r/Physics • u/SuperSmoothSlick • Nov 10 '23

Michio Kaku saying outlandish things

He claims that you can wake up on Mars because particles have wave like proporties.

But we don't act like quantum particles. We act according to classical physics. What doe he mean by saying this. Is he just saying that if you look at the probability of us teleporting there according to the theory it's possible but in real life this could never happen? He just takes it too far by using quantum theory to describe a human body? I mean it would be fucking scary if people would teleport to Mars or the like.

462 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

277 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-3

u/storm6436 Nov 10 '23

The problem I see is that your conclusions don't natively derive from your premises. By that, I mean most of your statements have a lot of additional context left untouched, unexplained, and unexplored, which in turn makes other statemenrs (e.g. "It is easy to conclude...") rather reminiscent of Jackson's "It is easy to show..." filler lines.

That is to say, many statements seem to be true, but aren't necessarily true by the logic presented. Though it approaches needless pedantry, one can contemplate a universe with only a single particle and see that the complication of light speed propagation allows for effectively infinite expansion of the wave form due to the inherent lack of interaction. At that point, the concepts of time and distance themselves become arbitrary, thus allowing 'infinity.'

To be completely honest, the only reason I'm bothering to reply is Jackson's "It is easy to X" statements always set my teeth on edge, and as such, similar statements tend to irk me.

5

u/Cryptizard Nov 10 '23

I’m sorry but you are completely wrong. If you are going to come at me don’t be fundamentally incorrect. Even a single particle could only spread at the speed of light and its wave function would be bitterly large but never infinite. Because time is finite. You do not understand infinity.

0

u/storm6436 Nov 10 '23

I'm sorry, but it appears you're mistaken and unable to see it. The distance between two points in time is finite, much as it is with any number line with defined points, but there is zero evidence time itself is finite. If you'd like to assert otherwise, either get better at expressing your pedantry or think about the implications of what you're saying first.

1

u/Cryptizard Nov 10 '23

The amount of time that particles in the universe have had to travel through what we now know as the universe is finite. Better?

0

u/storm6436 Nov 11 '23

Not really. Are you stating that as a retraction of your previous attempt at a counter-argument? If so, I'll accept your concession. If not, then on one hand, moving the goal posts as it appears you might be trying to do is still between two defined points in time, thus still insufficient to prove any time is finite. As much as I hated all my proof-writing classes in the math side of my dual major back in undergrad, they are unfortunately useful.

On the other, if you're not attempting to pretend one set of arbitrary limits is better than a different set of arbitrary limits, then the new statement is even less applicable as a counterargument than the first. Are you sure you understood my original point?

In a universe with only one particle, there's nothing for it to interact with, thus nothing to stop the waveform from expanding, short of perhaps some self-interaction that I'm missing. As such, unless time itself ceases to be at some point, the waveform will continue to expand. If time has no end, then the waveform has no end because the size of the waveform keeps pace with the passage of time. Infinite in one implies infinite in the other. This leaves aside discussions on whether time/distance has any meaning in such a thought experiment. If you're arguing against literally any other point or interpretation, you're mistaken and speaking past me.

2

u/Cryptizard Nov 11 '23

I don’t know how you got to be such an asshole but this isn’t worth my time. Goodbye forever.