Prev: Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin?
Next: group of formal differences vs. Grothendieck group
From: spudnik on 28 Nov 2009 18:14
say, What?

thus:
well, one of HSJ's gedanken experiments bore fruit
with your own programming; makes me want almost
to get into it, myself. I always thought it amuzing,
though others aver that it makes no difference, that
the curvature of Earth (i.e. space) isn't considered as a part
of the problem -- truly, it is generally devized as a pure
application of planar graphtheory, which includes spherical
as a special case, I hear (more elementary stuff to grok),
just as the four-color theorem was turned into that,
in order to save on ink-coloration-by-hand.

now, on the other hand, going beyond the modality
of zero-sum-games with the nodal overview
of both of the could-be salesforce
-- thanks to John "Memorial Nobelist-economist" Nash --
such a communicative approach would be required, if
it was Two Travelling Salesfolk Orienteering (which is
just another version of my new game, EGO,
for one or more players .-)

> As an experiment, I also tried setting the distances equal to the
> costs instead, but to my surprise that worked much less often than the
> distance normalized version. Though in retrospect it's fairly obvious
> why; much of the time, having the two travellers seek to stay close to
> one another is actually a bad idea. Consider nodes arranged in a
> circle with pairs of points close to one another, but in which the
> pairs themselves are far apart, for example.

--go l'OEuvre!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html

thus quoth:
(1) Ampère's demonstration of the physical presence of an angular
force, essentially overthrowing the fundamental assumption of
potential theory as still taught, and its conclusive experimental
proof by the 10-year collaboration of Carl Friedrich Gauss and Wilhelm
Weber;
(2) The 1855 Weber-Kohlrausch experiment, establishing the relative
velocity at which the force between electrical particles is reduced to
zero, and provoking Bernhard Riemann to propose (1858) a similarity in
the propagation of light and the electrodynamic potential;
(3) Weber's subsequent deduction (1871) of the bound state of pairs of
like-charged particle/waves within the confines of a 10-16 to 10-13 cm
spherical radius, establishing the natural basis for the formation of
the atomic nucleus.
In the period from 1999 to 2006, I was able to apply that
understanding of the Ampere-Gauss-Weber electrodynamics to the
Keplerian model of the atomic nucleus proposed in 1985 by Dr. Moon.2 I
arrived at a structure which at once overcame what had been two of the
leading objections to the Rutherford-Bohr-Sommerfeld model of the
atom, without the need to invoke any new conditions ad hoc. The
objections of leading chemists, Lewis, Parsons, Langmuir and others,
to the Bohr atom were summarized by

> what

From: BURT on 28 Nov 2009 19:19
On Nov 28, 3:14 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> say, What?
>
> thus:
> well, one of HSJ's gedanken experiments bore fruit
> with your own programming; makes me want almost
> to get into it, myself.  I always thought it amuzing,
> though others aver that it makes no difference, that
> the curvature of Earth (i.e. space) isn't considered as a part
> of the problem -- truly, it is generally devized as a pure
> application of planar graphtheory, which includes spherical
> as a special case, I hear (more elementary stuff to grok),
> just as the four-color theorem was turned into that,
> in order to save on ink-coloration-by-hand.
>
> now, on the other hand, going beyond the modality
> of zero-sum-games with the nodal overview
> of both of the could-be salesforce
> -- thanks to John "Memorial Nobelist-economist" Nash --
> such a communicative approach would be required, if
> it was Two Travelling Salesfolk Orienteering (which is
> just another version of my new game, EGO,
> for one or more players .-)
>
> > As an experiment, I also tried setting the distances equal to the
> > costs instead, but to my surprise that worked much less often than the
> > distance normalized version. Though in retrospect it's fairly obvious
> > why; much of the time, having the two travellers seek to stay close to
> > one another is actually a bad idea. Consider nodes arranged in a
> > circle with pairs of points close to one another, but in which the
> > pairs themselves are far apart, for example.
>
> --go l'OEuvre!http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon...http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
>
> thus quoth:
> (1) Ampère's demonstration of the physical presence of an angular
> force, essentially overthrowing the fundamental assumption of
> potential theory as still taught, and its conclusive experimental
> proof by the 10-year collaboration of Carl Friedrich Gauss and Wilhelm
> Weber;
> (2) The 1855 Weber-Kohlrausch experiment, establishing the relative
> velocity at which the force between electrical particles is reduced to
> zero, and provoking Bernhard Riemann to propose (1858) a similarity in
> the propagation of light and the electrodynamic potential;
> (3) Weber's subsequent deduction (1871) of the bound state of pairs of
> like-charged particle/waves within the confines of a 10-16 to 10-13 cm
> spherical radius, establishing the natural basis for the formation of
> the atomic nucleus.
>     In the period from 1999 to 2006, I was able to apply that
> understanding of the Ampere-Gauss-Weber electrodynamics to the
> Keplerian model of the atomic nucleus proposed in 1985 by Dr. Moon.2    I
> arrived at a structure which at once overcame what had been two of the
> leading objections to the Rutherford-Bohr-Sommerfeld model of the
> atom, without the need to invoke any new conditions ad hoc. The
> objections of leading chemists, Lewis, Parsons, Langmuir and others,
> to the Bohr atom were summarized by
>
>
>
> > what- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If there is half life then how does a collection of a radioactive
element know how many is around together?
They seem to need each other.

Mitch Raemsch
From: spudnik on 29 Nov 2009 00:58
they know,
by eM!


> If there is half life then how does a collection of a radioactive
> element know how many is around together?
> They seem to need each other.

I have thought that Russels' so-called paradoxes were mostly
linguistic (king's English) hash, akin to Korbyzinski's exercise
in pidgin english, "E-prime;" that is to say,
these are just mind-****s, or inside jokes, or silly-syllogistic
errors. that is to say,
the liar fails to include the element of time, or
a proper use of tenses, which are available to those who try to read
Shakespeare
(if'n y'don't try, y'*lose* the pass/no-fail test).

the barber doesn't cut his own hair;
he makes a get-away to some other village, for the same reason,
I suppose, that even a lawyer will hire another lawyer for his own
indemnification.

Lord Berty, the Peacenik:
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2949moonification.html
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2246_british_and_maoism.html
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3042shock_awe_wwii.html
From: zzbunker on 29 Nov 2009 03:32
On Nov 13, 11:30 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 11:16 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <hdjs2g$tb...(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> >  John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Quantum mechanics says that there is no way to predict when an atom will
> > > decay radioactively.
>
> > > This doesn't mean that the decay is random. We wouldn't, for example,
> > > claim that a person who suddenly appears from behind a bus is exhibiting
> > > a new, mysterious, physical state called randomness.
>
> > Who claimed that random was mysterious? And too bad about that analogy
> > to the bus and man.
>
> > > So! - why would we say that the appearance of an outcome of hidden
> > > quantum events is random? Quantum events are necessarily hidden because
> > > physical space itself hides very small objects - but they are still only
> > > "hidden", like the man behind the bus.
>
> > Scale is not important to randomness.
>
> > > I rest my case.
>
> > Upon what?
>
> It was my understanding that the hidden-variable thing had
> been pretty well disposed of a long time ago.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

Well, it was, but only by the philosophic slight-of-hand
of complex probabilty functions. So that's why the people
who understand macroscopic probabilities work on holographics,
light sticks,
and atomic clock wristwatches rather than in 1930 Photo-Electric
labs.
And on HDTV, Blue Ray, Laser-Guided Phasors, Flash Memory, Cyber
Batteries,
Flat Screen Software Debuggers, Distributed Processing Software,
Home Broadband, mp3, mpeg, USB, All-In-One Printers, and Desktop
Publishing,
rather than in 1950 AI Labs.
And on Rapid Protoyping, GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping,
Weather Satellites, Data Fusion, Compact Flourescent Lighting,
UAVS,
Multiplexed Fiber Optics, Self-Assembling Robots, and
Self-Replicating Machines, rather than in 1960 NASA Paint Shops.

>
> Of course, I suppose it could be like the gods.  We don't
> see any, but there might be one under the bed when we're
> not looking.  Same with hidden variables, I imagine.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 5 Dec 2009 07:06
On Nov 18, 6:04 am, haiku jones <575jo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 9:11 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > haiku jones wrote:
> > > On Nov 15, 2:13 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >> Jim Burns wrote:
> > >>> tg wrote:
> > >>>> I'm fascinated by JJ's ability to elicit responses
> > >>>> with his language which closely approaches quantum
> > >>>> randomness. However, there is a reasonable underlying
> > >>>> language/philosophical question.
> > >>> I agree that these questions about quantum randomness
> > >>> and others like them are reasonable. But the program of
> > >>> consulting our intuition about their answers has expired,
> > >>> has ceased to be: it is an ex-program.
> > >>> The assumptions of Bell's Theorem are that the
> > >>> outcome of a quantum measurement is (i) determined
> > >>> by properties of the particle and apparatus
> > >>> (whether or not we can measure the properties
> > >>> themselves), and (ii) /not/ affected by anything
> > >>> that happens at some arbitrarily large distance
> > >>> (which are often abbreviated as "local reality"
> > >>> and may, for many purposes, be referred to as
> > >>> "our intuition").
> > >>> The theorem puts a limit on how strongly correlated
> > >>> certain pairs of widely separated measurements
> > >>> can be. Quantum mechanics claims that some of these
> > >>> measurements will break those limits. It turns out
> > >>> experimentally that quantum mechanics is right and
> > >>> "local reality" (AKA "our intuition") is wrong.
> > >>>> We believe that there is no cause that can effect
> > >>>> the lifetime of the decay of a particle. So it seems
> > >>>> to me that we could attribute a label of
> > >>>> 'hidden variable' to that information itself. IOW,
> > >>>> while we do not claim a cause, we could argue that
> > >>>> the lifetime could as easily be *determined* at the
> > >>>> instant of creation of the particle as at the instant
> > >>>> of decay. So there would be a piece of information
> > >>>> about the particle which is inaccessible rather than
> > >>>> non-existent.
> > >>> I'm afraid I don't find your description of this
> > >>> whatever-it-is (that does not cause the particle's
> > >>> decay but does determine it) to be very coherent.
> > >>> If the time of the decay of the particle is a function
> > >>> of this 'hidden variable', then the conditions
> > >>> of Bell's Theorem are met and there is a limit on
> > >>> correlations between widely separated measurements
> > >>> which is at least sometimes broken by our measurements.
> > >>> I take this to mean that there is, in fact, no such
> > >>> hidden variable, whether or not we can access it.
> > >>> Someone might object that we don't know that the
> > >>> results of the intuition-destroying experiments
> > >>> apply to decaying atoms as well as pairs of
> > >>> gamma rays. Personally, I find experimental
> > >>> results that dodge our constraints but only
> > >>> when we can't see them doing so to be considerably
> > >>> less intuitive than the loss of local reality.
> > >>> Perhaps a better answer would be to point out
> > >>> that the way physics proceeds, the way science
> > >>> proceeds is to generalize alleged laws to the
> > >>> utmost extent ("Energy is conserved everywhere
> > >>> in the universe.") and then wait for contradictions
> > >>> to pour in from the experimentalists. ("But, wait!
> > >>> I've got some radium that behaves very oddly.")
> > >>> Is there some contradiction, some troubling
> > >>> experimental result that makes it necessary to
> > >>> suppose there is this 'hidden variable'?
> > >>> Jim Burns
> > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Importance_of_the_theorem
> > >> The idea of a hidden variable is a grammatical consequence of any
> > >> quantum theory, as I argued.
>

Since this is cross-posted to sci.math, I'll bite:

What is a "grammatical consequence"? I hope it is not related to the
English grammar, because much of quantum theory was originally
developed in German. Was, like in poetry, something lost in
translation? :-)

>
> > > Alas, the universe disagrees.
>
> > Fine. Oh great. I'll tell my mum.
>
> Better yet, write it up for _Annalen der Physik_.
> Convince the readers of that rag, and there's
> a Nobel Prize in it for you.  Guaranteed.
>
> Haiku Jones

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin?
Next: group of formal differences vs. Grothendieck group