Cern and String Theory

[Answer]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#333333 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#333333><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Upchurch:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported as spam or maybe trolling.

This post and the past few that I scanned back does not conform to the definition of spam as outlined in the forum rules.

Trolling is a significantly more difficult thing to identify. As a mod, I have no recourse for dealing with trolls nor is it within my jurisdiction to make the decision about who is or is not a troll. I would encourage Answer to be more civil in his posts and I would encourage those who are having trouble dealing with Answer to stop "baiting the troll", as it were.

As always, my decision may be appealed to Hal.[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

uhhh.. if you can't seem to grasp the conclusions of SCIENCE and THE ONE TRUE SKEPTIC, that is your problem. all of my posts are right-on-topic and I CHALLENGE YOU TO DISPROVE THEM. in fact, feel free to refer to quantum theory and any experiments therein. i will gladly explain my reasoning and YOU WILL FIND THAT IT IS FLAWLESS. either do so or be a tattle-taling child who can't handle complicated thought.

 

[Answer]

uhhh.. if you can't seem to grasp the conclusions of SCIENCE and THE ONE TRUE SKEPTIC, that is your problem. all of my posts are right-on-topic and I CHALLENGE YOU TO DISPROVE THEM. in fact, feel free to refer to quantum theory and any experiments therein. i will gladly explain my reasoning and YOU WILL FIND THAT IT IS FLAWLESS. either do so or be a tattle-taling child who can't handle complicated thought.

to whoever tattle-taled: i began my posts with civility and was continually insulted by false-skeptics. they can't take what they dish out!

 

[Answer]

uhhh.. if you can't seem to grasp the conclusions of SCIENCE and THE ONE TRUE SKEPTIC, that is your problem. all of my posts are right-on-topic and I CHALLENGE YOU TO DISPROVE THEM. in fact, feel free to refer to quantum theory and any experiments therein. i will gladly explain my reasoning and YOU WILL FIND THAT IT IS FLAWLESS. either do so or be a tattle-taling child who can't handle complicated thought.

i will be the bigger MAN, if that is what is required. i am unaffected by their insults, but for my own entertainment I DEMAND an apology from everyone of those who resorted to insult-foolery as a means of discounting themasterofskepticsciencesuperiotism. i will refrain from calling them educated-stupid-idiots, even if they are. henceforth i will satiate their EGOs by being INSUFFERABLY polite. does that make you happy, you absolutely fantastic human beings? i love you with all my heart; hey, you are me! i'm so sorry for calling you educated-idiots, i am one too so i swear it was not an insult! to me, idiots are geniuses and geniuses are idiots! even my insults are compliments! i see that you are distracted, what with your beautiful wives and husbands and wonderful children and what not, so you missed the point of my posts; that's ok! sometimes i don't read too, so all is good in the holographic world! i hope one day we can drink our personal beverage of choice(even tea!!!!) and perhaps i might even enjoy a crumpet or two! anyway, hugs and kisses! XOXOXOXOXOXO

 

[espritch]

Trolling is a significantly more difficult thing to identify. As a mod, I have no recourse for dealing with trolls nor is it within my jurisdiction to make the decision about who is or is not a troll. I would encourage Answer to be more civil in his posts and I would encourage those who are having trouble dealing with Answer to stop "baiting the troll", as it were.

I suppose the definition of ‘troll’ is rather subjective. The bulletin board does of course provide a mechanism to allow the individual to apply their own definition by means of the ‘ignore’ feature which I, and (I suspect) most of the other participants/readers of this thread have already employed. This mechanism does indeed make the thread much more readable. Unfortunately it appears to have one major flaw. I am still receiving notifications when a poster I deem to be a troll (and have set on ‘ignore’) responds to the thread. Since I may not get further notification of other responses to the thread by posters who’s posts I might actually want to read, these notifications concerning said troll are quite annoying. Is there any way this flaw in the ignore feature can be fixed?

 

[Upchurch]

uhhh.. if you can't seem to grasp the conclusions of SCIENCE and THE ONE TRUE SKEPTIC, that is your problem. {snip}

In my capacity as a moderator, it is my duty to address reported posts and make a decision based on forum rules. I am making no judgements as to the quality or value of your posts.

to whoever tattle-taled: i began my posts with civility and was continually insulted by false-skeptics. they can't take what they dish out

I've read several of your first posts. Your use of all-capitalized words is conventionally understood to mean that you are shouting. Assuming you did not mean it as such, perhaps this was the beginning of any misunderstandings? Perhaps this might be a good opportunity for all involved to take a deep breath and start again on a better footing?

edited to add:

Originally posted by espritch
I am still receiving notifications when a poster I deem to be a troll (and have set on ‘ignore’) responds to the thread. Since I may not get further notification of other responses to the thread by posters who’s posts I might actually want to read, these notifications concerning said troll are quite annoying. Is there any way this flaw in the ignore feature can be fixed? [/b]

I will ask, but you might want to bring this up in the Moderation and Administrative Disussion Area.

 

[Answer]

In my capacity as a moderator, it is my duty to address reported posts and make a decision based on forum rules. I am making no judgements as to the quality or value of your posts. I've read several of your first posts. Your use of all-capitalized words is conventionally understood to mean that you are shouting. Assuming you did not mean it as such, perhaps this was the beginning of any misunderstandings? Perhaps this might be a good opportunity for all involved to take a deep breath and start again on a better footing?

of course! i will refrain from "shouting", although it was only done in a fashion that allowed those who seek deeper meaning to find the pattern that is in my posts. however, capitalizing "i" and the first letter of sentences is not my style; a capital at the start of the sentence forces readers into the Left-Mind and capitalization of "i" reinforces ego. hopefully what you see here is acceptable posting.

 

[Mark]

In my capacity as a moderator, it is my duty to address reported posts and make a decision based on forum rules. I am making no judgements as to the quality or value of your posts. I've read several of your first posts. Your use of all-capitalized words is conventionally understood to mean that you are shouting. Assuming you did not mean it as such, perhaps this was the beginning of any misunderstandings? Perhaps this might be a good opportunity for all involved to take a deep breath and start again on a better footing?

edited to add:
I will ask, but you might want to bring this up in the Moderation and Administrative Disussion Area.

Well, speaking for myself, I wasn't even slightly upset in the first place. Actually, the fact that someone can get so emotional about a subject this esoteric is farcical to the point of being true psychedelia. I love it!

 

[Upchurch]

hopefully what you see here is acceptable posting.

Fine by me. My only concern is promoting discourse rather than fighting. If you are looking to emphesize certain words, may I recommend using the B I and U formating buttons above the text box when you type a new post?

 

[Answer]

Fine by me. My only concern is promoting discourse rather than fighting. If you are looking to emphesize certain words, may I recommend using the B I and U formating buttons above the text box when you type a new post?

ah! i see no problem with that..

honestly, i have never been angry at all in any of my posts! those who perceive anger have themselves to blame. i am serious only about the true nature of Reality and beyond that i always maintain a zen-like state of good humor. it is the only way to live life!

Well, speaking for myself, I wasn't even slightly upset in the first place. Actually, the fact that someone can get so emotional about a subject this esoteric is farcical to the point of being true psychedelia. I love it!

this is the problem with the Left-Mind Scientific thinkers. the nature of Actuality is ineffable; so all the theories in the world cannot explain it except to those who are already aware of it! i could come to this forum talking science-nonsense and it would be no less incomprehensible than the posts i have already made. it just IS!

 

[Mark]

this is the problem with the Left-Mind Scientific thinkers. the nature of Actuality is ineffable; so all the theories in the world cannot explain it except to those who are already aware of it! i could come to this forum talking science-nonsense and it would be no less incomprehensible than the posts i have already made. it just IS!

Yeah, that's what my auto shop teacher always used to say.

 

[jj]

Heres a simple example. You (JJ) and a friend (KK) - the particles - are separated, and supposedly unable to communicate. I ask you one of two questions (that I choose at random). I either ask "Whats your favourite color?" or "Whats your favourite food?" Similarly, I have a friend who is going to choose randomly to ask KK one of those two questions.

Perhaps we repeat the game a few times.

I'll know something is fishy if every time my friend and I happen to ask you and KK the same question you give the same answer, but every time we ask you different questions you give different answers. The point is - how do you and KK know whether my friend and I are asking the same question or not, since we're making the choice randomly once you and KK are already separated???

Thats the essence of the nonlocality we see in QM....

That wasn't my understanding of the observations. Do they not involve separating a pair of entangled particles, then at some point beyond the light cone measuring one of them for the entangled property, then verifying that the other one has the opposite property?

Is there not a question of detection efficiency, detection ability, etc, that also enters in that relates directly to the probabilistic nature of particles?

To me, unless there is something more that I haven't heard, this only suggests that when the particles are disentangled, they have one or the other state, and then when measured, you either can measure them or you can't.

How is my explaination contradictory to the actual experiment?

 

[wipeout]

I think many of you should have a look at this page:

http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/quest.html

Griffiths is a winner of one of the highest awards in physics (other winners include Gell-Mann, Hawking, Penrose, Bell, Weinberg, Witten) and has spent a couple of decades investigating the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, so if he doesn't understand it by now, I honestly doubt anyone does.

 

[jj]

I think many of you should have a look at this page:

http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/quest.html

Griffiths is a winner of one of the highest awards in physics (other winners include Gell-Mann, Hawking, Penrose, Bell, Weinberg, Witten) and has spent a couple of decades investigating the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, so if he doesn't understand it by now, I honestly doubt anyone does.

This would seem to be consistant with my own understanding, and would seem to indicate that the non-locality issues arise from a situation where two things were in fact local when the 'decision' was made, and the only issue is that the decision is MEASURED after the two entities are separated.

Yes? No? What don't I understand here?

 

[Answer]

s quantum mechanics nonlocal?

This depends on what one means by "nonlocal." Two separated quantum systems A and B can be in an entangled state that lacks any classical analog. However, it is better to think of this as a nonclassical rather than as a nonlocal state, since doing something to system A cannot have any influence on system B as long as the two are sufficiently far apart. In particular, quantum theory gives no support to the notion that the world is infested by mysterious long-range influences that propagate faster thaan the speed of light. Claims to the contrary are based upon an inconsistent or inadequate formulations of quantum principles, typically with reference to measurements

of course "the world" isn't affected by quantum-interconnectedness; the world is the result of the 'unfolding' of this interconnectedness into a physical state. only the mind can be affected by the interconnection; indeed, the brain is a statistical tool that analyzes quantum-totality, discarding what does not apply to our current incarnation; our ego. that is why when the ego is crucified - represented by Jesus Christ on the cross - it is becomes possible to trick the brain into allowing information through the brain-filter that doesn't apply to who we are now. that is how 'psychics' operate and how drugs/psychedelics can provide the user with profound revelations about themselves and their existence.

 

[Answer]

false-skeptics assume that what appears magical must be magical and then discount it. the physical world is easily explainable and Science has already explained it! now we must accept that Science has collided with Mysticism and which each study performed we should carefully evaluate it from a mystical perspective as well as a scientific perspective.

 

[Answer]

This would seem to be consistant with my own understanding, and would seem to indicate that the non-locality issues arise from a situation where two things were in fact local when the 'decision' was made, and the only issue is that the decision is MEASURED after the two entities are separated.

Yes? No? What don't I understand here?

all things are local at a quantum-level.. it is Reality itself that is non-local!

 

[Answer]

all things are local at a quantum-level.. it is Reality itself that is non-local!

as quantum-machines WE, us, humanity, are the most valuable measuring devices available. there is no need to build anything! we already exist! we already have an intrinsic ability to understand the quantum world!

 

[Answer]

all things are local at a quantum-level.. it is Reality itself that is non-local!

pervasive misunderstanding is the problem here. "time" only exists as a probability on quantum-level! it doesn't exist in Reality! Reality is utterly separate from actual time! what you see is an unfolded quantum state that has nothing to do with time; it is non-different from a painting, albeit 3-D. is is these strung-together states that creates what you call "time".. but time as you think of it Does-Not-Exist!

 

[jj]

Well, speaking for myself, I wasn't even slightly upset in the first place. Actually, the fact that someone can get so emotional about a subject this esoteric is farcical to the point of being true psychedelia. I love it!

Well, if it wasn't so hard to separate out comments directed to the resident psychedelic from those directed at everyone else, I wouldn't mind. Presently, there is about a page of "answers"s, even at the "you have ... ignore" level, after most any substantive article. The last time I looked, 2/3 of them were answers to answers, as it were, which seems quite untoward, as well as a bit of a cause for concern of some sort.

Perhaps (I'll ask Jeff about this) it might be possible to flag replies to an ignored individual as "... ignored because it is a reply to ... who you have on ignore...", which would remedy the situation.

I don't care to have discussions with people who haven't any evidence for anything, but who use words like "educated-idiot" and the like. It's like trying to have a civil discussion with a drunk Interesting Ian who's even less interesting. The dualists on this board aren't impressing me with their rhetoric, I must say.

 

[Tez]

That wasn't my understanding of the observations. Do they not involve separating a pair of entangled particles, then at some point beyond the light cone measuring one of them for the entangled property, then verifying that the other one has the opposite property?

No - that would simply be classical correlation and wouldnt keep anyone awake at night!

Loosley speaking what happens is that once separated a choice of 2 measurements - call them M1, M2 - is made on each particle. Crucially: each experimentalist can choose (free will) which of the two measurements they want to make. Thus, over many runs, about 1/4 of the time they both perform M1, 1/4 of the time one performs M1 the other performs M2 and so on.

Say each measurement results in a 2-valued outcome - arbitrarily labelled 0 or 1.

Now If the experimentalists find that every time they both choose to do M2 the particles give opposite outcomes (0,1 or 1,0), but in all other cases (M1,M1 or M1,M2 or M2,M1) the particles give the same outcome they know something fishy is going on.

Why? Say particle A answers 0 for the M1 measurement being done on him. In obvious notation we can say

a1=0.

Well, particle B must also answer 0 if either the M1 measurement or the M2 measurement is done on him (since when M1 is done on A and either M1 or M2 is done on B they give the same answer). So

b1=b2=0.

But when M2 is done on B while M1 is done on A they also give the same answer - so b2=0 implies

a2=0

Now we have a contradiction with the fact that when M2 is performed on both particles they give opposite answers....

Is there not a question of detection efficiency, detection ability, etc, that also enters in that relates directly to the probabilistic nature of particles?

Detection efficiency is a red herring. E.g. in ion traps we have 99.9% detection efficiency for these sort of experiements...