this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025
722 points (99.2% liked)

memes

15524 readers
3357 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 127 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

Whenever any of this comes up I remember that physics professor's speech on first day of quantum mechanics that got viral:

“Nobody understands quantum mechanics. The people who came up with it don't understand it. I will do my best so that by the end of this course you don't understand it either, and so you can got out to the world and spread our ignorance.”

Or something to that effect.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 week ago

I'm so good at not understanding stuff. My time has come.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Quantum mechanics is illogical and stuff that happens makes no sense but can be recrcreated through experimentation....as long as you don't look at it.

The end

[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Quantum mechanics is extremely logical - we understand the math extremely well, and the math describes reality better than any other theory.

It is, however, not intuitive.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

I was just being cheeky

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'd say we understand quantum mechanics better than most things.

We know more about the behaviour of an electron than we know about the oceans, the Earth, the sun, the weather, the stock market, the human body, prime numbers, and so on.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We generally have a grasp of "why" for that stuff though, even if the whole picture is currently hidden or too complex.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Do you mean "why" as in "why did X cause Y" or as in "why are things the way they are"?

In the former case, quantum mechanics is our most precise theory for coupling causes and effects, predicting the outcome of experiments to an incredible degree.

In the latter case, do we really have a grasp of that for anything? Why is the gravitational constant the value that it is? Why is pi the ratio of a circle's circumference and it's diameter? Mostly we ultimately have to say that it is so because we can observe that it is so. For quantum mechanics it is the same.

Or do you mean "why" in some other way?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (6 children)

We understand the "how" better than most things. Quantum mechanics is extremely well-supported mathematically and experimentally. I think that's what they mean. The "why", an understanding of what a system that generated those results looks like at a macro level, basically no clue.

The consensus seems to be that the math works, don't try to figure out why.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Whenever this picture comes up I remember that it's wrong - both electrons on it have the same spin, one is just rotated 180°, but it says +½ for one and -½ for the other, is like a part of the joke?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

All electrons have spin 1/2, that's a property of it being an electron. They have a spin vector (the arrow shown) and whether it is in the same direction or opposite direction to the magnetic field it's in determines where it is plus or minus.

Now you might think "but what if it is not entirely aligned with the field, then it wouldn't be 1/2", which is true, on aggregate for large numbers of electrons, but if you ever look at a single electron its spin will either be "up" or "down" never any other orientation.

This is the kind of thing people are referring to when they say "no one understands QM", we know it is the case, we can measure it and predict it, but it makes no fucking sense.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 73 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Imagine a mathematical concept that approximates a particle across a spherical plane. Now imagine a force emitted from this sphere in a field. Okay, we're ready to talk about why this is wrong, too.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's no analogy for any of this that doesn't have some flaw.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago (4 children)

All analogies have flaws. If they didn't, they wouldn't be an analogy, they would be describing the very thing itself.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

One of my favourite things is the one-paragraph short story "On Exactitude in Science":

On Exactitude in Science Jorge Luis Borges, Collected Fictions, translated by Andrew Hurley.

" …In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography."

Source: https://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/bblonder/phys120/docs/borges.pdf

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Something something map territory

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (5 children)

You lost me at 'spherical plane'

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I recall a Richard Feynman video where the interviewer asks him to explain how magnets work.

His answer amounts to "I can't explain that to you because if I gave you an accurate answer it would be too technical for it to make sense to you, and if I simplified it to the extent that you could understand, it would no longer be a meaningful answer."

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

His point was that we don't understand the interaction between fundamental forces enough to say, if we were to try and answer the question accurately enough.

So, in one sense ICP was right that we don't know how magnets work. But also they were wrong that scientists be lying. They shouldn't have been pissed.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (9 children)

That interview answer always seemed like a cop-out to me. You could make a comparison to gravity to explain how magnetism "just is".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago

https://xkcd.com/1489

Title-Text: "Of these four forces, there's one we don't really understand." "Is it the weak force or the strong--" "It's gravity."

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I expect Feynman’s answer, if he had a whiteboard and unlimited time, would’ve been to dive into Maxwell’s equations.

With that in mind, his answer makes complete sense. Good luck explaining coupled PDEs to people who aren’t mathy in a few sentences without visual aid. The analogy to the gravitational force isn’t on point; there’s a lot more to be said about how magnets tie to into E&M more broadly, compared to gravity.

Though you’re absolutely right that once you get deep enough into any topic in physics that the answer to “why?” inevitably becomes “it just be like that”.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Sounds like a class with an attribute called spin.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (4 children)

It does however also have repercussions that are inline with it being a sphere that is spinning.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (7 children)

The universe is a digital simulation confirmed

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago

There was great episode on PBS space time about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWlk1gLkF2Y

In short it doesn't rotate, it just has magnetic field that behaves as if the source was spinning charge

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The electron is rotating in the sense that it resists a tilting force.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdN1mweN2ds

Disclaimer: My knowledge of physics ends at the high school level.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago

Apparently there is an experiment where they get an object suspended in water to rotate when being bombarded by electrons with the same spin.

Although my physics knowledge is probably less than the average highschool level.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago
  • Ok, so is it correct to say it has some rotation properties?
  • Hahaha, oh no. Nonononono. No. Not at all correct no. However, it's the best we've got so yeah that's what we're going with.
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

Right-hand rule bitches!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

Yeah, "spin" was a stupid thing to call it. We have a nice, hard definition of what "spin" is on a macro scale. Why take a complex property of matter that we don't have a name for, and give it the same name as a fairly common, easy-to-understand phenomenon? Extraordinarily smart people being idiots, honestly.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

imagines a static cube

Ahhh....

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HugeNerd 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Imagine a woman in hot pants with thighs like a Robert Crumb dream woman.

I don't know if it helps with this problem though.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

A ball, however tiny, has 3 dimensions, it has a surface that moves around a mathematical point at the center of the sphere.
A point of zero dimensions has no diameter nor perimeter, no surface with which to spin. Yet when influenced by a magnetic field, a point-like indivisible particle behaves as if it does spin.

As Chief Brody might say, we're gonna need a bigger math!
How about imaginary numbers and the complex plane?
Now add the Uncertainty Principle, just for shits 'n' giggles!
Probability space! Probability amplitudes and polarizations!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

It's only half spinning too.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The way I understood it (probably wrong): imagine if a point like thing, but is actually a wave, hits something else. It will leave a trace on the detector curving in a certain direction. This is interpreted as angular momentum aka spin.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There are also things like Hydrogen Fine Structure , that behaves as though it is a ball that actually spins. 🤷

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Ah yes the spin

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The trick is to accept it without thinking about it

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›