Leaderboard

I like this analogy better: A coin tumbling and wobbling with no significant amount of dissipation of energy would be the equivalent to a quantum state being in a superposition and "rotating" according to the Schrödinger equation. Not heads, nor tails. Not yet. At some point, the dissipation comes into play --equivalent to the projection postulate = measurement = formal violation of unitarity-- and the coin has to "decide" whether it's heads or tails. The problem I see with your analogy, which is otherwise as valid as any other --with the natural limitations that no classical logic can totally reproduce the quantum-- is that it assumes the "observer effect." The result is brought about by the act of measurement (different people seeing different things, as they measure.) There are many things I like about this example of the wobbling coin.

And another foot shot. From the same article: Italics and bold by me. You redefined 'realism', so that it contains 'locality'. But your IBM speaker clearly distinguishes in a very technical way between the two, namely as the only two assumptions of the CHSH inequality. You've made clear for all of us: You cannot understand the argumentative arc of texts And related, you cite pieces of texts that seem to support you viewpoint, but in fact the text as a whole does not You are not able to refer to a modern article (less than 50 years old, if you know what I mean) of a respectable physicist that defends that of the two, locality and realism (in their technical sense, not in your unjustified interpretation of it), we have to give up on locality You do not understand how we use special relativity to argue that there is no direction in the correlation of Alice's and Bob's measurements You do not even understand special relativity And last but not least, you simply do not understand quantum mechanics. I think we should close the thread. Because of Joigus' mental health 😉, and my ability to express my free will (didn't I say I am out?) 😟, and because of this: And I found this elaborate extension of it:

My god that time lapse is eerie. I remember the final test ban was in 1996, but I guess not everyone signed onto that one.

Yes, I think sex is primitive. However, I think that it is evolving into something different than what it what it was intended.

I read (and remember, LOL) that the sex hormones are at their highest when humans are about 17 years old. In this society, that's deemed too young. People haven't completed their formal education and few of them have the financial assets necessary to marry and start a family. However - it wasn't so long ago that most people didn't live much beyond 35, and since humans require parental care for a much longer period of time, it makes sense that the children of the youngest parents were most likely to survive long enough to reproduce. I have also read that the onset of puberty, especially in girls, is happening at younger and younger ages - sometimes as young as 8. I've read that it may be associated with the hormones that are fed to livestock to bring them to maturity earlier. So what's the answer to that? Bring back the chastity belt or start kids in school at age 2 so they complete their education in sync with their hormones? Or - cringe - perhaps research methods to reset the puberty clock to a later age.