Talk:1731: Wrong

I wrote up a first explanation of the comic. Someone else also added in a sentence, which nicely merged in to the explanation. Still needs revision and links to articles, as well as an explanation of the title text 172.68.35.81 04:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh... what do you mean by "just a few sentences to kick this off"??? I don't know how to fix this because I don't understand what you mean. JayRulesXKCD (talk) 7:52, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

Oh, sorry. While I was writing up an explanation, KangaroOS put in the sentence "Some people are just too prideful to admit that they are inherently fallible. White Hat is one of those people." and put in that tag. When I went to save it, it told me I had to merge our revisions, which worked fine, but I just forgot to merge the tags. Yosho27 (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, if anyone's looking at the article history "172.68.35.81" and "Yosho27" are both me (I signed in halfway through) Yosho27 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

mansplaining much? --141.101.98.84 11:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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.) 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. 162.158.75.39 22:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't you imagine a woman behaving like White Hat? If you can, then that shows gender has nothing to do with the joke. HumaneEngineer (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Any reference to "Somebody's WRONG on the Internet!"? 386: Duty Calls KieferSkunk (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and added it. :) KieferSkunk (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hope someone can comment on the theory of the abstraction of particles White Hat gets into in the last panel. Seems like the only part missing so far. I like this comic! ;-) --Kynde (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really a Quantum physicist, but I read that it's *theoretically* possible (and seen in some particle expierements at the LHC) for a very specific arrangement of quarks to make a (superheavy) "Proton" that contains Antimatter (Anti-quarks)... A Pentaquark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaquark 108.162.242.133 23:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

While not really part of objects, there are plenty of positrons (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. -- 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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)? 141.101.99.77 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You're thinking of the double-slit experiment, where light changes behavior from a particle to a wave after a measuring device recorded its motion. Here's a great animation explaininng it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc HumaneEngineer (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)