|
Author
|
Topic: GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5541 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
Message 196 of 205 (313536)
05-19-2006 12:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 194 by cavediver
05-19-2006 12:26 PM
|
|
entanglement
Hello cavediver, are you planning on moving the quantum entanglement thread ahead? I'd hate to see such a thread die. Modulous seems to be interested.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 194 by cavediver, posted 05-19-2006 12:26 PM | | cavediver has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 198 by cavediver, posted 05-19-2006 12:49 PM | | fallacycop has replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
Re: 6 Microns?
hep-exp, hep-ph... it's all the same. There is only one true hep... TH!!!! (not fogetting GR-QC of course)
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
Re: entanglement
We can do but I'm not sure what's left to do. I was thinking about going through the maths. We could look at some quantum computation but it's not really my forte. Actually, Mermin has another intersting point that I may try to present, if I get time, which touches on the more philosophical aspects of QM. And I guess we could look at some particle-statistics weirdness.
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5541 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 199 of 205 (313542)
05-19-2006 12:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by cavediver
05-19-2006 12:45 PM
|
|
HEP
hep-exp, hep-ph... it's all the same. I don't think I agree with that. I never made a real experiment in my life, but that did not keep me from publishing in hep-ph
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by cavediver, posted 05-19-2006 12:45 PM | | cavediver has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 201 by cavediver, posted 05-19-2006 1:11 PM | | fallacycop has not replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5541 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 200 of 205 (313543)
05-19-2006 12:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 198 by cavediver
05-19-2006 12:49 PM
|
|
Re: entanglement
We can do but I'm not sure what's left to do. I was thinking about going through the maths. We could look at some quantum computation but it's not really my forte. Actually, Mermin has another intersting point that I may try to present, if I get time, which touches on the more philosophical aspects of QM. And I guess we could look at some particle-statistics weirdness.
I'm fine with all of the above. But I don't think that either modulous or even less RAZD are ready for it just yet. we still have to walk them through the quantum entanglement, if the thread is to be of any use for them.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 198 by cavediver, posted 05-19-2006 12:49 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 202 by RAZD, posted 05-20-2006 10:02 PM | | fallacycop has replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
Re: HEP
Ahh, but to publish in hep-ph suggests that you are making testable predictions... that's just not quite esoteric enough for me  Funny thinking about pre-lanl/post-lanl these days... I only just caught the pre-lanl, and it seems a dim distant memory now! It was probably the biggest revolution of the century in physics research, when you think of what the pre-print delay used to be and the (lack of) speed of response.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 199 by fallacycop, posted 05-19-2006 12:51 PM | | fallacycop has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: entanglement
... or even less RAZD are ready for it just yet. Thanks for the dripping condescension while avoiding dealing with the issue. Consider this: Whenever switch 1 is used on {A} and you get a result RED ... Then NO MATTER WHICH SWITCH you use on {B} it has a portion that MUST AGREE with A-1-RED. Not one switch on {B} ... can avoid it the way it is set up, because the SETUP is bogus. Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5541 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 203 of 205 (314056)
05-21-2006 12:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 202 by RAZD
05-20-2006 10:02 PM
|
|
Apologies
fallacycop writes: ... or even less RAZD are ready for it just yet.
RAZD writes: Thanks for the dripping condescension while avoiding dealing with the issue. Sorry if I came across as snobish. I meant no offense. QM can be counterintuitive and it takes some maturing time to really understand how it works. I really enjoy helpping people understand the theory. I'm not posting just to get a self-satisfaction of "winning" a debate or anything like that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 202 by RAZD, posted 05-20-2006 10:02 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 204 by RAZD, posted 05-21-2006 12:22 AM | | fallacycop has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: Apologies
Fair enough, and accepted, without condition.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 203 by fallacycop, posted 05-21-2006 12:03 AM | | fallacycop has not replied |
|
simple 
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 205 of 205 (315864)
05-29-2006 2:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 191 by Son Goku
05-19-2006 8:59 AM
|
|
So, in real little things we can not know if there is gravity. But why would we not assume there was? I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 191 by Son Goku, posted 05-19-2006 8:59 AM | | Son Goku has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2