studiot

Traffic offences are not taken off the police plate. What happens is that the police employ 'civilians' and computers to issue 'fixed penalty' notices, under their authority. Civilians are cheaper than actual policemen and computer can be cheaper still (though they have hidden costs). Yes many junctions where too many drivers try to 'catch the lights' before they change have cameras dedicated to this rather than speeding. Does this help ?

Posted in error. Is this meant to be a puzzle ? I think one way is to place all the members in order thus A B C D E F G H Then form committees from the first member plus two others. Since there are 8 members you need (8-1 -1 = 6 ) ways to do this for the first, second and one other member. Also for the first, third and one other member there are 5 ways. For the first, fourth and one are there are 4 ways. For the first, fifth and one other there are 3 ways. For the first, sixth and one other there are 2 ways. For the first, seventh and pone other there is 1 way. A total of 6+5+4+3+2+1 distinct ways Then discard the first member and start again with a committe from 7 members which will have 5+4+3+2+1 ways distinct from the first set and so on forming the following table of ways [math]\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 6 \hfill & 5 \hfill & 4 \hfill & 3 \hfill & 2 \hfill & 1 \hfill \\ {} \hfill & 5 \hfill & 4 \hfill & 3 \hfill & 2 \hfill & 1 \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {} \hfill & 4 \hfill & 3 \hfill & 2 \hfill & 1 \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {} \hfill & {} \hfill & 3 \hfill & 2 \hfill & 1 \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {} \hfill & {} \hfill & {} \hfill & 2 \hfill & 1 \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {} \hfill & {} \hfill & {} \hfill & {} \hfill & 1 \hfill \\ \end{array}[/math] Add them all up to obtain the answer.

If you wish. But we are not concerned with orbital motion around the Sun, except as a reference plane. The impotant message is the spread of the axial tilt angles all measured relative to a common direction, which the ecliptic provides. Since all the planets' orbits lie close to/within a single thin disk, there is also an average plane, which is close to the ecliptic, and called the invariable plane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination

Here is a table of tilt angles in degrees for the Solar System. Source NASA via Wikipedia. Do you think your collision hypothesis as to the origin of the tilt applies to all the tilted bodies, including the Sun ? [math]\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {Sun} \hfill & 7 \hfill \\ {Mercury} \hfill & 0 \hfill \\ {Venus} \hfill & 3 \hfill \\ {Earth} \hfill & {23} \hfill \\ {Moon} \hfill & 7 \hfill \\ {Mars} \hfill & {25} \hfill \\ {Jupiter} \hfill & 3 \hfill \\ {Saturn} \hfill & {26} \hfill \\ {Uranus} \hfill & {82} \hfill \\ {Neptune} \hfill & {28} \hfill \\ {Pluto} \hfill & {57} \hfill \\ \end{array}[/math] If this impact object collided 4.5 billion years ago then it clearly can't have been the proposed second impactor at 350+ million years ago. Please confirm you mean both these impacts. As to the first impact, what do you mean by the size of Mars, (volume or radius) or mass ? Can you describe how you think this works ?

Really ? 70 in 2.7 million is [math]\frac{{70}}{{2.7}}\;in\;\frac{{2.7}}{{2.7}}\;million[/math] or 25.9 in 1 million Which I think is close enough to 30 not to argue about.

Rather than being quite so beligreant, why not do your own maths ? I also recommend working in parts per million, not parts per hundred. In that case the surface toughness of a billiard ball works out (quite coincidentally) as about the same as the variation in the CMB measurement. 70μK parts in 2,700,000μK is approximately 30 parts per million.

I very much doubt there is one cause, though changes to policing practice seems a likely contributory candidate. And for 40+ years we had the benefit of the Road Research Laboratory (establish 1933, privatised 1996) So political dogma is another cause.

Thank you for your reply but the quoted piece are not my wording, which is why they are in a quote box. There was much more to look at in both the links. I'm sorry to note that you are guilty of at least one of the two pieces of sloppyness I am trying to highlight here. Firstly the quote says quantum information, not just information. Secondly I am trying to say that pieces of different notions are being pieced together/mixed up when they should not be, in this case the characteristics of entanglement and superposition along with the issue of quantum and not quantum matters. Also the issue of coherence (and decoherence) are being ignored, except in swansont's pointed questions.

There seems to be some confusion concerning the difference between superposition and entanglement. Members should also note that neither entanglement nor superposition are considered to be a simple state. A bit of googling might help them understand the notion of product states, if and when they occur.

Interactions of highway users with both each other and the highway itself is extremely complicated in the UK, and far from entirely covered in the Highway Code (any edition) Ownership and funding of both highway construction and maintenance is also compllcated but surely off topic in this thread ? I would just like to thank Endy for posting that link. +1 It is ironic that Uk citizens (myself included) couldn't find it. It is even more ironic that the link to the official announcement states that the new rules take effect from 29 January, but that the new document will not be available until at least April, to buy in the shops. This is the sort of shambolic government we are now suffering from in so many areas.

The rules of conduct for highway users varies from country to country and I think this new edition was cooking before Brexit to more closely align the UK with European practice. However it has really introduced little or nothing that is fundamentally new, despite what has suddenly caught media attention here. In particular the 'rights of way' have always been in favour of pedestrians in most circumstances, since the first edition. It has largely been a tidying up exercise. I remember watching a qizz TV series in the 1960s about knowledge of driving rules. They often caught people out back then with the question about pedestrians at road junctions. Failure to observe this is one of thos 'absolute' offences for which there is no legal defence. I don't have an older Highway code now, but here is the directive from the 1999 edition

Thank you. +1

No sure why you would want medium grid voltages but your state (Uttarakhand at the foothills of the Himalaya already has many hydroelectricity projects, both large and small. I found this report online https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/51308/51308-008-cp-en.pdf But there are plenty of other references. UK suage is as follows https://www.ukfrs.com/promos/17142

And all this unverified ytube nonsense is mainstream Physics ? But, I forgot you have already made it quite clear, the site rules don't apply to you. Since no one else seems to care and the OP hasn't been back since posting, I will leave you to your musings.

Of course not. Superposition means "in exactly the same place" Later mathematicians generalised this to mean "in exactly the same mathematical space", which is the meaning adopted in QM. I have no idea what you mean by a 'shared identity' or 'part of a whole or indeed the rest of your statement. Please explain in (preferably mathematical) detail. This is nonsense. Particles never instantaneously appear at remote locations or anywhere else.

How can electrons be in superposition ? The wavefunctions of the electrons may be in superposition, but not the electrons themselves.

So why are you posting off topic material and ignoring on topic material ?

Yes that is why I said the probability calculation is flawed. I apologise for my first edit, but I see I am not the only one getting the quote instead of the edit by mistake. I have put that right now. Schrodinger's original question was At the moment of opening the box is the cat alive or dead ? Now there are actually more than 2 possibilities. !) The cat is alive and well. 2) the cat is dying. 3) The cat is dead. Which comes back to my system of 1026 equations, which if linear could have 1026 solutions. Some of these would be assigned to each of the above situations. So your comment on correlation is hugely pertinent when trying to assess/assign probabilities.

Comments. 1) An average cat has a mass of 4kg. Most of this is water which has a molecular mass of 18g Using this and applying a factor of 90% to account for the otherr, heavier molecules making up the cat we have the number of moles making up the cat as [math]\frac{{4*{{10}^3}}}{{18}}*\frac{{90}}{{100}} = 200[/math] Multiplying this by avogadro's number we have the number of molecules in the cat to be [math]200*6*{10^{23}} \approx {10^{26}}[/math] This means that to calculate a superposition we must have a system of simultaneous wavefunction equations of the order of 1026 in number. Does anyone know the largest set ever solved ? 2) A superposition is not a single state since it does not have a unique solution. So in asking for a defined state, what you are really asking is like asking for particular line parallel to a given one, without providing the necessary information to know which one. 3) Your calculation of probabilities is flawed.

Thank you for the question and for the information (I had never heard of shor's algorithm) in your OP. +1

+1 for tenacity +1 for the clever use of English (and the truth of your comments)

Idioms are a sub division of 'figures of speech', which I believe to be the general term. My two naval examples are both idioms. But you do not necessarily need context for idioms; context is necessary for the first but not the second. Other figures of speech include Antiphrasis, sarcasm, Irony (saying the opposite of what you mean) Hyperbole offering an exaggerated version of the meaning.

Thank you for explaining that and +1 for understanding classical entanglement which is based on the idea that the two entangled entities are distinct and distinguishable at all times and in all locations. Note however that there are no 'states' in the scientific meaning involved. Classically the only way for your contents to change places is by a mix up (error) in the original packaging. This also nicely brings out the fact that classically the one letter could never change or be changed into the other one. That is neither letter could ever take the place (serve the function) of the other one. So the big difference between quantum entanglement and classical entanglement is that in the quantum case either particle can perform whatever function is required whereas in the classical case each of the entities can only perform one of the functions. Discussing the scientific concept of a 'state' will bring me back on topic which is the possibility of a conflict between Relativity and QM. Why do you never mention this in your posts ? OK so scientifically a state is governed by ' state variables', which are required to be single values. A state is fully defined when the individual values of all the state variables are known. For a state to exist all the values must exist and be unique, but they do not need to be known. Applying this to quantum states, it is an axiom of QM that the state variables are the variables involved in equations like that of Schroedinger (there are others) including their boundary conditions. So a specific quantum state is defined uniquely by a complete set of values of these variables. (The quantum numbers) Underlying the Physics of this is the Mathematics of existence and uniqueness of such equations and variables. This is why I say that even though we do not know the values of the spin quantum numbers of two electrons entangled in an orbital, they must each have a spin number. Furthermore Pauli says that these numbers must be of opposite signs. A 'mixed state' , by definition, therefore has no actual meaning. Furthermore, the idea of a single well defined quantum 'state' for an object as large, complex and diverse as a cat, has even less meaning as it were. On to Relativity. There are no 'states' in Relativity. I also noted that there in order for a conflict to be established we must be able to calculate different values for the same variables in QM and Relativity. Can you do this ?

For over 90% of my time in school we included a subject about the English language. (Note that opening statement is more difficult than you might think to make it unambiguous) This included study of what are known as 'figures of speech'. These are really expressions where the meaning conveyed differs from the literal statement in language. So we studied statements such as "Now he has nailed his colours to the mast" and "It was cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey" In the first of these the meaning may fairly readily be deduced. The second one is less clear by a long way. Both derive from former naval practice. Yet again we studied expressions where only part of the expression is actually stated. Most would understand the imperative Halt! But again extra material is required to understand the simple one word phrase or sentence. Yes. This is the second point for this post. Context may be required for meaning to be conveyed.

The information could be, but doesn't have to be, digital. Take for instance the infectious disease nautical flag. The (non digital) information conveyed is clear in the quote. "I have or had some dangerous, infectious disease on board" However many implications (meanings) could be imputed to the flying of this flag; here are a few Keep away I require (medical) assistance The flag is false and my ship is a fireship, packed with explosive.