studiot

The rotors in the article picture are nothing like your diagram. I note that the rotors in the picture do not vent into clear air. Interestingly I had a detailed discussion about the idea with a gas dynamics engineer. He offered the following points. He agreed that the there is an issue with the structural design of having most of the weight at the tip of the rotor in vertical axis turbines. However he pointed out that this could be overcome with more machinery ie a low friction support track at the edges. He also agreed that this would be impractical in marine situations where you can't support the track on water. He also said that vertical axis turbines of the sort described have a problem starting and are prone to stopping particularly when the incident wind is not in the best drection. He said that conventional vertical arrays (yes apparently they have been studied from an engineering point of view) are designed with a helical set to the blade direction to offset this issue. Reverse Axial flow impellors are also possible.

What are you expecting as a connection between ? As far as I can see we have the following situation. Two particles can be 'entangled' if they have a binary property ie that can be measured in one of two states. For example a ball can be red or blue, an electron can be spin up or spin down etc. Note I have said 'can be entangled' because that is not enough. To actually cause entanglement something extra has to happen to the particles. For instance the two balls can be placed into a bag. The two electrons can be bonded in a bonding orbital. In the case of the balls we also have to ensure that one blue and one red have been selected. In the case of the electrons this step is not necessary as it will happen automatically on bonding. Another difference is that balls in general can come in many different colours so we have to restrict them. Electrons can only come in one of two spin states. Entanglement can occur irrespective of our knowledge of these states, for both the balls and the electrons. We can know that the bonded electrons are entangled without knowing which has which spin. Measuring one spin will automatically determine the other. We can only know the balls are entangled if we can guarantee that one of each colour has been selected since there must be achance of placing two balls of the same colour in the bag. So in neither case is probability a factor. Thank you for you input and sharp example. However I do not see where entanglement could occcur in this example ? Once again thank you all for helping me clarify my thoughts on this difficult subject

What are you expecting a connection between ? As far as I can see we have the following situation. Two particles can be 'entangled' if they have a binary property ie that can be measured in one of two states. OOps the daft control functions got me again before I had finished typing and posted this prematurely.

Probability of what exactly ? The probabilities associated with say electrons in molecules is quite different from the probabilities associated with photon generation. Thank you for this link +1 This theoretical statement seems to be counter to the actual experimental results reported by Walborn in swansont's link.

Please define identity. Are you stating that you can entangle photons that are in different frames ? Surely both photons must be in the same frame to entangle them. And if they are in the same frame they must be in the same frame and therefore subject to the same transformations, relative to any other frame. I simply asked because you originally stated quite clearly. Are you suggesting that say position and momentum are not quantum properties or quantum identities (whatever they may be). ?

Are they ? That is the first I have heard of it. How can we then sometimes determine the ratio of two of them ?

I don't think you caught my drift. With the balls, determining the colour of one ball could tell you absolutely nothing about the colour of the other. Further you can't determine probabilities without further information.

Not sure how this plays out with you previous statement or my 'coloured balls in a bag' example. What if someone blind selected two gloves from a pile of gloves ? How would they be classically entangled unless you had the 'extra information' ( my version of your words I think) that they were a pair ?

Apology accepted. The point is that we often have youngsters from say 10 to 16 posting questions here about something they have just come across. Often they are very enthusiastic about their query, but need a pointer to the bigger picture. I try not to dampen their enthusiasm by presenting highbrow maths arguments, rather I try to offer a more suitable rationale. Since I wasn't sure if you are actually such a youngster I gave the benefit of the doubt as they say, with what I hoped was a gentler and more respectful approach. So I am sorry if this was taken the wrong way. Back to infinity. I have an older trigonometry textbook with a section entitled 'Passing through infinity'. The point is very simply that there are many different 'inifnities'. There is even a whole theory of the arithmetic of infinities, but this is quite different from the arithmetic of ordinary numbers. When you come to add all the light form all sources in an infinite universe you get and infinite quantity. But you also have an infinite universe so when this light is spread over another infinity you can get a finite light density. Mathematically the ratio of one infinity to another is often indeterminate as it could take on any finite value. Further information /theory is needed for those cases that can be determined. So the question becomes Is there sufficient theory to determine this value for the light density we can see and measure and how accurate do we think that theory is ?

The entire body of quantum identities can be entangled but we can only choose to discover one and entanglement is lost. A single observation destroys entanglement. How would you entangle the momentum of two photons, of identical frequency ?

So why haven't you ? I didn't compare you to anything. I told you a true story about encouragement, when it was apparent to me to did not and still do not understand the Science (Maths) of the term infinity. The true story was about how a better man the me helped me with something I did not at the time understand. Furthermore I offered you a polite and reasonable discussion to extend you knowledge of infinity to cover your original question, hopefully in a way that would not be to mathematical. Sadly all I have received in return is insult and either no response or peremptory ones. If I told someone the Pele once told me how best to kick a football, why would that rub them up the wrong way ?

Why do folks always miss my point of view ? I just don't care. But there doesn't seem to be a category for that.

Gosh seeing my last post quoted like that makes me wish my spelling was entangled. Need ? Nature has endowed it whether we need it or no, (to paraphrase the lady).

You keep referring me to other websites for basic information needed to understand your proposal. This is contrary to the rules here. References to other websites etc is OK for those who understand the proposal and wish to delve further. Thank you for telling me where the crystal cells are placed. That could have been said 50 posts ago when I was asking what was happening before the slits (since behind is after). RE polarisation. It could be that is because that is one of the few proprties of phtons that can be entangled.

I think swandont's point was about additional information. Let us conside a classical system of entanglement say two balls hidden in a bag. Measurement of the colour of one ball tells you nothing about the colour of the other ball unless you hve further information. But if you know that one is red and the other is blue then measurement of one colour tells you both.

Firstly thank you for a better description, though it is still not complete enough for dullards like me. Have you no diagram ? I am for instance not sure of the meaning of behind ?

You may have offered me an explanation I hadn't thought of, although I don't see why you have introduced a definition given by Philosophers since they have no patent on it. Possibly, even probably but I do not agree that the difference is superficial. Denying the existence of a God is much stronger than simply not possessing a God to believe in. It is noteworthy that the trusty OED uses the word 'denying' - an active state. I suppose that Philosphers might argue that the positive state (theism) is belief in a God and that atheism is simply the negative of this, which could be taken to include those who not only do not believe but also those who actively expound against.

Its more than juast word preference. It determines the lift of some pumps. I agree totally. +1 for the information additional to the lungs. What a pity the OP hasn't been back as he has reeceived some excellent answers.

It's not as simple as Wikipedia makes out. What happens is heavily fequency dependent. Here is a short extract from Kraus. Sorry for the poor quality but it is a thick book and difficult to scan.

I would like to hear bangstrom's complete description of an experiment where light of one polarisation is persuaded to pass through one slit and light of the other polarisation passes through the other slit.

Well puzzle no longer you already know the answer. The van can indeed be considered as the fly's own little world, as with all the contents of the van. The fly starts off on some interior surface of the van and is accelerated, like everything else, to 60mph. So when it jumps off to fly back or forwards, it is alredy going at 60 mph and it only has to generate its normal flying speed to reach the other end. Since the air inside the van is also going at 60 mph it offers no more than normal resistance to the fly. Does this help ?

Really? You said And yet you continue to describe your pet example to others as though it is of vital importance. You asked and you received my explanation to which you have made a defeaningly silent response. Yet you say cavalierly that you have dealt with my issue. You have also not responsed to my earlier offers of other simple explanations like invariants and Bob's speed etc and my proposal to discuss a different (and better) example since Bob's was irrelevant to you and impossible for me. In short you are just trolling.

I really logged into this thread to say +1 to Phi for his last post but on doing so I note yet another misunderstanding by the OP In Science there are several (probably many) ways that something can be finite yet unbounded (that means no magical wall or precipice) or alternatively infinite yet bounded. Both seem illogical at a quick glance, yet physical examples of both situations exist in our experience of Nature. Absolute zero of temperature is about -273.4 degrees centigrade, yet we can never reach it. Because the closer one gets the harder it become to get even closer. The so called Gabriel's Horn is an example in Maths. But hey perhaps the OP has found the wall or precipice because his excuse for not talking to me was the insult

It is indeed pretty shocking. It shocked a lot of people all over the word when it was first proposed, including some very important thinkers. I don't think this is the case. There is only one train. But there are many points of view and I am offering a slightly different route into them than usual. Especially as I see you have actually been at SF for a long time so must have seen quite a few arguments about the subject. It is a pity you don't address my questions about the example you specified since that example is impossible to conduct in practice. This is why I would like to introduce and discuss a real world example, the first exerimental verification that the formulae actually correspond to observation. Discussing why is made difficult since you seem to be ignoring my comments about both your example and mine.

Either you want to understand or you want to argue. Which is it ? Just remember that if you want to argue you are arguing with one of the two most experimentally tested theories in history.