Put 'em on Olbermann's show. Nobody's watching that.
HUm.
Did you see that?
Nope? Did you? Nope.
I’ll have to read the paper. The article is very poorly worded.
Yeah.
zer0bama proposes some new fascist scheme in Washington DC ...
And in New York, the DJIA drops another 350 points ...
Spooky.
bookmark
bump
Interesting that a quantum system can go back to its earlier, uncollapsed state after the measurement influence is removed. It goes “back in time” and again occupies all possible locations/modes (think I read that in a different paper referenced in the sidebar).
Ping
“they used a measurement technique that has an almost imperceptible impact on the experiment”
Almost imperceptible. If one observes, it changes the results. So we only peeked at the particles and it didn’t matter? Werner Heisenberg has a few things to say about that.
Stan and Ollie’s Paradox?
So, if I read a liberal newspaper, I can change the ink at the subatomic level to transform the shape of the letters into words that I like better?
Who knew?
Unlike Hardy’s original argument, our demonstration reveals the paradox by observation, rather than inference.”
This seems to be a mistaken conclusion.
Hardy’s Paradox: “the axiom that we cannot make inferences about past events that haven’t been directly observed while also acknowledging that the very act of observation affects the reality we seek to unearth”
If the observation affects the reality, the paradox applies. If the observation does not affect the reality, the paradox does not apply. By older technology, the observation affected the reality. With newer technology, an observation can be made in a less obtrusive manner, so that it does not affect the reality. That means that the paradox does not apply. It’s wrong to say that the paradox has been observed. It just does not apply.
It is kind of like saying that the ancient Greeks were wrong about atoms being the smallest building blocks of matter. They said there were smallest building blocks, which they called “atoms.” Modern scientists concluded that we had found the smallest building blocks, and they called them “atoms.” Later, scientists concluded that there were “sub-atomic” particles. This doesn’t mean that the ancient Greeks (ancient geeks) were wrong. It means that some modern scientists were wrong when they concluded that they had identified the smallest particles. They only identified the smallest particles known at that time.
“’Spooky Action At A Distance’ Of Quantum Mechanics Directly Observed.”
Well, if it’s directly observed, how spooky is that?
Is this just a subtle add for Viagra???
If information is not lost in a black hole, then consider the information from our own duality in having been alive, but gradually dead. Two sides to an equation.
If God is good - as I believe - then sorting out such energy would seem an early step on the way to heaven, or cutting all but consciousness for those bound for hell so they might observe what they otherwise might have shared.
“If I knew God I’d be Him.” ...But I know too that by Israel, meaning to “struggle”, and islam meaning to “submit”...I’ll yet struggle, thanks.