Carrock

I've been reading (or at least skimming) this thread and there's almost no mention of a former official republican in a supposedly neutral position who breached protocols and perhaps the law in a carefully timed way to cause Clinton maximum damage. FBI Director James Comey originally, after very public investigation(1) decided that (in his prejudicial opinion) the Justice Department would not prosecute Clinton over email security. He did not say she was innocent and without the case being referred to them the Justice Department could not say whether or not Comey was right. The, ten days before the election (2) he announces that he is reopening the investigation although no new evidence against Clinton has been found. This time the justice department gets involved, presumably to demonstrate that evidence not known to exist indeed does not exist. To some people this is serious as the justice department is involved, not just Comey whose only proper task is to gather evidence and make private recommendations. Two days before the election it's announced that no new evidence against Clinton has been found. Perhaps he'll have better luck later.... It's possible to claim of course that Comey thought protocols didn't apply to him and that he didn't think announcing a new meritless investigation eleven days before an election would have any effect on the result. (1) a breach of protocol. (2) an even worse breach of protocol From http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news

and from the winner.

From http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...bi-investigation-security-clearance/86709410/ Comey is simply stating that political expedience ultimately decides how he deals with possible crimes or security risks. As a Republican, it was expedient for him to raise the prospect of possible charges against Hilary a week ago and declare her cleared yesterday even though there is exactly as much evidence now (ie none) as there was a week ago. Similarly he is likely to ignore evidence concerning Russia helping the possible future Republican POTUS by hacking American computers. (Is he really saying that an FBI investigation is sufficient to cost any POTUS but Hilary her job?)

Where is the split? Perhaps Heisenberg's cut? I don't think there's any way to have detectable macroscopic non-quantum effects without requiring a suitable observer subject to unknown physics. Cats might not be regarded as suitable observers.

If you read my quoted post, you will note that my (implicit) conjecture was that the FBI did not illegally read emails. I may well be wrong.

Senior F.B.I: "Now remember, you must lie under oath if necessary." Juniors: "Of course. Our word is our bond."

Getting 100% in homework and 30% in exams might make someone suspicious.

Either way.. Trump: (I can't even attempt his style.)

I was not aware that there were multiple versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Current_status_of_the_term The maths makes me wonder if it might be possible to design an experiment to test when the superposition ends. Maybe a variation on the Bell's Theorem experiment, where entangled particles in a superposition are measured, then a second measurement is made before the first result is seen by the experimenter (This assumes that a new superposition is not created automatically after the first measurement). If the second measurement showed that there was still a superposition, this would support the intelligent observer version of CI. If not, maybe science writers will eventually stop asking "Can the universe exist without a human observer" (not that we can observe the universe - all we can observe are photons and cosmic rays). Also, without a good theory to test, any experiment will only rule out a few possibilities.

Interesting but... and From this ref, Wigner seems to associate unknown physics with consciousness; it reminds me of earlier researchers trying to weigh the soul by measuring weight before and after death. Similarly Roger Penrose quoted in the same Wiki:(Couldn't access the original text.) I wasn't aware of Penrose and Wigner's alleged contributions earlier; they certainly support this: I reject that version of CI.

Welcome to scienceforums PeterWB. It's a near infinite regress. I ignored the cat beyond describing it as 'unfortunate' since I didn't want to argue about whether or not it could be regarded as an honorary human observer. See below... No it isn't. There is/was no constraint on the intelligence or size of the observer in the maths on which the Copenhagen Interpretation and all the other differently unsatisfactory interpretations are based. The idea that an observer has to be human and the alternative idea that a human (or a cat) is too large to make a "quantum observation or measurment" are precisely what is addressed in the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. Where is the cutoff? Derive it from quantum mechanics. If humans can't make a "quantum observation or measurment" then they can't tell whether the cat is alive or dead when they open the box since they would be observing indirectly whether or not the radioactive atom decayed and killed the cat. Am I Baron? Every interpretation is differently dubious. ...and have different superposed results. Once everyone has 'observed' the cat, they all agree it is definitely alive or dead. I don't see this as a flaw. It's possible to imagine everything described in my OP enclosed in an even larger box (such as the multiverse) waiting for, er, an outside observer to observe them and collapse the superposition of (dead cat and observers) and (live cat and observers). Getting weird results isn't enough to discredit a theory or interpretation or thought experiment if nothing better is available. e.g. spooky action at a distance.

I think of Schrödinger's cat as an illustration of the problem of defining measurement. Consider someone in a large sealed box with a small box containing the unfortunate cat. She opens the cat box and finds the cat definitely alive or definitely dead. Has the cat's vitality been measured? Until the large box is eventually opened anyone outside the large box still has to describe the cat as in a live/dead superposition. [added] One superposition of the woman found the cat dead but when the large box is opened the cat may be alive, with a woman who has no memory of the cat being dead.

With respect to the surface of the earth, a free falling clock is ticking slower due to both reducing gravitational potential (potential energy) and increasing speed (kinetic energy). This was verified with the Gravity probe A experiment. - Vessot 1980. I was referring to two clocks both accelerating or in free fall (neglecting tidal forces) and not comparing an accelerating clock with one in free fall.

The clocks must be accelerating and not in free fall when they would run at the same rate. The same is true if there is no gravity field. See http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99633-help-me-understand-einsteins-atomic-clock-experiments/#entry949836

It's velocity or acceleration from whatever cause that affects the clock. In a tower accelerating at 1G a clock near the top of the tower will run faster than one at the bottom of the tower. It doesn't matter whether the tower is sitting on the earth or out in space with a rocket pushing it. (In both cases the clock at the top has more potential energy.)

[rambling] If the simulation is good enough we'll never know. Proponents of 'Intelligent Design' appear to believe we're living in a simulation but haven't come up with anything yet. On the other hand the Intelligent Designer may have corrected errors discovered by these people and restarted the simulation. Whatever your beliefs, these people should be discouraged. [\rambling]

a=2 b=4 2^4=4^2 a=-2 b=-4 also works. (-2)^-4 = (-4)^-2

Another way to look at it is that the photon is its own antiparticle and an observer's choice of its direction of travel is arbitrary. It can't exist unless each of its 'origins' is physically valid. Among other things, you need 'spooky action at a distance' to reconcile that with actual observations of photons.

Run the data through every compression program available, then use the one with the best results. That should take a reasonably huge amount of time.

One other point. The reverse leakage current can vary significantly from diode to diode. You could get most of the reverse voltage appearing across one very low leakage diode, exceeding its PIV. You should check the spec of your diodes to see if they can survive this. Normal practice is to connect a high value resistor rated at 1000V across each diode, passing just enough current to swamp the diodes' reverse leakage.

I think it was Voltaire who said it was reasonable to suppose only the religious went to hell. I've decided to postpone worrying about it until I'm dead.

Are you serious? Why would I provide a rebuttal to my own point? Or did you quote me by mistake? One last post... I did not realise you thought that 'America had a bad, stupid leader interested only in the oil.' That was my mistake.

I did not make that argument or claim. Attempting to refute the argument you just gave is simply a way of ignoring my post. I am rather puzzled that you made no attempt to refute your argument/claim that 'America had a bad, stupid leader interested only in the oil.' This is my last post in this topic, so feel free to misrepresent it if you want.

My understanding was that there was one unconfirmed report from a source, who was believed by those who dealt him to be lying, that Sadam could deploy small scale 'weapons of mass destruction' within 45 minutes if he was attacked. This was the only stated justification for invasion. As the French might have said: 'Sadam is very evil; if you attack him he will defend himself.' Afterwards, of course, it was convenient to suggest that there are secret yet to be discovered weapons. You don't stop it; a neighbour tells the police you have illegal firearms you'll use to protect yourself and your family if attacked. Despite thoroughly searching your home, the police fail to find even one of your kalashnikovs, proving you are truly an evil genius the law cannot touch. To pre-emptively defend themselves, the police shoot up your house with all the guns they can get hold of, making sure to kill or imprison all unlawful combatants. Afterwards, it's only a matter of time until they find evidence of your hidden guns.

I did, because the OP was so content free as to be complete useless as the basis of a discussion. I gave a content free negative rating in the spirit of the OP. Discuss...