You can turn down the beam current in the two slit experiment until you're talking about orders of magnitude less than one electron in the apparatus at any one time on average and you still get the diffraction pattern.
That's not correct. See experiment and photos here (Figure 2). Single electrons produce single dots. It's only after you dump many electrons through that you get a pattern - that's simply because the electrons follow wave trajectories rather than the standard trajectory visualized from classical motion. In reality everything follows these same wave trajectories, it's just that for macroscopic objects, the individual oscillations of the individual particles cancel out.
I don't know why it's any more conceptually obvious that a "variable" should be smeared out than an "electron" should be smeared out.
The phrase "smeared out" conveys nothing, so it should be no surprise that it can be used for situations that are completely different.
What predictions does Bohmian mechanics make that traditional (Copenhagen) QM does not?
The right question to ask. Check out this paper on arXiv: Understanding Bohmian mechanics: A dialogue. The whole paper is a good introduction, but the "Second Day" section should answer your question. What it really comes down to is which should we accept: a theory tied to reality, which is understandable, or a theory that is not understandable, and is divorced from reality, but whose equations work just the same? The former is the Bohmian interpretation, the latter is the traditional QM interpretation.
Its only when you document the traditional QM interpretation so clearly - as you have - that it becomes so obviously absurd and anticonceptual. No wonder I had so much trouble in my QM and QED courses.
It's wrong to think of the electron as a particle when it's "orbiting" in an atom.
It's only wrong in the sense that it doesn't follow a traditional trajectory. As with the double-slit experiment, if one conceives of it following a wave trajectory, the results are the same. So you've got a physical particle the entire time, but it follows the path of a wave. In the case of the double-slit experiment, this makes much more sense: an electron goes through one or the other slit, depending on where it happens to be in its wave trajectory. The apparent interference pattern on the phosphor screen is simply the result of many electrons having their own initial wave trajectories. The pictures are identical, but one is conceivable (ie, conceptual), while the other is not.
The probability distribution is real
It is only "real" in the sense that when we make many observations, they fit that distribution. What's actually real are the electrons themselves. The rest is our analysis of their motion. To say that a probability distribution or probability density is a real thing is to assert that electrons and the universe in general were made with observers in mind. After all, a probability in this context is the chance of an observer finding an object in a given location.
What I have been hinting at this whole time is the deBroglie-Bohm alternative (aka "Bohmian mechanics") to the traditional QM interpretation, which was furthered by JS Bell. This professor has some good intro material online and in arXiv on this subject.
Except that I would oppose the Republican Party for the very same reasons. You fail to see a difference between liberals and conservatives, whereas I see them both violating individual rights in their own ways, toward their own ends.
And what purpose does it serve for the farmer? Let's not drop the context that his goal - to raise cattle - is the only one to be served. Simply stating that "pains serves a useful function" imagines some other goal, or that the function is equally useful regardless of the goal or value.
It is the property-owner/venue-provider responsibility to lay down the rules and enforce them. If someone becomes disruptive, and the property-owner wants them to leave, they should leave. If they refuse, they are violating the property-owner's rights, but again only the property-owner or the police can make them leave. If, instead, the property-owner does nothing, then that's it - the disruptive actions are condoned.
The students do have the right to leave, but they only *have* to leave if the property-owner/venue-provider wants them to leave. They don't have to leave simply because the speaker is scheduled to give a presentation, nor do they have to leave if they don't like what someone is saying. They can do as they please provided it is within the permission granted by the property owner and does not violate anyone else's rights.
Government-run transparency is only as accurate as your trust in the government. Ultimately there should be independent third parties vetting this information for accuracy, and where those groups run into government roadblocks, all that data should be considered suspect.
If you feel like watching a lecture, I just found this one from the University of California: "Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology explores the damage caused by sugary foods." Educate yourself, or don't. Your choice.
Yeah and I'm addicted to oxygen and water too. Perhaps I should cut those out.
The slight difference being you don't need carbs to survive.
When I lost weight I did cut out all carbs AND all fat and I didn't lose any cravings.
Well, then you were eating 100% pure protein, and I can understand why you didn't lose any cravings. Fat has a huge satiating effect.
I'm sorry but you're dillusional.
What you have is certainty without evidence - that's called faith, and is the true mark of delusion. You have faith in the opinions of the AMA/AHA/NIH. Myself - I require evidence, reason. I thought there were reasons behind the beliefs about saturated fat, but then I did my own research, and found that the studies supporting this belief confounded their variables and had no basis for their conclusions. Either that, or they simply made up the results.
You might enjoy the results, but if you enjoy the restrictions you're a saddist.
Nope, sorry. Once you're on the diet for a few weeks, you lose all interest in bread/chips/pasta/etc. It really does seem like an addiction to carbs in that respect.
Have you read nothing about the Atkins diet and it's dangers.
Well, I'm not following Atkins, but for weight loss alone it's the best place to start. What I have read of the "dangers" are simply people regurgitating the assumed truths about saturated fat. It's funny how the *exact same* fat that makes up our body and we digest constantly is dangerous when we digest it from another animal. But really it comes down to poor research. You should check out Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes - he's a writer for the journal Science, and in the book he goes study by study through the 150 year history of obesity research. It's a hefty read, and doesn't make any claims about what the truth is, but it gives you an idea of how bad the research is and how unfounded the popular assumptions are. Dietary science is about as scientific as social science.
High fat low carb is NOT a healthy way to lose weight.
Come back and talk to me in 7-10 years. It's not impossible but the majority (well over 50% - somewhere between 70% and 90%) don't manage to keep it off for a decade. I've posted links to the few actual medical journal articles that publish this inconvenient (for weight loss industry) truth.
You're lumping my diet in with ridiculous diets based on false notions of what causes obesity in the first place (e.g. willpower, simply eating too many calories, etc)
You're also making the mistake of thining that what worked for you will work for anyone
My bad for assuming we all evolved from a common source. As for genes, I have yet to see a gene that completely bypasses the normal functions of the liver and pancreas.
That is actually very unusual. For me to lose weight in my mid to late 20s, I was doing about 2 hrs a day excercise and eating nothing but salad (VERY large bowl, about 3 times a day) and lean meat or chicken (once a day). NO beverages other than water. It was not much fun to say the least.
Funny, my weight loss experience over the last year has been quite enjoyable. Clearly you've invalidated the notion that maintaining a normal weight is a simple matter of reducing calories.
I remember my first bit of junk food after breaking that diet - a big mac. My body had gotten so use to not having to process fat that I felt ill for a day.
That is what you get for following the normal diet advice. Now, try doing what actually works - high fat, high protein diet, keep carb ingestion below 50g a day.
This old lie.
Where was the lie? You didn't seem to cover that. I wasn't saying everyone would eat the same number of calories as me, was I? Obviously someone taller, or more active, would require more calories.
what you're arguing for is the right for moneyed interests to run roughshod over both individual rights (e.g. the right to a safe workplace)
There can be no "right to a safe workplace", because such a "right" would invariably violate other actual rights.
We tried laissez faire in the 1890s - we got slums, tenements, sweatshops, and ultimately the dustbowl and the great depression.
You have government regulation and federal reserve monopoly to thank for the Great Depression. Even Raymond Moley, who was the chief architect of the New Deal, agrees that the New Deal actually helped turn a recession into a depression, rather than lead to recovery. (see his two books "After Seven Years" and "The First New Deal")
you do realize you're arguing for a lower standard of living right?
Nope, because I'm not. I'm arguing for increased individual freedom. What comes with that (of course) is increased individual responsibility. But what's great about that is that you also have complete freedom to *choose* your standard of living. Of course, reality dictates that higher standards of living require more effort, responsibility, etc.
people are poor there and will work for what we give them
Strawman. Sure, they might give you that response, but should you stop there, or get to the root of the problem?
If you look at the list of minimum wages by country, you'll see that most countries have a higher minimum wage than the US's.
It's quite simple, really. Minimum wage was just one example. To find the rest - ask a company why they sent their business overseas. Then correct for that.
What government-union partnerships? Google lists only seven pages. What are you talking about?
Don't let google take the place of actual thought. What I meant are any situations in which a union is able to use the local/state/federal government to force the company to do with its property other than it pleases. So long as that company is not violating any individual rights, unions should only be as strong as their members.
The common thread in everything I'm saying is - individual rights. They exist. They shouldn't be violated.
...just ditch the regulations that drive companies overseas in the first place - minimum wage, and regulations based on political pull (e.g. govt-union partnerships), for starters.
To help you out, I'll put both quotes next to eachother! Yay!
I don't have to be skeptical of the AGW - there are no concepts of which to be skeptical.
Stating that you don't have to make an argument against AGW science, because there's no science to argue
My argument against AGW "science" is that it is not science for the reason that it makes no attempt to connect the models to reality. That is an argument, and the argument that I made. So I have not and do not claim that I don't have to make any argument against it. I have made my argument, and you have yet to refute it.
Something about peer review by scientists who understand the philosophy of science and epistemology.
Backing up two bald assertions with one vague assertion. I'm still waiting for the evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
You can turn down the beam current in the two slit experiment until you're talking about orders of magnitude less than one electron in the apparatus at any one time on average and you still get the diffraction pattern.
That's not correct. See experiment and photos here (Figure 2). Single electrons produce single dots. It's only after you dump many electrons through that you get a pattern - that's simply because the electrons follow wave trajectories rather than the standard trajectory visualized from classical motion. In reality everything follows these same wave trajectories, it's just that for macroscopic objects, the individual oscillations of the individual particles cancel out.
I don't know why it's any more conceptually obvious that a "variable" should be smeared out than an "electron" should be smeared out.
The phrase "smeared out" conveys nothing, so it should be no surprise that it can be used for situations that are completely different.
What predictions does Bohmian mechanics make that traditional (Copenhagen) QM does not?
The right question to ask. Check out this paper on arXiv: Understanding Bohmian mechanics: A dialogue. The whole paper is a good introduction, but the "Second Day" section should answer your question. What it really comes down to is which should we accept: a theory tied to reality, which is understandable, or a theory that is not understandable, and is divorced from reality, but whose equations work just the same? The former is the Bohmian interpretation, the latter is the traditional QM interpretation.
It's wrong to think of the electron as a particle when it's "orbiting" in an atom.
It's only wrong in the sense that it doesn't follow a traditional trajectory. As with the double-slit experiment, if one conceives of it following a wave trajectory, the results are the same. So you've got a physical particle the entire time, but it follows the path of a wave. In the case of the double-slit experiment, this makes much more sense: an electron goes through one or the other slit, depending on where it happens to be in its wave trajectory. The apparent interference pattern on the phosphor screen is simply the result of many electrons having their own initial wave trajectories. The pictures are identical, but one is conceivable (ie, conceptual), while the other is not.
The probability distribution is real
It is only "real" in the sense that when we make many observations, they fit that distribution. What's actually real are the electrons themselves. The rest is our analysis of their motion. To say that a probability distribution or probability density is a real thing is to assert that electrons and the universe in general were made with observers in mind. After all, a probability in this context is the chance of an observer finding an object in a given location.
What I have been hinting at this whole time is the deBroglie-Bohm alternative (aka "Bohmian mechanics") to the traditional QM interpretation, which was furthered by JS Bell. This professor has some good intro material online and in arXiv on this subject.
Except, no basic research would ever get funded because it won't make anyone happy.
That's a nice bald assertion you have there. Care to back it up with any evidence? Or were you hoping I'd just take it on faith?
Boy, what in the hell are you talking about?!
Except that I would oppose the Republican Party for the very same reasons. You fail to see a difference between liberals and conservatives, whereas I see them both violating individual rights in their own ways, toward their own ends.
Hmm.. actually I would consider myself the exact opposite of a liberal. Close, but no cigar.
So the ends do justify the means!
Pain serves a useful biological function
And what purpose does it serve for the farmer? Let's not drop the context that his goal - to raise cattle - is the only one to be served. Simply stating that "pains serves a useful function" imagines some other goal, or that the function is equally useful regardless of the goal or value.
It is the property-owner/venue-provider responsibility to lay down the rules and enforce them. If someone becomes disruptive, and the property-owner wants them to leave, they should leave. If they refuse, they are violating the property-owner's rights, but again only the property-owner or the police can make them leave. If, instead, the property-owner does nothing, then that's it - the disruptive actions are condoned.
The students do have the right to leave, but they only *have* to leave if the property-owner/venue-provider wants them to leave. They don't have to leave simply because the speaker is scheduled to give a presentation, nor do they have to leave if they don't like what someone is saying. They can do as they please provided it is within the permission granted by the property owner and does not violate anyone else's rights.
There is a right to free speech, but there is no right to an audience.
Government-run transparency is only as accurate as your trust in the government. Ultimately there should be independent third parties vetting this information for accuracy, and where those groups run into government roadblocks, all that data should be considered suspect.
If you feel like watching a lecture, I just found this one from the University of California: "Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology explores the damage caused by sugary foods." Educate yourself, or don't. Your choice.
Yeah and I'm addicted to oxygen and water too. Perhaps I should cut those out.
The slight difference being you don't need carbs to survive.
When I lost weight I did cut out all carbs AND all fat and I didn't lose any cravings.
Well, then you were eating 100% pure protein, and I can understand why you didn't lose any cravings. Fat has a huge satiating effect.
I'm sorry but you're dillusional.
What you have is certainty without evidence - that's called faith, and is the true mark of delusion. You have faith in the opinions of the AMA/AHA/NIH. Myself - I require evidence, reason. I thought there were reasons behind the beliefs about saturated fat, but then I did my own research, and found that the studies supporting this belief confounded their variables and had no basis for their conclusions. Either that, or they simply made up the results.
You might enjoy the results, but if you enjoy the restrictions you're a saddist.
Nope, sorry. Once you're on the diet for a few weeks, you lose all interest in bread/chips/pasta/etc. It really does seem like an addiction to carbs in that respect.
Have you read nothing about the Atkins diet and it's dangers.
Well, I'm not following Atkins, but for weight loss alone it's the best place to start. What I have read of the "dangers" are simply people regurgitating the assumed truths about saturated fat. It's funny how the *exact same* fat that makes up our body and we digest constantly is dangerous when we digest it from another animal. But really it comes down to poor research. You should check out Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes - he's a writer for the journal Science, and in the book he goes study by study through the 150 year history of obesity research. It's a hefty read, and doesn't make any claims about what the truth is, but it gives you an idea of how bad the research is and how unfounded the popular assumptions are. Dietary science is about as scientific as social science.
High fat low carb is NOT a healthy way to lose weight.
[citation needed]
Come back and talk to me in 7-10 years. It's not impossible but the majority (well over 50% - somewhere between 70% and 90%) don't manage to keep it off for a decade. I've posted links to the few actual medical journal articles that publish this inconvenient (for weight loss industry) truth.
You're lumping my diet in with ridiculous diets based on false notions of what causes obesity in the first place (e.g. willpower, simply eating too many calories, etc)
You're also making the mistake of thining that what worked for you will work for anyone
My bad for assuming we all evolved from a common source. As for genes, I have yet to see a gene that completely bypasses the normal functions of the liver and pancreas.
That is actually very unusual. For me to lose weight in my mid to late 20s, I was doing about 2 hrs a day excercise and eating nothing but salad (VERY large bowl, about 3 times a day) and lean meat or chicken (once a day). NO beverages other than water. It was not much fun to say the least.
Funny, my weight loss experience over the last year has been quite enjoyable. Clearly you've invalidated the notion that maintaining a normal weight is a simple matter of reducing calories.
I remember my first bit of junk food after breaking that diet - a big mac. My body had gotten so use to not having to process fat that I felt ill for a day.
That is what you get for following the normal diet advice. Now, try doing what actually works - high fat, high protein diet, keep carb ingestion below 50g a day.
This old lie.
Where was the lie? You didn't seem to cover that. I wasn't saying everyone would eat the same number of calories as me, was I? Obviously someone taller, or more active, would require more calories.
How could life ever have existed in such a desolate place?
I choose NOT to make a choice!
what you're arguing for is the right for moneyed interests to run roughshod over both individual rights (e.g. the right to a safe workplace)
There can be no "right to a safe workplace", because such a "right" would invariably violate other actual rights.
We tried laissez faire in the 1890s - we got slums, tenements, sweatshops, and ultimately the dustbowl and the great depression.
You have government regulation and federal reserve monopoly to thank for the Great Depression. Even Raymond Moley, who was the chief architect of the New Deal, agrees that the New Deal actually helped turn a recession into a depression, rather than lead to recovery. (see his two books "After Seven Years" and "The First New Deal")
you do realize you're arguing for a lower standard of living right?
Nope, because I'm not. I'm arguing for increased individual freedom. What comes with that (of course) is increased individual responsibility. But what's great about that is that you also have complete freedom to *choose* your standard of living. Of course, reality dictates that higher standards of living require more effort, responsibility, etc.
people are poor there and will work for what we give them
Strawman. Sure, they might give you that response, but should you stop there, or get to the root of the problem?
If you look at the list of minimum wages by country, you'll see that most countries have a higher minimum wage than the US's.
It's quite simple, really. Minimum wage was just one example. To find the rest - ask a company why they sent their business overseas. Then correct for that.
What government-union partnerships? Google lists only seven pages. What are you talking about?
Don't let google take the place of actual thought. What I meant are any situations in which a union is able to use the local/state/federal government to force the company to do with its property other than it pleases. So long as that company is not violating any individual rights, unions should only be as strong as their members.
The common thread in everything I'm saying is - individual rights. They exist. They shouldn't be violated.
Yeah stupid regulations like OSHA, pesky workman's compensation and disability.
Exactly. Keep the personal responsibility with the person.
...just ditch the regulations that drive companies overseas in the first place - minimum wage, and regulations based on political pull (e.g. govt-union partnerships), for starters.
Stating that you don't have to make an argument against AGW science, because there's no science to argue
My argument against AGW "science" is that it is not science for the reason that it makes no attempt to connect the models to reality. That is an argument, and the argument that I made. So I have not and do not claim that I don't have to make any argument against it. I have made my argument, and you have yet to refute it.
Something about peer review by scientists who understand the philosophy of science and epistemology.
Backing up two bald assertions with one vague assertion. I'm still waiting for the evidence.