Dr. Jekyll

Yes, that is correct. My bad. I'm kinda (read very) rusty on GR.

Excuse my "ignorance," but what have bionic processes and organic chemistry has to do with it, on this scale? What do you mean with co-tangent here; a tangent that is defined in the dual room of the tangent space to Organic Chemistry? Hehe, are you serious with that statement? Please explain that further, since it sounds like you are just reading randomly out of any arbitrary formulae collection. No. I would be the observer. I don't need any back up by A, B (or c?). Try explain your stand with less poetry. Uhm no. Inside the event horizon you can not translate "instantaneously, now, then, ..." to any given time outside the horizon. That is, an event inside the event horizon will occur after an infinite amount of time for an outside observer (that is, it will never happen). Conversely, for an observer inside the event horizon, an event outside will never happen. There should'nt be any "magically instantaneously" change of any entangled particle, just because it falls beyond the event horizon (in relation to its partner).

I remember something about generalized eigenvalue problem in connection to this, but I can't place it. Think it was a presentation at some conference I attended some years ago.

Yes, but I mean that hidden variables solves that scenario. IF both particles have a given state, then we have the hidden variable scenario which has been disproven. In this scenario we have that a measurement has been made, but inside the event horizon, and the conclusion is that "it has no meaning" to someone outside of the event horizon. Now, why would the measurement have any meaning/impact on the other particle, even if it was performed outside of the event horizon? Black holes are not an exception in this case, as I understood it. There is no "information" being sent from particle b to particle a (contradicting general relativity) to make the wave function to collapse, so really; is the superposition a real or artificial?

With that approach, there is no (EPR) paradox at all. It is just a matter of what you observe, since both particles already have their given state initially, hidden variables solves the puzzle. I.e., each particle had an initial value that never changed. The wave function is just a mathematical/statistical description that has nothing to do with what is REALLY going on.

Yes, but thats just an implication of the scenario I presented with "Two persons takes a ball, and one choses not to examine what color it is." That is not what the EPR-paradox/Bell's Theorem is about. If it is, it is not a paradox, since its just a statistical/mathematical assumption, having nothing to do with what is "really" happening. Which is what I wanted to show by presenting this scenario.

I came up with this example to motivate kinda what you are saying. HOWEVER, what do you base that statement on? For entangled particles there is just one wave function, having both particles in a super position. When a measure is performed (the system is disturbed), the wave function collapse; and each particle will be in a given state. Your statement is kinda like the following scenario: Let a red and blue ball lie in a box. Without looking, person A takes one ball and person B the other. Then they travel 99999^99999 km from each other. If person A looks as his ball he knows what color person B has, and similar if person B looks. If person B never looks at his ball, its color will never be known. Now, this is not a "spooky action at distance" in a QM sense. It is just common sense. As I recall, according to QM, it is possible to alter the outcome by measuring around different axes (Bell's Theorem). That is, if person A measure his ball in one way he will get RED, when he measure it in another way he will get BLUE. And person Bs ball will automatically "get the opposite color." And person B can do the same. That is, each persons ball is "both red and blue" until the measure is made. When a measure is made, the wave function collapse and each ball will have a color. HOWEVER, this is what QM states. With my scenario posted earlier, I would like to propose that there is no "spooky action" at distance. Each ball will have their color (the super position is just a mathematical description), not depending on who or when the measure is made. Isnt it all just depending on how you compare a measurement? Like, there are no upside down or right turned apples, until you compare them given a reference frame.

As you say, person As wave function will only collapse when B measure particle b. Now, "when" is that? It is not possible to transform a time t1 inside the event horizon to a time t2 outside the horizon. So "when" does the wave function collapse, with respect to A. That is, when is particle a not entangled anymore with particle b?

I didn't know if I should put it here or in the Relativity forum, I suppose this is a more suiting place. I'm kinda rusty regarding general theory of relativity, but as I got it (as I remember) it is not possible to get a relation between an event/"time" inside the event horizon and time outside. For instance, for an observer outside the blackhole nothing will ever pass the event horizon. Now suppose A and B are two persons, outside the event horizon of a black hole. They each have a particle a and b respectively, and the particles are entangled. Person B starts moving towards the black hole, and when he passes the event horizon he will perform a measure on his particle b. At what point does the wavefunction collapse (with respect to person A outside the event horizon)? Person B can not send back any info to person A, so really, particle a will hypotethically be in any state until we can measure it. Doesn't this put a bit of "flaw" to quantum mechanics? I mean, that particle a and particle b allready had a given state initially and that the superposition is just a mathematical description.

Generally for convergence, the iteration function [math]\Phi(x)[/math] must fulfill [math]|\Phi'(x)|<1[/math] in a vicinity of the solution. For Newton's method we have [math]\Phi(x)=x-\frac{f(x)}{f'(x)} \Rightarrow \Phi'(x)=1-(\frac{f'(x)}{f'(x)}-\frac{f(x)}{(f'(x))^2}f''(x))=\frac{f(x)f''(x)}{(f'(x))^2}[/math] If now [math]f'(x_*)=0[/math] at a solution [math]f(x_*)=0[/math], problems with convergence might arise since we have [math](f'(x))^2[/math] in the denominator of [math]\Phi'(x)[/math].

One can't be 100% sure about anything really, I know I know, but they seem so confident in the flatness scenario. Don't know if Occam is such a good choice here, once upon a time earth was flat too! It would be another thing if they measured, e.g., Omega = -1.56 +/- 0.005 or Omega = 1.32 +/- 0.005. Then you would be able to "be confident" in either hyperbolic or spherical geometry. But to rely on just a couple of decimals in the Omega = 1.0xyz scenario and then assume Omega=1.0000... seems quite erroneous. This is not my area of research, but I think one must also consider the behaviour of the universe with respect to Omega, e.g., stability and sensitivity. That is, perhaps an Omega very close to 1 is needed for the universe to evolve in the way it has; or it would freeze or collapse early after creation. I have not seen any articles taking that into account (but I have not searched to any greater extent either). That is why I asked about how the magnitude of Omega impact the age of universe. If anyone got any links, please post. edit/added About the magnitude of Omega. The most recent I found, apart from the actual 5yr WMAP, is in this 2006 article http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608632 we have [math]\Omega_{tot}=1.003 \pm 0.010[/math] while in the latest, actual 5yr WMAP we have [math]\Omega_{tot}=1.0052 \pm 0.0064,[/math] i.e., [math]0.9988\leq\Omega_{tot}\leq1.0116 [/math]. Perhaps it is in a bit of "favour" for a closed universe when comparing with old results.

How can they be so sure universe is flat? I mean, you need Omega to be exactly equal to 1. That is, we just need Omega=1+10^(-99)>1 for universe to be closed. It seems as it would be an impossible task to show empirically that Omega = 1 and we have a flat universe; or have I missed something? How sensitive is the age of the universe with respect to Omega? Say we would have an Omega = 10, would then universe collapse after just a few million years?

Thanks for a very informative post! The approximate costs you presented sums up to something kinda frightening, for a hobby. Since I've found quite cheaper apparatus by googling around, I'm not ready to kill my darlings just yet! I've started to make list of "neccessary apparatus," which I will post in this thread with links and prices and I will update it as I progress. Since I'm a newbie in this area I would be very glad for any contributions, ideas to substitute expensive apparatus with low-end technology and any feedback. Autoclavs: ~$300 An ordinary steam boiler and a microwave oven. Incubators: ~$350 (£180) http://www.laboratorytalk.com/news/eot/eot101.html Microcentrifuges: ~$250 Revolutionary Science Microcentrifuge, 110V #RS-102 Thermal cyclers: $2000 EdvoCycler Electrophoresis units + power supply: $200 + $520 = $720. BIOWORLD EP500 and EC EC250-90. Bloody hell, should it be so expensive to get a simple cheap power supply? I have to look into this. Electroporators: $2000 EW-36205-00 ------- Current sum: $5620. These are "kinda :-)" low-end stuff I figure, but still they should be usable for simple genetic manipulation? I have not considered second-hand apparatus from, e.g., http://www.labx.com. There, and at a few other lab-sales portals, it seems you can do some real nice deals on more high end apparatus. But I have no experience in that area, so to be consistent I leave them out of my calculations. I have not looked into the djungle regarding different enzyms, agarose gels and buffers etc. needed, but I will try my best to get a fair picture of it along with other apparatus (and their accessories) needed. As I said, contributions, feedback, comments and opinions (anything!) are most welcome.

That is for separating the proteins right? I understand this thread seems stupid, indeed. But I'm about to quit my job for making a "dream come true," so to speak. Ask yourself, how much did you know about biochem, cell chemistry, etc., when you started studying? I am at that point, but I have a solid education in mathematics and physics; i.e, I'm not a nut case though it might seem like that. I'm just another mad scientist.

Yes, indeed. However, those equipment are not in the division of ten thousand dollars per item. I mean, a suitable microscope for hooking up a micromanipulator can be found for $400-$500; from what I've seen. Sure, it aint gonna be cheap when summing it up all together. But like most niched areas, chemistry seems filled with "over the top"-gadgets, expensive apparatures and equipment that can indeed be substituted with a bit of creativity. Need a refridgerator or heat incubator, come on; you really need to pay out a couple of $1000 for that? Sure, you will suffer in accuracy and success rate by using "K-Mart stuff" (exaggerated), but beggers cant be choosers . I don't mind buying apparature for $500-$1000 dollars here and there. As long as it is not approaching $10000+ for any specific apparature. Actually I'm a PhD, but not in this area, sadly! I'm working fulltime and doing 25% research on the side. But yes, in the sence of biochemistry I am an undergrad. A very good question! Actually, I dont really know what I want to to in detail since I do not possess any deeper knowledge. But I would like to experiment with genetic manipulation in my cellar! I really don't have a plan for what I would like to do in detail. I'm just curious and love trial & error research .

I wonder how much it would cost, approximately, to set up an own "hobby lab" for genetic engineering? Of course I'm not aiming for high-end stuff, but good enough for constructing simple recombinant DNA & insert it into a living cell, perform microinjections, etc. A suitable microinjection-kit seems to be way cheaper than I imagined. I figured it would cost around $15000-$20000 atleast, but for $1500-$2000 you can get quite good things, specially when considering second hand apparatus. Though micropipette pullers are quite expensive, but I've seen a few cheap ones on labx.com. Perhaps you can make them by yourself, trial & error with a burner and glass pipette? However, how often is microinjection used to insert recombinant DNA or any genetic material into a cell? The usage of bacteria (plasmids), and virus, as a carrier seems way more commonly used. PCR-apparatus comes quite cheap, from what I've seen. The big money sinks, which are they? As I said, I don't have in mind to set up a high-tech lab, if I ever will set up one. As an example of my approach: Autoclav is needed, but beggars can't be choosers so I figure a steam boiler and microwave owen will do the trick! But I've seen quite cheap second hand autoclavs from, e.g., veterinarians and tattoers. Now, understand that I am a scientist (mathematics), a layman in this branch of science. The past few years I have become more and more interested in biochemistry/molecular biology. I am seriously thinking about taking a few years off and start studying molecular biology. I took a few basic chemistry courses last year to "try out" how it feels to study again; it only spurred me more. I expect to be corrected on several points, but not with a typical one-liner "it just can't be done without $1000000!" from some under graduate, self proclaimed besserwisser, lacking the tiniest bit of creativity, who never thought outside of any box. So, do we have any hobby genetic engineers here or don't we?