I think B-Bob was trying to understand, and was being nice. That's not me. Your quote above in fundamentally flawed at the Unit of Measure level. Don't make me go B-Mode on your ass. B-Bob was being nice to you; I know, because there is a certain way how physicists like him capture (via many conversations) how to communicate their nerdiness. coffee shop...anyone
Brilliant retort.... and just short of two days too.... but, I'll have to deduct points for blatant plagiarism.... Now, I'm sure when you submitted your reply you felt prouder than when you presented the baking soda volcano as an "original" idea to the science fair in your sophomore year.... after the loss of your marbles dashed any hope of producing a stellar model of the solar system... but, you'll just have to learn to live with the facts of your incompetent reality....
Of course, because I simply used your words against you...and got you to call it "Brilliant." You do see that I actually used your exact same words. I did. On purpose. I planned out you being so dumb to supply me with your own words. And you called in Brilliant? I didn't expect that. Who's got next
Evidently... you do.... In fact, I'm starting to wonder if you've been replying to me at all.... Heyp, see a doctor... I hate to see this happen to people... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/A6TDelNxjWg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Just got back to this topic...yeah I need to do some rereading. I was just sitting here for the past 10 minutes or so trying to think about whether space definitely exists. It has always struck me as odd how there is so much "space" between particles and entities within space. By that I mean stuff like the obscenely large distance between an electron and its nucleus. Maybe we just don't really understand the geometry of our space. Anyhow, that led me to Google and I found out there is a new geometric way of looking at particle interactions thru a structure called an amplitudehedron. Do you know anything about it B-Bob or is it something outside of your wheelhouse?
I have not heard of amplitudehedron. I have to really emphasize what a nuts, bolts, and wrenches physicist I am, so I should not be considered any expert on the theory. I can follow some of it and am a sort of enthusiast who is lucky enough to work with some smart astrophysics theory types. I do know of something called Bell's Inequality (also Bell's theorem or paradox), by which quantum theory obviously has to violate something we call locality. Locality is actually very simple for a non-scientist to grasp, and it's something we actually take as a sacred understanding of our physical world. Locality is the idea that one event or object must be adjacent to another event or object to influence it directly, and failing that, if there is a distance between A&B, that information must move from A to influence B and that this takes some amount of time. Quantum theory violates locality at a fundamental level, if we take quantum theory as the truth. (This is via Bell's Theorem). So following this (seemingly insane) logic, we can really start to question the nature of our understanding of space, the distance between two objects or events. Also, .
I guess that violation is thru quantum entanglement. Is that correct? That was why I was wondering if space really existed. If quantum entanglement exists then how can things at different regions in space interact with one another immediately. I really wish I had a better base in math so I could understand the mathematics behind it all. I'm sure that would help make more sense of things.
http://www.ted.com/talks/aaron_o_connell_making_sense_of_a_visible_quantum_object I couldn't get this to embed, but this relates to what I think we are talking about. I'm sure this is nothing new to you, but man this vid was extremely eye opening/mind blowing to me when I saw it.
Yes, entanglement is the central example used to illustrate the fundamental "problem." Thanks for the video. I'll try to watch it this weekend.
Basically, it was an experiment by Aaron O'Connell that showed how a visible object can be put into quantum superposition. It's a few years old now, but still just cool to think about.
Ouch, looking bad. They ignored the dust map at their own peril. Cosmic inflation: not proved. No spectacular discovery to see here. http://www.nature.com/news/no-evidence-for-or-against-gravitational-waves-1.15322
