| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| | : I don't think so. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC) | | : I don't think so. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk: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.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.222|162.158.214.222]] 18:01, 19 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.) [[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)
| |
| − | ::Couldn't you imagine a woman behaving like White Hat? If you can, then that shows gender has nothing to do with the joke. [[User:HumaneEngineer|HumaneEngineer]] ([[User talk:HumaneEngineer|talk]]) 00:11, 27 September 2018 (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) | | 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 26: |
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]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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)
| |
| − | : 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 [[User:HumaneEngineer|HumaneEngineer]] ([[User talk:HumaneEngineer|talk]]) 00:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
| |
