APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
Quantum Entanglement is a common but often misunderstood phenomenon that involves large balls of yarn and kittens. It is the bane of old ladies everywhere. It is known to be the cause of the Quantum Teleportation of socks from washing machines and dryers. Scientists are currently studying Quantum Entanglement in an attempt to conserve our matching sock supply. ...
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Entanglement doesn't rely on infinity, it relies on a continuing connection of dimensions outside the 4 of the known empirical universe, somewhat but on a much grander scale of the photon "double-slit" paradox - the solution lays outside Newtonian Physics. There is no need for infinity there either, mathematics remains and works inside the realms of quantum mechanics regardless of how many dimension are used.bystander wrote:With all the exotic, obscure mathematics involved in quantum mechanics and entanglement ("spooky action at a distance"Dr. Skeptic wrote:I'm not sitting on a fence, I know what I know and more importantly, I know what I don't know.
If the universe is "recycled" it is not on a "Newtonian" scale and "infinity" is not one of it's variables.
So then, what are your thoughts on entanglement?), I'm surprised you have such a problem with the concept of infinity. With all the accuracy of the predictions of quantum mechanics, it still has a big problem with gravity, one thing with which Newton and Einstein both did well, and on which most (all?) cosmologies depend, at least to some extent.
Entanglement, though well documented, seems to be counterintuitive and nonproductive. Gravity, on the other hand, has a major influence on my everyday life.
I'm still waiting for "The Grand Theory of Everything", or perhaps what we need is "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything".
Martin saidSo then, what are your thoughts on entanglement?
Darn, I was going to say that.I thought entanglement was a reference to the end result of marriage.
Hey, the kittens and yarn thing is someone else's theory. It just seemed plausible, especially when it came to the socks disappearing. Just think what might happen when the kittens start playing with strings instead of yarn.Dr. Skeptic wrote:Entanglement! Kittens! Evidently you've never gone Salmon fishing on a crowded river bank in Alaska!
Quantum Mechanics
Quantum mechanics (QM) is a scientific theory, one of the most important ones studied in physics. It is so named because it is said to be "So simple, even a single (quantum) mechanic could understand all its principles." The prominent physicist Richard Feynmann switched from teaching freshman introductory physics to quantum mechanics, noting that QM is "so much easier."
Max Planck and Enrico Fermi first formulated quantum mechanics after discovering that single bits of matter could behave both like a particle and a rave. This particle-rave duality was later explained by the "color charge" associated with atoms, a consequence of the atomic tendency to vibrate in time with techno music and consume ecstasy pills (also known as "gluons").
String Theory
String theory is the theory of string panties. It claims that since a girl who wears string panties will get more attention than a girl that wears ordinary panties, bearers of string panties will ultimately make their trousers more and more thin and stretchy or heavy and baggy so that more and more of the string panty will be visible for the naked eye, which is odd, since it is not the string at all that catches the attention but the body part that is surrounding it.
...
String theory is also related to rope science that covers the practice of tying exceedingly complicated knots in them for research purposes.
The most complicated knots have been tied by such notables as Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeve. These knots have been known to appear in different places at the same time (sometimes breaking the laws of physics and appearing at the same place and time), which only serves to complicate the knots further. Their efficacy in either covering or revealing posterior particles is the subject of incredibly close study in university laboratories.
OMGDr. Skeptic wrote:Entanglement doesn't rely on infinity, it relies on a continuing connection of dimensions outside the 4 of the known empirical universe, somewhat but on a much grander scale of the photon "double-slit" paradox - the solution lays outside Newtonian Physics. There is no need for infinity there either, mathematics remains and works inside the realms of quantum mechanics regardless of how many dimension are used.
I just reread this. Are you really looking outside of the "known empirical universe" 
That just means we need to define a common relationship of the two fruits on a level smaller than the "fruit".BMAONE23 wrote:Perhaps the accurate comparison between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is more like Apples and Oranges, They are both fruit that grow from the flowers on trees but that is their only similarity. Maybe if we stop comparing the fruit and saying "they don't match" and look for the tree we might find the unifying theory of everything.
I believe in infinity - as a conception. I also firmly believe that a conceptual value cannot be blended with an empirical value - that is unless you desire a product the is conceptual and know that the product cannot be used in an empirical context.bystander wrote:OMGDr. Skeptic wrote:Entanglement doesn't rely on infinity, it relies on a continuing connection of dimensions outside the 4 of the known empirical universe, somewhat but on a much grander scale of the photon "double-slit" paradox - the solution lays outside Newtonian Physics. There is no need for infinity there either, mathematics remains and works inside the realms of quantum mechanics regardless of how many dimension are used.
You had better be careful. We'll have you believing in infinity, soon.
Ok,,,,,,,so what does it mean at the end of the day?I believe in infinity - as a conception. I also firmly believe that a conceptual value cannot be blended with an empirical value - that is unless you desire a product the is conceptual and know that the product cannot be used in an empirical context.
Thats one form of entanglement.II. Issuer Liability for Web Site Content
A. Issuer Responsibility for Hyperlinked Information -- The new release addresses issuer concerns that they can be held liable under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws for third-party information to which they link from their web sites.
1. The new release discusses the "entanglement" theory and the "adoption" theory as two ways in which an issuer can be held liable for statements of third parties (such as analysts):
a. Liability under the "entanglement" theory would depend upon an issuer's level of pre-publication involvement in the preparation of the information.
b. Liability under the "adoption" theory would depend upon whether, after its publication, the issuer explicitly or implicitly, endorses or approves the hyperlinked information.
"Life" and "Cognition" cannot be resolved as empirical data. Conceptual values are "Qualitative" while Empirical values are quantitative, so let say I want to describe a shade of blue, quantitatively I can define it as 80% 478 nm, 19% 378 nm, and 1% other. Now if describe that shade of blue as a "soothing blue" color for me, I just placed a qualitative value to it - if I describe it as a "soothing blue" to someone else, they will in vision there own version of "soothing" based on there own cognitive values.harry wrote:Hello All
Dr Skeptic said
Ok,,,,,,,so what does it mean at the end of the day?I believe in infinity - as a conception. I also firmly believe that a conceptual value cannot be blended with an empirical value - that is unless you desire a product the is conceptual and know that the product cannot be used in an empirical context.
It means that the universe exceeds what can be explained by"Newtonian Physics" and cannot be limited to 4 dimensions.harry wrote:Hello Dr Skeptic
Thank you for promp to read entanglememnt:
Still reading,,,,,,,,,,,,,darn,,,,,,,,, don't you hate it when you start reading something and you cannot put it down.
I Understand what you have written,,,,,last post,,,,,,,,,, but! my son is asking me to ask you to further explain, what does it mean to the origin or the workings of the universe.
Then I would have to suggest re-reading them because your antiquated arguments don't encompass any of the information of these books or any scientific resolves of the last 30 years.harry wrote:Hello Dr Skeptic
Read those.
Please do not assume what people read.
Yes! I read papers from the past, but its the "NOW" papers and evidence which plays the game.
Science does not "sit on the fence", indecisiveness is reserved for opinions.harry wrote:Hello Arramon
Point well taken
================================
Mr Skeptic open a new topic, and I will discuss any issues.
Please leave your statements on the fence and focus on the topic.
And what point would that be?harry wrote:Hello Dr Skeptic
You just proved my point.