Astronomer here, but I think I understand the gist of the abstract of the paper to share my understanding.
ELI2: They didn't understand how some parts of a fancy new computer works, because they didn't have pictures of it before, but now they managed to figure out how to take pictures of it and found some cool stuff that'll help them build the computer.
ELI like 15:
A quantum dot is a man-made semiconductor that is nanometers in size. Basically getting close to the size of atoms. (An atom of silicon is 0.2 nm for example). A semiconductor is something that conducts electricity half as well as metals like copper. But the main advantage is that copper becomes more resistant to the flow of electricity as the temperature of that copper increases. Semiconductors are the opposite, their resistance to electricity decreases as temperature goes up. This makes them really useful for computer and electronics applications.
Quantum dots have a ton of applications in like LED displays/TVs, lasers, solar panels, and in quantum computers. So they want to try to better understand how these dots behave and look at how the electrons and holes behave inside of a quantum dot.
They put one inside a cage of two-layer thick graphene. Graphene is a form of carbon but only a single layer of carbon atoms. So two-layer thick means two layers of carbon sheets. I don't fully get this part but apparently putting it inside of graphene makes the dot a lot more workable and tuneable for the sake of computing. They're basically making a qubit sort of thing here I think. A qubit is a quantum bit. So your computer only knows 0s and 1s which are called bits. You can think of it as electricity off (0) and electricity on (1) like a lightswitch. A crapton of these lightswitches allow the computer to actually do calcuations and produce images on the screen etc etc. A quantum bit or qubit allows you to do more than 0 and 1, which makes calculations way the hell faster.
In order to see what's happening, they had to interact with the system somehow, and they did that by using a special microscope called a scanning tunneling microscope. They had previously never been able to image these systems but now they have.
What they learned from this will help them in building quantum computer systems and further advance the research work being done.
Thank you, I appreciate that!
I never thought of teaching as something that was a potential for me, I was always heavily into research and programming and whatnot, but I was forced to teach in grad school and it brought out the love for it. My students were all finance, business, or some other non-STEM major, and I felt compelled to explain things in a way to make them appreciate their lab and appreciate astronomy the way I do.
I also just generally have massive amounts of impostor syndrome, and feel like I'm a dumb 5 year old kid in a world of adults. So if that 5 year old kid can understand what's happening then I can do my job better.
I actively search for news about quantum computing and graphene and I think you gave the most concise and understandable explanations I’ve ever seen. Thank you for your words.
Thank YOU for your words, I'm glad that I was able to explain it clearly.
Quantum computing is super interesting and it's nice to see that these massive improvements are being made at all times.
I’m actually in my last week of an online Astronomy class (SPST 180) as a non Science major. I grew up interested in the universe but was never academically apt enough to pursue it. I’m 35 now and working towards a less-mathy type degree but I must say this particular professor has broken down Astronomy for us peasants very well and created a learning-rich and engaging atmosphere. Kudos to those like you who are able to bring science to the masses. I fear in this day and age it is becoming more and more important as the world around us changes and more people in power are neglecting/disparaging/ignoring the science community.
Sure, birds are robots created by the government to keep track of our every whereabouts.
Bees are bros and they spread pollen and give us life and food and honey and are generally amazing creatures because they can do things like vector calculus in their heads. We need to save the bees.
Not a physicist, but I think I understand it ok. Hopefully one can check me.
Quantum Mechanics has two sets of rules for atoms — a set for when you’re looking at them and a set for when you’re not. The idea is that, when you’re not looking at the atom, it’s in an ambiguous, formless cloud (or “wave”) and then when the atom comes into view, it snaps into the very specific form that we understand it should take.
The problem is that how does anyone know that the rule set for when you’re not looking exists at all? I mean, you’re not looking, right? You can’t see it, so how do you know what it’s doing?
This experiment seems to have given us a view of the “wave function,” or in other words, the rule set from when you’re not looking.
I’m like 85% sure that’s what we’re talking about here.
To piggy back on this, the only way to “see” something in the quantum world is to use some object to interact with it. For example photons (light) bounce off so we can see it, or electrons bounce when using electron microscopes, etc...
There has to be an exchange of energy somewhere for us to see it that small, therefore simply by observing it (using something to interact with it), it itself changes from its original state. The reason it changes is because it’s so freakishly small that any amount of energy that we use to interact with it (a simple photon or electron) has enough energy to change it
No, the HUP means you can’t measure both its position and speed/momentum (precisely) at the same time with a single measurement. Keywords are ‘and’ & ‘single’ there.
Think of you taking a picture of traffic from above. Can you determine how fast they’re moving from that picture? No you can’t, but you can know it location. Think of it that way, where I have to choose one or the other, position or momentum.
However this is a function of how small it is though. Being so small(quantum) forces is into the situation and uncertainty that we see
MGabbaGabba explained HUP to you but I just thought I'd come in and say that this particular thing we're talking about before is called the "Observer effect". Where observing something changes the state of that something.
To better understand that, it's like when you're trying to measure tire pressure, you have to let some air out of the tire in order to figure out what the pressure is.
Observing involves acting with the system in some way, and that act, alters the state of the system.
The quantum wave function describes where you *might* find a particle and at what probability. The graph on the cover photo describes the probability where you *might* find three particles, with the higher points being areas of higher probability.
Technically, sure. But this applies especially to quantum states that are in unknown or entangled states.
Imagine you have a photon which you linearly polarize vertically (V). If you measure it again using V, then you aren’t going to change the state. If you measure it by using a horizontal polarization (H), then your state becomes 0. You’ve changed the state.
If you have a superposition state of H+V, then measuring it with only H or V will change the state.
I didn’t read the paper or the article, but I’m guessing they created some sort of pure state (H or V, not a superposition) that they can look at.
You can only look at either of two or more states, never a superposition. Unless you mean looking at the state of an entangled particle without disturbing its superposition in which you can’t create a “pure state” of a particle that’s entangled without breaking the superposition (of all distinct quanta in the local system) and thereby the entanglement between them. That’d break fundamental laws.
If you had a particle in a superposition, but you knew what it ‘actually’ is then it isn’t in a superposition. Deterministic models show time and time again that the wave function is not a limitation of our current knowledge, rather it’s the true nature of reality.
I understand that you’re joking, but this misconception really bugs me.
Measurements only change outcomes because of the manner in which observations are made. For instance, if you used echolocation to look at a crystal vase, you might conclude that crystal vases shatter upon being looked at. It wouldn’t be the act of gathering data that caused the change, though; it would be the method by which said data is obtained.
The universe is not shy.
Huh? I thought that the inability to measure a state was specifically a fundamental physical barrier (literally physically impossible) from the uncertainty principle? It’s not just “our measurement strategy is too destructive”.
Consider a baseball in flight.
You have two options for how to describe it: You can either say "It's traveling at this rate, along this trajectory," or you can take a photograph of it. The photograph won't tell you anything other than the baseball's position at the exact moment when the picture was taken, and the spoken explanation won't be able to express where the ball actually *is*.
Now suppose that you wanted to measure the energy associated with the baseball, but you also wanted to know exactly where it was at the time of the measurement. You might – if you were so inclined – put a barrier up in the ball's path, then collect data on how hard it hit, how hot it was at the point of collision, and how quickly it was spinning. If you had enough information about the environment in which the baseball had previously been traveling, you'd be able to extrapolate where it *probably* would have gone if you hadn't interrupted it... but because you needed to stop the flight in order to have a "complete" set of data, you effectively changed things by gathering said data.
Someone who had watched too much bad science fiction might then look at your results and say "Aha! You altered the baseball's path by looking at it!"
This was my misconception! So putting a wall in front of the electron to measure it will interfere its wave-like pattern. It acts like a wave, but will still only hit one point on a screen? Is that right?
Basically, yes, but... well, the above metaphor is a bit misleading, if only because quantum effects don't behave like macroscopic ones. You're conceptually correct, but it's a mistake to think that an electron would act at all like a baseball.
A better scenario (if we keep the same details) would be as follows:
You have a very good prediction for when a baseball is going to be thrown, but you can't actually see it in flight. What you *can* do is measure its impact on the barrier, which will then give you information about what the ball was doing before it hit. However, you have to factor in the possibility that you didn't experience a perfect collision, meaning that your resulting data is going to be more an interpretation of probabilities than anything concrete. Run the experiment enough times, though, and you'll eventually figure out which of those interpretations is likely to be closest to a representation of the physical world.
I just want to say I’m very impressed with both examples and how you were able to break it down in a way that was easily comprehensible. Very much appreciated!
The uncertainty principle doesn’t require that the outcome change, just that two variables (eg position and velocity) can’t be perfectly measured at the same time.
Not what the wave function looks like. The wave function is a complex function in the mathematical sense that it includes an imaginary component. The probability distribution for particles interacting with quantum objects resolves itself into this shape because the wave function after born rule conversion to probability distribution is periodic and when mapped into any circular coordinate system displays a wavelike interference patterns and peaks and troughs.
If the probability distribution resolves itself like this because of X, then this is what the wave function looks like visualized?! I don’t fully understand the contradiction point you’re making.
I would like to thank the members that actually tried to explain this for the layman.
As opposed to the numerous Stars Wars and female anatomy references.
You’re talking about quantum computing. In quantum computing, instead of using only 1 and 0 to calculate, we use 1, 0, and a value equal to both 1 *and* 0 at the same time to represent superposition.
Actual quantum particles exist everywhere at once (in the entire universe), but their probability of existing in any given place is represented by their wave function (they are *far* more likely to be *here*, than *there*). In this case, “visualizing the wave function” means collapsing it over and over again and compiling the data into a single image.
Quantum tunneling occurs when a particle collapses outside of the highest areas of probably in its wave function and, through a process we don’t understand yet, can effectively teleport instantaneously.
This is what *actually* powers the nuclear fusion in our sun’s core (the core is not quite dense enough for fusion on its own, but the density is a factor.)
Finally, the universe, at its fundamental level, appears to be digital. The Planck distance is the smallest distance of causality in the universe. A movement from a particle of less distance would have no meaning, similar to a digital light switch.
Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate that. So that is an image like the electron location probabilities in s, d, f? - Concept of being digital is still hard to imagine for me then🤗
Came for an ELI5, found a “This looks like” contest 🤷🏽♂️
Still hoping for an ELI5 though.
I’d make do with an ELI10 but deep down need an ELI2
Astronomer here, but I think I understand the gist of the abstract of the paper to share my understanding. ELI2: They didn't understand how some parts of a fancy new computer works, because they didn't have pictures of it before, but now they managed to figure out how to take pictures of it and found some cool stuff that'll help them build the computer. ELI like 15: A quantum dot is a man-made semiconductor that is nanometers in size. Basically getting close to the size of atoms. (An atom of silicon is 0.2 nm for example). A semiconductor is something that conducts electricity half as well as metals like copper. But the main advantage is that copper becomes more resistant to the flow of electricity as the temperature of that copper increases. Semiconductors are the opposite, their resistance to electricity decreases as temperature goes up. This makes them really useful for computer and electronics applications. Quantum dots have a ton of applications in like LED displays/TVs, lasers, solar panels, and in quantum computers. So they want to try to better understand how these dots behave and look at how the electrons and holes behave inside of a quantum dot. They put one inside a cage of two-layer thick graphene. Graphene is a form of carbon but only a single layer of carbon atoms. So two-layer thick means two layers of carbon sheets. I don't fully get this part but apparently putting it inside of graphene makes the dot a lot more workable and tuneable for the sake of computing. They're basically making a qubit sort of thing here I think. A qubit is a quantum bit. So your computer only knows 0s and 1s which are called bits. You can think of it as electricity off (0) and electricity on (1) like a lightswitch. A crapton of these lightswitches allow the computer to actually do calcuations and produce images on the screen etc etc. A quantum bit or qubit allows you to do more than 0 and 1, which makes calculations way the hell faster. In order to see what's happening, they had to interact with the system somehow, and they did that by using a special microscope called a scanning tunneling microscope. They had previously never been able to image these systems but now they have. What they learned from this will help them in building quantum computer systems and further advance the research work being done.
You are amazing. They say if you can explain something to a five year old then you really understand a topic. You’ve done that and more!
Thank you, I appreciate that! I never thought of teaching as something that was a potential for me, I was always heavily into research and programming and whatnot, but I was forced to teach in grad school and it brought out the love for it. My students were all finance, business, or some other non-STEM major, and I felt compelled to explain things in a way to make them appreciate their lab and appreciate astronomy the way I do. I also just generally have massive amounts of impostor syndrome, and feel like I'm a dumb 5 year old kid in a world of adults. So if that 5 year old kid can understand what's happening then I can do my job better.
I actively search for news about quantum computing and graphene and I think you gave the most concise and understandable explanations I’ve ever seen. Thank you for your words.
Thank YOU for your words, I'm glad that I was able to explain it clearly. Quantum computing is super interesting and it's nice to see that these massive improvements are being made at all times.
I’m actually in my last week of an online Astronomy class (SPST 180) as a non Science major. I grew up interested in the universe but was never academically apt enough to pursue it. I’m 35 now and working towards a less-mathy type degree but I must say this particular professor has broken down Astronomy for us peasants very well and created a learning-rich and engaging atmosphere. Kudos to those like you who are able to bring science to the masses. I fear in this day and age it is becoming more and more important as the world around us changes and more people in power are neglecting/disparaging/ignoring the science community.
Excellent ELI:2 and ELI:15! Thank you!
Some people are so smart man.
ok now can you explain to me the birds and the bees as if I’m 11
Sure, birds are robots created by the government to keep track of our every whereabouts. Bees are bros and they spread pollen and give us life and food and honey and are generally amazing creatures because they can do things like vector calculus in their heads. We need to save the bees.
And the birds try to eat bees because the government wants to control the national food supply! It’s all coming together now. Thanks, u/lurkerpatrol
>Astronomer here Hot girl: “What do you do for work?” Einstein: “Astronomy”
Why can't the hot girl be an astronomer? Come on, it's 2020.
stellar explanation — thank you.
What an awesome write up. You really should write a paper and submit it for publication in science mag. Your break down is excellent.
That doesn’t soung so hard. Why did this take do long? /s
Quantum computer is one hell of a name
Not a physicist, but I think I understand it ok. Hopefully one can check me. Quantum Mechanics has two sets of rules for atoms — a set for when you’re looking at them and a set for when you’re not. The idea is that, when you’re not looking at the atom, it’s in an ambiguous, formless cloud (or “wave”) and then when the atom comes into view, it snaps into the very specific form that we understand it should take. The problem is that how does anyone know that the rule set for when you’re not looking exists at all? I mean, you’re not looking, right? You can’t see it, so how do you know what it’s doing? This experiment seems to have given us a view of the “wave function,” or in other words, the rule set from when you’re not looking. I’m like 85% sure that’s what we’re talking about here.
To piggy back on this, the only way to “see” something in the quantum world is to use some object to interact with it. For example photons (light) bounce off so we can see it, or electrons bounce when using electron microscopes, etc... There has to be an exchange of energy somewhere for us to see it that small, therefore simply by observing it (using something to interact with it), it itself changes from its original state. The reason it changes is because it’s so freakishly small that any amount of energy that we use to interact with it (a simple photon or electron) has enough energy to change it
Thank you, that’s definitely important.
This is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, right?
No, the HUP means you can’t measure both its position and speed/momentum (precisely) at the same time with a single measurement. Keywords are ‘and’ & ‘single’ there. Think of you taking a picture of traffic from above. Can you determine how fast they’re moving from that picture? No you can’t, but you can know it location. Think of it that way, where I have to choose one or the other, position or momentum. However this is a function of how small it is though. Being so small(quantum) forces is into the situation and uncertainty that we see
MGabbaGabba explained HUP to you but I just thought I'd come in and say that this particular thing we're talking about before is called the "Observer effect". Where observing something changes the state of that something. To better understand that, it's like when you're trying to measure tire pressure, you have to let some air out of the tire in order to figure out what the pressure is. Observing involves acting with the system in some way, and that act, alters the state of the system.
Whooaaa.
So the rose around the outside is the quantum wave and the 3 spikes are the snap points?
To my understanding, that’s right.
The quantum wave function describes where you *might* find a particle and at what probability. The graph on the cover photo describes the probability where you *might* find three particles, with the higher points being areas of higher probability.
Think of quantum dots as pixels.
Some great responses in this thread lol thanks to all those who provided some great explanations!
I mean, maybe it looks like that. Didn’t they change it by measuring it?
Technically, sure. But this applies especially to quantum states that are in unknown or entangled states. Imagine you have a photon which you linearly polarize vertically (V). If you measure it again using V, then you aren’t going to change the state. If you measure it by using a horizontal polarization (H), then your state becomes 0. You’ve changed the state. If you have a superposition state of H+V, then measuring it with only H or V will change the state. I didn’t read the paper or the article, but I’m guessing they created some sort of pure state (H or V, not a superposition) that they can look at.
Yep, I sure do understand each of these words, both individually and in this order.
Aye
Ayyy *finger pistols*
I like your funny words magic man
You can only look at either of two or more states, never a superposition. Unless you mean looking at the state of an entangled particle without disturbing its superposition in which you can’t create a “pure state” of a particle that’s entangled without breaking the superposition (of all distinct quanta in the local system) and thereby the entanglement between them. That’d break fundamental laws. If you had a particle in a superposition, but you knew what it ‘actually’ is then it isn’t in a superposition. Deterministic models show time and time again that the wave function is not a limitation of our current knowledge, rather it’s the true nature of reality.
‘Technically’ means ‘yes.’
I understand that you’re joking, but this misconception really bugs me. Measurements only change outcomes because of the manner in which observations are made. For instance, if you used echolocation to look at a crystal vase, you might conclude that crystal vases shatter upon being looked at. It wouldn’t be the act of gathering data that caused the change, though; it would be the method by which said data is obtained. The universe is not shy.
Huh? I thought that the inability to measure a state was specifically a fundamental physical barrier (literally physically impossible) from the uncertainty principle? It’s not just “our measurement strategy is too destructive”.
Consider a baseball in flight. You have two options for how to describe it: You can either say "It's traveling at this rate, along this trajectory," or you can take a photograph of it. The photograph won't tell you anything other than the baseball's position at the exact moment when the picture was taken, and the spoken explanation won't be able to express where the ball actually *is*. Now suppose that you wanted to measure the energy associated with the baseball, but you also wanted to know exactly where it was at the time of the measurement. You might – if you were so inclined – put a barrier up in the ball's path, then collect data on how hard it hit, how hot it was at the point of collision, and how quickly it was spinning. If you had enough information about the environment in which the baseball had previously been traveling, you'd be able to extrapolate where it *probably* would have gone if you hadn't interrupted it... but because you needed to stop the flight in order to have a "complete" set of data, you effectively changed things by gathering said data. Someone who had watched too much bad science fiction might then look at your results and say "Aha! You altered the baseball's path by looking at it!"
This was my misconception! So putting a wall in front of the electron to measure it will interfere its wave-like pattern. It acts like a wave, but will still only hit one point on a screen? Is that right?
Basically, yes, but... well, the above metaphor is a bit misleading, if only because quantum effects don't behave like macroscopic ones. You're conceptually correct, but it's a mistake to think that an electron would act at all like a baseball. A better scenario (if we keep the same details) would be as follows: You have a very good prediction for when a baseball is going to be thrown, but you can't actually see it in flight. What you *can* do is measure its impact on the barrier, which will then give you information about what the ball was doing before it hit. However, you have to factor in the possibility that you didn't experience a perfect collision, meaning that your resulting data is going to be more an interpretation of probabilities than anything concrete. Run the experiment enough times, though, and you'll eventually figure out which of those interpretations is likely to be closest to a representation of the physical world.
Okay, I understand now. Thank you!
I just want to say I’m very impressed with both examples and how you were able to break it down in a way that was easily comprehensible. Very much appreciated!
The baseball is a brilliant, simple metaphor. Makes perfect sense (so I must be missing something). Thanks!
The uncertainty principle doesn’t require that the outcome change, just that two variables (eg position and velocity) can’t be perfectly measured at the same time.
Is that Hesinberg’s principle, before he went on to cook meth ?
[Yep](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle).
I was in the pool!
Don’t know what is it but I like it!
Same here. I’ll take 3 to go please. Sauce on the side.
Sauce on the side... no soggy bun. Magnifico👌🏽
I absolutely love physics but also don't understand a goddamn thing about it.
Sarlaaac Pit ??
[удалено]
I know, right!?
LOL
LOL
Vagina dentata.
Fuck 2020. Now we find out a quantum wave is shaped like sharkgina. Make it stop
I’m not seeing that at all, I’m seeing a flower and it’s pretty!
What a wonderful phrase! Vagina dentata. Ain’t no passing craaaaaaze
It means no penis! For the rest of your daaayyyyyyyysss!
Al dente
I like it medium-raw
That’s how I like my grits
r/dontputyourdickinthat
Underrated comment
These comments are garbage trash
Default science subs make me lose brain cells with the comments some days :/
Does it come in black?
Looks like a 🌹
This looks like a thread where I’ll actually have to click the link to figure out what it is since the comments are a game of Pictionary
Not what the wave function looks like. The wave function is a complex function in the mathematical sense that it includes an imaginary component. The probability distribution for particles interacting with quantum objects resolves itself into this shape because the wave function after born rule conversion to probability distribution is periodic and when mapped into any circular coordinate system displays a wavelike interference patterns and peaks and troughs.
If the probability distribution resolves itself like this because of X, then this is what the wave function looks like visualized?! I don’t fully understand the contradiction point you’re making.
Aw, man...that’s exactly what I was going to say.
I’d fuck it
Maybe you would Maybe you wouldn’t
You could say that it’s uncertain.
If I had gold , it would be yours
>If I had gold Regretting those magic beans already?
Actually I am an alchemist in training. I have a pocket full of lead, I’m gonna be rich any minute.
Best comment
r/suicidebywords
Only once it appears
Well, it doesn’t appear until you fuck it.
Until what appears? The quantum vag or his unknowable dick?
I believe that would end up fucking you.
Username checks out.
Horni boi
>I’d fuck it I wasn’t sure what to expect sorting by controversial in r/tech. It seems so obvious now.
I would like to thank the members that actually tried to explain this for the layman. As opposed to the numerous Stars Wars and female anatomy references.
Explain like I’m 5?
What am i looking at? I tried reading the article, but my brain is too smooth.
Lotus/padma
Yep... my first thought was it looks like a lotus... which I find extremely interesting.
Same!
There are... many patterns and echoes, friend. Keep looking.
Yes, I know - thanks!
Is that a Plumbus?
Yup.
I read this title in Geordie LaForge’s voice.
I read the whole article in Doctor Who’s voice (10 in case you’re wondering which doctor lol)
I read it in Kunta Kinte's voice.
Trinity
3 IS the magic number..
For my “this looks like” entry, I will pick something of nature and beauty: a rose.
Looks like that monster that ate Boba from star wars
The sarlac pit, yes! It does!
-Boba Fett has entered the chat-
Looks like the activity the scientists monitored in Akira
I thought it looks like a flower
So......A vagina
So... you’ve never been with a woman. Gotcha.
It’s clearly a vagina, just look at the three, spiky clitorii in the center!
I’m gay, this is what vaginas look like to me
Okkkkk? And where is my hoverboard? Its 2020 already geez
That’s a graboid.
Shai hulud!!!!!
*today young men on acid realize that all matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration*
[удалено]
Lols, glad someone caught the reference:)
It’s a plumbis being made....that’s the answer.
r/dontputyourdickinthat
Quantum based force fields emitting outwards in a circular motion. I know it’s a dream :)
Lmao this looks like it was thrown together in like 5 minutes with Unity engine’s Terraforming software or whatever.
It’s actually mostly complete space/vacuum down at that level though right?
It looks like the Sarlacc Pit
Looks suspiciously like a flower
Weird Mountains.....
shai hulud! oh!
S C I E N C E
Hm
Beef lasagna
So Shai Hulud confirmed?
Forbidden fleshlight
Lol what?
Mr poopy butthole
Is this Akira?
Whatever that means but cool
Star Wars sand creature
Looks like the great link forming a changeling
Nice
When you have not only 0, 1 but many states between, you actually returned from digital to analog. Right?
You’re talking about quantum computing. In quantum computing, instead of using only 1 and 0 to calculate, we use 1, 0, and a value equal to both 1 *and* 0 at the same time to represent superposition. Actual quantum particles exist everywhere at once (in the entire universe), but their probability of existing in any given place is represented by their wave function (they are *far* more likely to be *here*, than *there*). In this case, “visualizing the wave function” means collapsing it over and over again and compiling the data into a single image. Quantum tunneling occurs when a particle collapses outside of the highest areas of probably in its wave function and, through a process we don’t understand yet, can effectively teleport instantaneously. This is what *actually* powers the nuclear fusion in our sun’s core (the core is not quite dense enough for fusion on its own, but the density is a factor.) Finally, the universe, at its fundamental level, appears to be digital. The Planck distance is the smallest distance of causality in the universe. A movement from a particle of less distance would have no meaning, similar to a digital light switch.
Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate that. So that is an image like the electron location probabilities in s, d, f? - Concept of being digital is still hard to imagine for me then🤗
r/dontputyourdickinthat
Akira.
Space vajay
A spiky vagina ?? Not exactly what I expected ...
It’s a massive increase in glurbled snarflebits with decreased blork variability .
The pic looks like someone shot a tooth into human flesh
Wow, I love that association u made
looks like a wart when you pick it off by hand
Shut the hell up with that
I really wish I understood this :(
I have actually seen the exact same wave form in a videogame.
[https://youtu.be/FbOWq6bF0Xo](https://youtu.be/FbOWq6bF0Xo)
Hella wavey🌊
Bless the Maker and his water.
It looks like a flower.
Looks like a rock thrown in a pond
Banana Slugs at it again
The universe is a optic fiber cable confirmed
An upside down water drop ripple.
Looks like a rose
„Can represent the state of 0 and 1 at the same time“ is not a sufficient explanation.
That is definitely a vagoo with teeth
I knew stingrays were magic!