XMark

Post subject: Re: Questions Answered....probably.

Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:40 pm

Newbie

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:48 pm
Posts: 35
Location: Vancouver, BC

Okay, quantum entanglement. I've been reading up on this and it seems to be a really interesting loophole in special relativity that could put Einstein in a quantum state of both spinning and not spinning in his grave...

But I must admit that every time I read about quantum entanglement, I hit a part of the article that gives me a headache, like on the wikipedia page where it suddenly goes from text to a whole bunch of confusing mathematical formulas that I can't even read much less understand...

Can someone give me the "Quantum Entanglement for Dummies" summary? Has it actually been observed and/or exploited as of yet or is it just a theory? Does it actually violate the light speed barrier? Do you have to do something to entangle two particles or are there naturally entangled particles everywhere? And if there are, how do you locate two entangled particles?

“Nice boobs!”, anon.

{SU(10 or 11) X R => R X S³}

{}=> E₈.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0PImSlQNUo&feature=related

Anthony Garret Lisi, ESToE, arxiv November 2007.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.0770v1.pdf

David Vogan, et al, August 2007.

http://math.mit.edu/~dav/E8TALK.pdf

Murray Gell-Man @ TED, March 2007.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/194

The Cardinality, C, of R is

C[R]= 2^∞ = 2x2x2x….

That is strictly greater than ∞.

Georg Cantor (1845-1918).

World War I (Africa, Americas, Asia, Europe, et al)

Robert Newman’s History of Oil

8^th February 2008

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=08-x5

6 quarks.

____________

Peter G Kinnon>Chemists, in particular, have long been welll acquainted with gross outcomes being predictable from the effectively random motion of atoms/molecules. Examples are gas pressures and chemical equilibria.

One small point though. In my book I do question the notion that we (our ancestors) ever were in the trees

mtu

Baseball, snooker and other ball-game players are familiar with sometimes-chaotic outcomes too; just like the rest of us. I’m also looking forward to the concoctions brewed in the other two generations of quark-based chemistry predicted by e8’s dynamism.

I’m no biologist but, since we all share a common ancestor with the banana, “out of the trees” remains fine with me. Is your book restricted to paper format or is it available ‘online’ as well? If the latter, then could you post its url, please?

TIA. Ed.

14/2/8

Steven Weinberg, 1992, Dreams of a final theory: “Wonderful phenomena, from turbulence to thought, will still need exploration whatever final theory is discovered. The discovery of a final theory will not necessarily even help very much in making progress in understanding these phenomena [...]. A final theory will be final in only one sense — it will bring to an end a certain sort of science, the ancient search for those principles that cannot be explained in terms of deeper principles.”

SYMBOLS

0, i, 2, e, π, -, Quaternions => hyper-complex. {[;(∞)’]}

RELATIONS

U(3) => R X S³ => Σ _{’p halts’} 2^-|p| = Ω = =<

SU(10 or 11)

E₈.

PREDICTION

P⁺ -> π₀ + e⁺ -> 2γ + e⁺, τ_1/2 ~ 10⁴² seconds, s, SI.

Ian Edward consterdine. Friday, 15^th February 2008

Lead-on, Brothers & Sisters A, b, c, d to l, and on to zuyder-zee.

K

http://math.mit.edu/~dav/E8TALK.pdf, David Vogan, 2007

Greg.Chaitin, (translated as) “There exists no paradox that isn’t useful.”

ω^ε = ε

Dirtwash, achiral-Reimannity or ε exists?

ε is also known as, the field with one member.

When both ω and ε = 1, not a promble (Trevor Dykes).

Quaternion (Hamilton). Integer n, ω = e^2nπi + 2 and ε = e^2nπj + 2 or e^2nπk + 2

Grassmann-1-form. 3 => ε (epsilon, anti-3, 3-over-bar, Anthony Garrett Lisi, 2007); ε = ω-bar (anti-omega) = ō

Otherwise, ε is not real.

Unless, ¿ ε => ? Another twisted donut.

E₈.

Regarding imaginary time.

Does Richard Philips Feynman exist there too?

And Kurt Vonnegut…

Abel 2811 galaxy cluster in Einstein’s spacetime.

The image gives information about the 4-dimensional manifold (x, y, z and -ict) seen through a telescope built to exquisite accuracy and supported very steadily on the principles of mathematics and the framework of -20^th to +20^th century physics practise.

From this image (and many others like it), and using the best-available tools (Einstein 1915), we can extract multiple ‘spherical’ lenses of radius up to 100 million light years, or so, that are made of (most probably) massive neutrinos, travelling close to c and, hence, giving both Ricci and Weyl curvature to the manifold at the same time. The mass in each ‘bubble’ is ~30 times that in the galaxy-cluster’s total or, roughly, trillions of Solar masses worth.

“Smoking may be bad for our healths, but it is good for our patients’.”

Wednesday, 20^th February 2008, BBC Radio 4, Junior Doctor, A & E UK, Max. Pemberton, “Trust me, I’m a nearly new Doctor.”

Wednesday, 27^th February 2008

flattop New Kid In Town Offline Hello, I'm New Here! Posts: 5

Re: Large Hadron Collider Reply #23 - Today at 18:50:53 Alert Moderator Quote newolder wrote on Yesterday at 22:04:08: At those energies, there will be lots of 'products' fleeing through the Atlas detector podule. e.g. a simulated event: also @ http://asymptotia.com/category/science/science-in-the-media/page/2/ 'Events' are expected 40 thousand times per second, or so.   Newolder, Ok, so the LHC can only HOPE to detect the decay particles (gamma photons) of an higgs boson NOT the higgs boson itself. The link you supplied just says the simulated decay particles of an Higgs boson, It doesn’t say anything about the DIRECT detection of the Higgs boson itself is to be hoped for. If I’m wrong in my thinking, can someone tell me outright and why,  I’m no expert at interpreting such pictures.

Mass-energy may appear to disappear from the spacetime imaged by the Atlas technology. Brian Cox, said the same in a recent, BBC-TV, “Horizon”, programme.

If that were the case, dimension(s) beyond Atlas is(are) not ruled-out.

Thursday, 28^th February 2008

Chalnoth, “It just means that if something does, its total energy must be zero.”

With you all the way to here.

Yet.

Other possible, “must be”’s for existence=true, include:

Strictly greater than zero. (Cantor)

Oscillating about zero. (Heisenberg, dxdp>=ħ, etc.)

Increasing exponentially from zero.

Decreasing exponentially towards zero.

All correctly accounted for (by David Vogan, Fokko du Cloux et al @ MIT, and Anthony “Garrett” Lisi @ Hawaii.edu, last year) in an exceptionally simply connected bundle, down the road to E₈

SU(10, 11) &c are dual representations of S³ X R, too. I think?

Friday, 7^th March 2008

Chalnoth> “Looks to me like he's just proposing an alternative theory of inflation that doesn't produce gravity waves. But I'm going to have to disagree with him rather strongly. Not only is his oscillating universe rather ridiculous, but we seem to already be starting to detect the gravity wave signal. ”

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0403/0403020v1.pdf

For a readable account of Steinhardt &Turok’s cyclic scenario without inflation.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/06/alan-guth-vs-neil-turok-audio.html

For a radio broadcast with both Turok and a rapidly back-pedalling Guth.

The disagreement anent gravity waves from T_OU=0 is clear* and observations showing they exist will cause S&T to rethink. Otherwise, Guth will have no more legs to pedal with. That is, a null result favours ekpyrosis very much more than inflation.

* http://www.physics.princeton.edu/www/jh/research/steinhardt_paul.html

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=36270&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Page the 9^th …

Thursday, 13^th March 2008

SB

access

↕Societé Bayes, peut être?

Qui donc,

Hello.