Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 11:52 AM
42 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,155 Year: 5,192/19,786 Month: 1,314/873 Week: 210/460 Day: 26/29 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Author Topic:   GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3630 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by cavediver, posted 05-19-2006 12:49 PM fallacycop has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1753 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 197 of 205 (313539)
05-19-2006 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by fallacycop
05-19-2006 12:35 PM


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)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by fallacycop, posted 05-19-2006 12:35 PM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by fallacycop, posted 05-19-2006 12:51 PM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1753 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 198 of 205 (313541)
05-19-2006 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by fallacycop
05-19-2006 12:38 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by fallacycop, posted 05-19-2006 12:38 PM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by fallacycop, posted 05-19-2006 12:54 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3630 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by cavediver, posted 05-19-2006 1:11 PM fallacycop has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3630 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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 05-20-2006 10:02 PM fallacycop has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1753 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 201 of 205 (313549)
05-19-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by fallacycop
05-19-2006 12:51 PM


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 yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 202 of 205 (314024)
05-20-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by fallacycop
05-19-2006 12:54 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by fallacycop, posted 05-19-2006 12:54 PM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by fallacycop, posted 05-21-2006 12:03 AM RAZD has responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3630 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 05-21-2006 12:22 AM fallacycop has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 204 of 205 (314059)
05-21-2006 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by fallacycop
05-21-2006 12:03 AM


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 yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended 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 yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019