September 2016

2016-09-24T22:59:06Z

172.68.34.124: Another irony about the "I'm wrong" bit...

2016-09-21T16:01:15Z

Another irony about the "I'm wrong" bit...

162.158.214.222 at 18:01, 19 September 2016

2016-09-19T18:01:42Z

108.162.219.52 at 15:36, 12 September 2016

2016-09-12T15:36:57Z

108.162.212.92 at 23:28, 10 September 2016

2016-09-10T23:28:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:57, 23 February 2026
Line 28:		Line 28:

	I wonder if his thought (I'm wrong) ended up annihilated as if matter came into contact with antimatter...a bit of irony considering he WAS wrong about the antimatter assertion. Add if you think it makes sense. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.124\|172.68.34.124]]		I wonder if his thought (I'm wrong) ended up annihilated as if matter came into contact with antimatter...a bit of irony considering he WAS wrong about the antimatter assertion. Add if you think it makes sense. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.124\|172.68.34.124]]
		+	:I suspect he himself mentally scratched out his obviously true conclusion ("I'm wrong") and replaced it with "...", because he rejects or fears even ''imagining'' himself to be wrong (let alone revealing it to someone else). [[User:KnotQbol\|KnotQbol]] ([[User talk:KnotQbol\|talk]]) 17:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

	I just wanted to comment on the nature of particles being abstractions from quantum field theory. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory in the section marked "Implications". It contains references to "particle-like" and "field-like" objects. The mathematics demonstrate artifacts that appear to correspond to the particles. However, does that mean that particle is a result of the mathematics or the mathematics represent the particle. If a particle is something that can be observed, how can it be an abstraction? The particle is a real object whose behavior can be described more or less accurately by the mathematics. Now, if you had a virtual world inside a computer where Quantum Field Theory is used to determine the location of particles, then particles would be abstract data arising from Quantum Field Theory. I realize that this sounds confusing, and I am trying to think of how to word this more clearly. [[User:BradleyRoss\|BradleyRoss]] ([[User talk:BradleyRoss\|talk]]) 15:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)		I just wanted to comment on the nature of particles being abstractions from quantum field theory. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory in the section marked "Implications". It contains references to "particle-like" and "field-like" objects. The mathematics demonstrate artifacts that appear to correspond to the particles. However, does that mean that particle is a result of the mathematics or the mathematics represent the particle. If a particle is something that can be observed, how can it be an abstraction? The particle is a real object whose behavior can be described more or less accurately by the mathematics. Now, if you had a virtual world inside a computer where Quantum Field Theory is used to determine the location of particles, then particles would be abstract data arising from Quantum Field Theory. I realize that this sounds confusing, and I am trying to think of how to word this more clearly. [[User:BradleyRoss\|BradleyRoss]] ([[User talk:BradleyRoss\|talk]]) 15:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 : I would dispute that Megan isn't sure what she's talking about. It seems to me that she only sounds uncertain because she is trying to be polite; this is a common strategy for women in particular. (As evidence, note that I started the previous sentence with "it seems to me" instead of an assertion of fact, and the one before that is in the subjunctive mood.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.222|162.158.214.222]] 18:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 :Worth pointing out that other comics that could be interpreted as mansplaining have had this potential explanation purged. It is my understanding that alternative possible explanations/  of the jokes were encouraged, and many explanations include what seem to be relatively unlikely alternatives. Manplaining is apparently the only one that is verboten. I won't speculate as to why. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.39|162.158.75.39]] 22:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 Any reference to "Somebody's WRONG on the Internet!"?  [[386: Duty Calls]] [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 18:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@@ Line 32: / Line 33: @@
 What if his thoughts were erased retroactively after him "observing" he was wrong? A la the result of that double-field experiment where observing the electrons changes the result (can't remember the name as of now)? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:08, 19 June 2017
Line 29:		Line 29:

	I just wanted to comment on the nature of particles being abstractions from quantum field theory. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory in the section marked "Implications". It contains references to "particle-like" and "field-like" objects. The mathematics demonstrate artifacts that appear to correspond to the particles. However, does that mean that particle is a result of the mathematics or the mathematics represent the particle. If a particle is something that can be observed, how can it be an abstraction? The particle is a real object whose behavior can be described more or less accurately by the mathematics. Now, if you had a virtual world inside a computer where Quantum Field Theory is used to determine the location of particles, then particles would be abstract data arising from Quantum Field Theory. I realize that this sounds confusing, and I am trying to think of how to word this more clearly. [[User:BradleyRoss\|BradleyRoss]] ([[User talk:BradleyRoss\|talk]]) 15:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)		I just wanted to comment on the nature of particles being abstractions from quantum field theory. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory in the section marked "Implications". It contains references to "particle-like" and "field-like" objects. The mathematics demonstrate artifacts that appear to correspond to the particles. However, does that mean that particle is a result of the mathematics or the mathematics represent the particle. If a particle is something that can be observed, how can it be an abstraction? The particle is a real object whose behavior can be described more or less accurately by the mathematics. Now, if you had a virtual world inside a computer where Quantum Field Theory is used to determine the location of particles, then particles would be abstract data arising from Quantum Field Theory. I realize that this sounds confusing, and I am trying to think of how to word this more clearly. [[User:BradleyRoss\|BradleyRoss]] ([[User talk:BradleyRoss\|talk]]) 15:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
		+	:I'm not a particle physicist, so my understanding is just that of a layman. I believe what this part of QFT tries to deal with is literally HOW the particle can exist (I don't think anyone is trying to say it doesn't exist). So QFT is a mathematical theory that attempts to describes a field (similar to electromagnetic field) that is underlying the particles, the excitations in this field are thought to give rise to the particle, I believe this is why the term 'abstraction' is used. [[User:WamSam\|WamSam]] ([[User talk:WamSam\|talk]]) 10:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

	What if his thoughts were erased retroactively after him "observing" he was wrong? A la the result of that double-field experiment where observing the electrons changes the result (can't remember the name as of now)? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77\|141.101.99.77]] 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)		What if his thoughts were erased retroactively after him "observing" he was wrong? A la the result of that double-field experiment where observing the electrons changes the result (can't remember the name as of now)? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77\|141.101.99.77]] 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:15, 16 June 2017
Line 29:		Line 29:

	I just wanted to comment on the nature of particles being abstractions from quantum field theory. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory in the section marked "Implications". It contains references to "particle-like" and "field-like" objects. The mathematics demonstrate artifacts that appear to correspond to the particles. However, does that mean that particle is a result of the mathematics or the mathematics represent the particle. If a particle is something that can be observed, how can it be an abstraction? The particle is a real object whose behavior can be described more or less accurately by the mathematics. Now, if you had a virtual world inside a computer where Quantum Field Theory is used to determine the location of particles, then particles would be abstract data arising from Quantum Field Theory. I realize that this sounds confusing, and I am trying to think of how to word this more clearly. [[User:BradleyRoss\|BradleyRoss]] ([[User talk:BradleyRoss\|talk]]) 15:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)		I just wanted to comment on the nature of particles being abstractions from quantum field theory. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory in the section marked "Implications". It contains references to "particle-like" and "field-like" objects. The mathematics demonstrate artifacts that appear to correspond to the particles. However, does that mean that particle is a result of the mathematics or the mathematics represent the particle. If a particle is something that can be observed, how can it be an abstraction? The particle is a real object whose behavior can be described more or less accurately by the mathematics. Now, if you had a virtual world inside a computer where Quantum Field Theory is used to determine the location of particles, then particles would be abstract data arising from Quantum Field Theory. I realize that this sounds confusing, and I am trying to think of how to word this more clearly. [[User:BradleyRoss\|BradleyRoss]] ([[User talk:BradleyRoss\|talk]]) 15:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	What if his thoughts were erased retroactively after him "observing" he was wrong? A la the result of that double-field experiment where observing the electrons changes the result (can't remember the name as of now)? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77\|141.101.99.77]] 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 13 June 2017
Line 27:		Line 27:

	I wonder if his thought (I'm wrong) ended up annihilated as if matter came into contact with antimatter...a bit of irony considering he WAS wrong about the antimatter assertion. Add if you think it makes sense. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.124\|172.68.34.124]]		I wonder if his thought (I'm wrong) ended up annihilated as if matter came into contact with antimatter...a bit of irony considering he WAS wrong about the antimatter assertion. Add if you think it makes sense. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.124\|172.68.34.124]]
		+
		+	I just wanted to comment on the nature of particles being abstractions from quantum field theory. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory in the section marked "Implications". It contains references to "particle-like" and "field-like" objects. The mathematics demonstrate artifacts that appear to correspond to the particles. However, does that mean that particle is a result of the mathematics or the mathematics represent the particle. If a particle is something that can be observed, how can it be an abstraction? The particle is a real object whose behavior can be described more or less accurately by the mathematics. Now, if you had a virtual world inside a computer where Quantum Field Theory is used to determine the location of particles, then particles would be abstract data arising from Quantum Field Theory. I realize that this sounds confusing, and I am trying to think of how to word this more clearly. [[User:BradleyRoss\|BradleyRoss]] ([[User talk:BradleyRoss\|talk]]) 15:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:01, 21 September 2016
Line 24:		Line 24:

	It doesn't sound like the title text is literally what White Hat is saying, but rather someone else summarizing their statements in a mocking way. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.92\|108.162.212.92]] 23:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)		It doesn't sound like the title text is literally what White Hat is saying, but rather someone else summarizing their statements in a mocking way. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.92\|108.162.212.92]] 23:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	I wonder if his thought (I'm wrong) ended up annihilated as if matter came into contact with antimatter...a bit of irony considering he WAS wrong about the antimatter assertion. Add if you think it makes sense. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.124\|172.68.34.124]]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 mansplaining much? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84|141.101.98.84]] 11:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 : I don't think so. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 Any reference to "Somebody's WRONG on the Internet!"?  [[386: Duty Calls]] [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 18:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, 12 September 2016
Line 19:		Line 19:

	While not really part of objects, there are plenty of {{w\|positron}}s (antielectrons) around: they are produced by radioactive decay, can appear in thunderstorms, are used in nuclear medicine. There is enough radioactive isotope of potassium in average human body to produce thousands of positrons per second. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)		While not really part of objects, there are plenty of {{w\|positron}}s (antielectrons) around: they are produced by radioactive decay, can appear in thunderstorms, are used in nuclear medicine. There is enough radioactive isotope of potassium in average human body to produce thousands of positrons per second. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	Is there a technical definition of "object" I am unaware of that excludes hypothetical and abstract objects? What is it that makes a flux capacitor not an object? Or public opinion? Or indeed a sphere made of antimatter? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.52\|108.162.219.52]] 15:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)larK

	It doesn't sound like the title text is literally what White Hat is saying, but rather someone else summarizing their statements in a mocking way. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.92\|108.162.212.92]] 23:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)		It doesn't sound like the title text is literally what White Hat is saying, but rather someone else summarizing their statements in a mocking way. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.92\|108.162.212.92]] 23:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:28, 10 September 2016
Line 19:		Line 19:

	While not really part of objects, there are plenty of {{w\|positron}}s (antielectrons) around: they are produced by radioactive decay, can appear in thunderstorms, are used in nuclear medicine. There is enough radioactive isotope of potassium in average human body to produce thousands of positrons per second. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)		While not really part of objects, there are plenty of {{w\|positron}}s (antielectrons) around: they are produced by radioactive decay, can appear in thunderstorms, are used in nuclear medicine. There is enough radioactive isotope of potassium in average human body to produce thousands of positrons per second. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	It doesn't sound like the title text is literally what White Hat is saying, but rather someone else summarizing their statements in a mocking way. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.92\|108.162.212.92]] 23:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)