Here you go, Zinman.
Congratulations to Drs. S. Haroche and D. Wineland for winning the Nobel Prize in Physics.
"They proved the correctness of the bizarre properties of quantum mechanics, i.e. that electrons can be two places at the same time."
Layman's Summery
Actually I was laying the groundwork for another thread but I do appreciate your response. My idea for a new thread required that particular answer and I think most physicists or science folks already accept it as true fact. However the thread will not be about the quantum particle itself. I'm having second thoughts about it because TSF is not casual and one must tread carefully.....lol
Yeah, I'm sure I'll be banned in no time. Meanwhile, I'll just attempt to rob Peter to pay Paul.
(Aug 1, 2017 06:48 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]However the thread will not be about the quantum particle itself.
I am curious, though. Come on, give me a hint. What's it about?
I decided to bury the potential thread. Wrong subforum for one thing, might have been better suited for philosophy, a place where unfortunately for me, I have trouble. I wanted to have some fun with it but similar topics have been beaten to death over the years.
What I was trying to do was to find someway of objectifying probability. My thinking was that a subjective probability has no problem existing in an objective universe but not as an actual object. Yet the reverse might be true if the universe was in reality a whole lot of nothing. I can imagine a probability representative of something objective in a subjective universe. I was thinking an objective probability can only exist in such a scenario as long as the universe we're in is actually nothing. Not sure if I'm being clear on that, hope you get my drift. What if probabilities are real and observation not? Don't take these comments seriously, I'm only in think mode at the moment....lol
Yeah, I'd keep that one to myself. Sorry.
Want to take bets on how long I'll last there?
(Aug 2, 2017 01:50 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]I would speculate that your estimated time for banishment to be within the next 30 days at current rate
I think you underestimated me. That last one to exchemist might do the trick. If not, the pitchforks are coming.
Time will tell.
Most of those guys can take a punch. Sanctity of the forum means more than a slap in the face, IMHO. Why take the Duck personally, he's doing a job. I think you and him may have the same birth mother. Outrageous unsupported claims is what usually spells the death knell.
(Aug 2, 2017 02:43 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]Most of those guys can take a punch. Sanctity of the forum means more than a slap in the face, IMHO. Why take the Duck personally, he's doing a job. I think you and him may have the same birth mother.
I’m not poking fun at Dywyddyr, just ordinary human folly.
Zinjanthropos Wrote:Outrageous unsupported claims is what usually spells the death knell.
Hmm...I'm fresh out of those.
I'm having a day out with the girls.
See you later.
SS.... Not sure if you noticed but the poster who follows right after your answer to my question tries to objectify probability to explain dark matter. The power of suggestion, the subtle dropping of a hint? I love it, that feeling when you're fairly certain someone has picked up on your word.
Nearly forgot: how was your day with the gals? If you're like my wife, the next one won't be too soon...lol