Quantum Ortega

[Natty]

An argument pops up in a match of Malifaux between Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein.

--------------------

Schrödinger: It appears that my Abuela Ortega has only gotten minimum damage on your Alp in base contact. Now that the strike is complete, my sawed-off shotgun causes me to push 1" directly away from your Alp.

Einstein: Well, since we were in base contact, it must follow that the original distance between our models was 0", correct?

Schrödinger: Well yes, Albert, that sounds correct. Base contact implies that there is a distance of 0" between us.

Einstein: Ok. Then push your model exactly 1" away from my model, as per the wording in the ability, which will put you exactly 0"+1"=1" away from my Alp. Since my Alp has a melee range of 1", that means that you are still in melee with me.

Schrödinger: Ok, by your logic, I moved directly away, and exactly 1" away, to a distance of exactly 1" from your Alp, correct?

Einstein: Yes. Now it is my activation, I activate and attack your Abuela Ortega with my Alp since you are exactly 1" away, and therefore in melee range.

Schrödinger: Sir, instead of allowing that action, I will instead propose a thought experiment.

Einstein: This doesn't have anything to do with a cat, does it?

Schrödinger: Not this particular thought experiment, no. Here is my proposal: You are exactly 1" away from my model. That implies that the closest atom in your model is exactly 1" away. So, you must have placed your model exactly 1" away from my model using the position, to any non-zero amplitude, of the closest electron in that atom, so that there is no possibility that your model moved less than the required 1 inch move?

Einstein: Indeed. To do otherwise would be against the rules.

Schrödinger: Well then, it follows that, by Quantum Mechanics, that particular electron is both on the closest side of the nucleus of that atom, and on the farthest side of the nucleus of that atom, again to some particular non-zero amplitude. Therefore, by the laws of Quantum Physics, that electron is both at that location exactly 1 inch away, and on the other side of the nucleus at the same time, more that 1" away. Therefore, your model is both 1" away from my model, and not 1" away from my model. You are both in melee range, and not in melee range, at the same time.

Einstein: Theoretically yes. I fear you are correct. I also fear that we may need a rules Marshall on this one.

--------------------------

--------------------------

Dear Wierd Sketch,

If, by the laws of Quantum Mechanics and in all accordance with the rules of the game, my model is both 1" away and not 1" away at the same time, can I make a melee attack if my melee range is 1"?

Sincerely,

Schrödinger & Einstein

--------------------------

--------------------------

[Pipeline]

how about you work on finding the cure to cancer

[alemon]

how about you work on finding the cure to cancer

What do Schrodinger or Einstein know about cancer? If you keep up with your nonsense Abuela Ortega's gonna be dead before we get an answer.

[Pipeline]

don't let her hear you talking like that

[gunpowder saint]

well wouldn't the laws of quantum mechanics also say that Granny Ortega actually isn't there at all and is in fact, by measuring all these diameters of the model cause them to tunnel and therefor; Granny Ortega is anywhere within the few micrometers that the atoms tunnel to? I mean, by measure the atom at which you tried to prove you were further then an inch away would cause it to tunnel right? By doing so would immediately push that model in such a minute way in any tunnel direction of the atom.

theoretically, The entire model has a more-than-zero-percent chance to actually not be at that very location at all. By measuring the electron you have the ever slightest chance to cause a chain reaction causing all the atoms in the model to tunnel and transposition itself somewhere else.

Also note! It's been forever since I actually studied the quantum theory so forgive me if my statement sucks and it total bullox as I do not have any of my books with me :\

[Keltheos]

If you go onto any miniatures game's website where they entertain a forum you'll find this question. Sadly, unless its spelled out like GW has done in their last two rulebooks (i.e. with a full page and big diagram showing) it is inevitable.

Then Freud showed up and ask them about their mothers.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Keltheos

[Natty]

well wouldn't the laws of quantum mechanics also say that Granny Ortega actually isn't there at all and is in fact, by measuring all these diameters of the model cause them to tunnel and therefor; Granny Ortega is anywhere within the few micrometers that the atoms tunnel to? I mean, by measure the atom at which you tried to prove you were further then an inch away would cause it to tunnel right? By doing so would immediately push that model in such a minute way in any tunnel direction of the atom.

theoretically, The entire model has a more-than-zero-percent chance to actually not be at that very location at all. By measuring the electron you have the ever slightest chance to cause a chain reaction causing all the atoms in the model to tunnel and transposition itself somewhere else.

Well, quantum tunneling doesn't really apply to this problem.

Notice that I threw some wording in there:

...using the position, to any non-zero amplitude...

This was done to imply that the electron is not really being measured, so its location isn't known. All that is needed is the furthest theoretical distance that the electron can be from atom, before it would be too far away and no longer be part of the atom (and therefore not be important because it is no longer part of your miniature). Since you know the furthest theoretical distance, you know that the electron has some non-zero amplitude of being at that location, along with every other possible location. Since the electron is in all of those locations at once, you don't need to measure the electron itself to know where to place the model.

I don't really see any problem with the theoretical model placement and quantum tunneling. I mean, you could talk about the electron tunneling through the table, I suppose, although I believe that the table is lower energy anyway and it could do that with classic physics. Regardless, the electrons location hasn't been measured so it occupies both any tunneled location and the proper 1" from the other model location at the same time.

[gunpowder saint]

that's right, I forgot tunneling does allow for placement at two different points, like I said it's been forever since I studied the quantum theory. And granted Tunneling wouldn't work.

lol At least I tried right? A for effort?

[Natty]

lol At least I tried right? A for effort?

Yes. Your the class participation grade is 100% for today. I will need to see some better work on the final exam however. Read over this study material. It consists of two fictitious articles.

One of them is

"Perdita>all --> Perdita != Not Perdita ---> P!=NP"

and the other article is

"15=3x5 ... Scott Aaronson says maybe"

[Natty]

Lol. If you understood the original dialog between Schrödinger & Einstein, then you are decently versed in the basics of quantum physics.

If you understood these:

"Perdita>all --> Perdita != Not Perdita ---> P!=NP"

"15=3x5 ... Scott Aaronson says maybe"

Then you are a savage nerd who needs to get out more. I should probably go get some sun...

[Shadowopal]

:twitch: :261: :hmmmm: :blowup: :gurney: :dead: :flybye:

Too early for science.:coffee:

[LoboStele]

Wow....you are all a bunch of nerds....

Oh wait...

That was an awesome read though. Nice work.

[Natty]

Dreamer and Nightmare Lord Chompy Bits all painted up...just waiting on a sig pic for them!

You can take that out of your sig and add in ":dreamer"

Notice my sig! They finally added one.

<edit> LOL. It turned my quotes into the pic. It was supposed to say ":" and then "dreamer" but of course that is how you display the picture so gg. <end edit>

[Monkey]

An argument pops up in a match of Malifaux between Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein.

--------------------

Schrödinger: It appears that my Abuela Ortega has only gotten minimum damage on your Alp in base contact. Now that the strike is complete, my sawed-off shotgun causes me to push 1" directly away from your Alp.

Einstein: Well, since we were in base contact, it must follow that the original distance between our models was 0", correct? of corse the 0" would still be affected by the electon movement issues that you later highlight in this experiment. with out knowing the starting point how can you know where they finish ? so this 0" point is and is not 0" and seeing as they are not in base to base contact tehy are never at 0" they are always will be at a greater distance than 0"

Schrödinger: Well yes, Albert, that sounds correct. Base contact implies that there is a distance of 0" between us.

again you are and are not in base contact... ( well you can never get them in to contact just to a point where combined forced repelling the atoms in the 2 bases are stronger than the forced moveing them together.)

Einstein: Ok. Then push your model exactly 1" away from my model, as per the wording in the ability, which will put you exactly 0"+1"=1" away from my Alp. Since my Alp has a melee range of 1", that means that you are still in melee with me.

again is that 1" from the base to base thats not base to base and is moveing at an unknown velocity ?

Schrödinger: Ok, by your logic, I moved directly away, and exactly 1" away, to a distance of exactly 1" from your Alp, correct? no you move away from a point that is further than 0"to a point thats 0" + a small amount +1" (this is catagoricaly out side of 1"

Einstein: Yes. Now it is my activation, I activate and attack your Abuela Ortega with my Alp since you are exactly 1" away, and therefore in melee range.again you are not 1" away you are greater than 1" away

Schrödinger: Sir, instead of allowing that action, I will instead propose a thought experiment.

Einstein: This doesn't have anything to do with a cat, does it?

Schrödinger: Not this particular thought experiment, no. Here is my proposal: You are exactly 1" away from my model. That implies that the closest atom in your model is exactly 1" away. So, you must have placed your model exactly 1" away from my model using the position, to any non-zero amplitude, of the closest electron in that atom, so that there is no possibility that your model moved less than the required 1 inch move?

Einstein: Indeed. To do otherwise would be against the rules.

Schrödinger: Well then, it follows that, by Quantum Mechanics, that particular electron is both on the closest side of the nucleus of that atom, and on the farthest side of the nucleus of that atom, again to some particular non-zero amplitude. Therefore, by the laws of Quantum Physics, that electron is both at that location exactly 1 inch away, and on the other side of the nucleus at the same time, more that 1" away. Therefore, your model is both 1" away from my model, and not 1" away from my model. You are both in melee range, and not in melee range, at the same time. you are always more than 1" away and would be out side of combat.

Einstein: Theoretically yes. I fear you are correct. I also fear that we may need a rules Marshall on this one.

--------------------------

--------------------------

Dear Wierd Sketch,

If, by the laws of Quantum Mechanics and in all accordance with the rules of the game, my model is both 1" away and not 1" away at the same time, can I make a melee attack if my melee range is 1"?

again you are more that 1" away as you can not start at 0" so you can not make that attack.

Sincerely,

Schrödinger & Einstein

--------------------------

--------------------------

Hope that helps :question:

[ddot]

This is why one should not game against physics students.

[Natty]

<EDIT> I recommend that no one read this reply. My original post was meant to be fun and make people think. This reply right here is just argumentative and defensive so that I could point out the mistakes in Monkey's post. So again, the following post will be NOT FUN TO READ. You have been warned.<END EDIT>

of corse the 0" would still be affected by the electon movement issues that you later highlight in this experiment. with out knowing the starting point how can you know where they finish ? so this 0" point is and is not 0" and seeing as they are not in base to base contact tehy are never at 0" they are always will be at a greater distance than 0"

again you are and are not in base contact... ( well you can never get them in to contact just to a point where combined forced repelling the atoms in the 2 bases are stronger than the forced moveing them together.)

again is that 1" from the base to base thats not base to base and is moveing at an unknown velocity ?

no you move away from a point that is further than 0"to a point thats 0" + a small amount +1" (this is catagoricaly out side of 1"

again you are not 1" away you are greater than 1" away

you are always more than 1" away and would be out side of combat.

Ummmm. No. Basically all wrong. Let's take this part by part:

of corse the 0" would still be affected by the electon movement issues that you later highlight in this experiment. with out knowing the starting point how can you know where they finish ? so this 0" point is and is not 0" and seeing as they are not in base to base contact tehy are never at 0" they are always will be at a greater distance than 0"

You contradict yourself here. First you say they would both be 0" away and not be 0" away (which is correct for the same arguments presented in the later part of my post), and then you say that they are always at a distance greater than 0".

That second part of what you say is just incorrect, they are both at 0" and at a distance greater than 0" and, depending on how you think of it, possibly at a distance less than 0" in addition to exactly 0" and greater than 0".

again you are and are not in base contact... ( well you can never get them in to contact just to a point where combined forced repelling the atoms in the 2 bases are stronger than the forced moveing them together.)

That has nothing to do with the narrative. In the narrative, the players talk about the concept that base to base contact implies that the models are 0" apart and then proceed with a theoretical argument. It is also realistically impossible to move a figure exactly 1".

If you want to get technical, there is nothing that prevents the outermost distance an electron can go from being 0 distance from the outermost distance an electron in the opposing model can go. Sure, the technology to make electrons arbitrarily close doesn't exist in a gaming store, but that doesn't mean it is physically impossible. Also remember it isn't like you are making electrons collide when the distance is zero. You just need to have the electrons both have a possible position (non-zero amplitude) in which the distance is zero. They are both 0" away and not 0" away at the same time.

again is that 1" from the base to base thats not base to base and is moveing at an unknown velocity ?

I'm not sure that this is a sentence. I have no clue what you are trying to argue and I have no clue what velocity has to do with anything that I've posted.

no you move away from a point that is further than 0"to a point thats 0" + a small amount +1" (this is catagoricaly out side of 1"

again you are not 1" away you are greater than 1" away

See the previous arguments. It is actually all of the following distances at once:

0"+1"=1"

0"+small amount+1">1"

0"+1"+small amount>1"

0"+small amount+1"+small amount>1"

0"-small amount+1"+small amount=1"+/-small amount

0"-small amount+1"=1"-small amount

This is why I didn't talk about Quantum Physics as it relates to the initial positioning, because it just bogs down the narrative.

Notice, also, that I don't let the move be less than 1" because of the way the two talk about the rules being that moving exactly 1" implies that you cannot move less than 1". You could switch up the argument to talk about this in the exact opposite way if you felt like it. Doesn't change the thought experiment, just rearranges it.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Natty

[Monkey]

Natty sorry if my post above made you feel that you had to respond in a defensive way.

My post was meant to be a light hearted rebuttal of the thought experiment. I agree that some of my points where not best made and dam me from posting from work.:footinmou

I do still feel that my point is valid and has not been addressed.

in your original post you had this exact position of base to base. you then move exactly 1" away. you then state that due to election movement you can actualy be farther way than 1" the problem is that you have not defined that exact base to base position as due to election movment you may or maynot be at the position you define as your starting position.

so you may say im not 1" away but i would say that we where not in base to base to start with:cheers:

hope that helps and sorry if you feel i was trying to piss on your parade.

[Deadpool]

Nerds!!!!!!!!!!(no offence)

[Natty]

Nerds!!!!!!!!!!(no offence)

Your face is a nerd.

Burn.

Would you like some Aloe Vera for that burn?

=P

[Natty]

in your original post you had this exact position of base to base. you then move exactly 1" away. you then state that due to election movement you can actualy be farther way than 1" the problem is that you have not defined that exact base to base position as due to election movment you may or maynot be at the position you define as your starting position.

It has nothing to do with electron movement. It is about Quantum Physics where the electron is in all of those places at the same time. It doesn't have a definite location. So talking about the starting location just adds even more uncertainty into the thought experiment and just adds to the whole point. It is not that, as you say, "you may or maynot be at the position you define as your starting position" it is that you are both at that location and not at that location. Electron movement has nothing to do with it.