Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1460482 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.


Chicago, IL

#1011560 Oct 25, 2013
Einstein's hope for a purely algebraic theory[edit]The Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics hypothesizes that the state of the universe evolves smoothly through time with no collapsing of quantum wavefunctions. One problem for the Copenhagen interpretation is to precisely define wavefunction collapse. Einstein maintained that quantum mechanics is physically incomplete and logically unsatisfactory. In "The Meaning of Relativity," Einstein wrote, "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory for the representation of reality. But nobody knows how to find the basis for such a theory." If time, space, and energy are secondary features derived from a substrate below the Planck scale, then Einstein's hypothetical algebraic system might resolve the EPR paradox (although Bell's theorem would still be valid). Edward Fredkin in the Fredkin Finite Nature Hypothesis has suggested an informational basis for Einstein's hypothetical algebraic system. If physical reality is totally finite, then the Copenhagen interpretation might be an approximation to an information processing system below the Planck scale.

Chicago, IL

#1011561 Oct 25, 2013
Acceptable theories" and the experiment[edit]According to the present view of the situation, quantum mechanics flatly contradicts Einstein's philosophical postulate that any acceptable physical theory must fulfill "local realism".

In the EPR paper (1935) the authors realised that quantum mechanics was inconsistent with their assumptions, but Einstein nevertheless thought that quantum mechanics might simply be augmented by hidden variables (i.e. variables which were, at that point, still obscure to him), without any other change, to achieve an acceptable theory. He pursued these ideas for over twenty years until the end of his life, in 1955.

In contrast, John Bell, in his 1964 paper, showed that quantum mechanics and the class of hidden variable theories Einstein favored[17] would lead to different experimental results: different by a factor of 3⁄2 for certain correlations. So the issue of "acceptability", up to that time mainly concerning theory, finally became experimentally decidable.

There are many Bell test experiments, e.g. those of Alain Aspect and others. They support the predictions of quantum mechanics rather than the class of hidden variable theories supported by Einstein.[2] According to Karl Popper these experiments showed that the class of "hidden variables" Einstein believed in is erroneous.[

New York, NY

#1011562 Oct 25, 2013
dem wrote:
The original EPR paradox challenges the prediction of quantum mechanics that it is impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a quantum particle. This challenge can be extended to other pairs of physical properties.
EPR paper[edit]The original paper purports to describe what must happen to "two systems I and II, which we permit to interact ...", and, after some time, "we suppose that there is no longer any interaction between the two parts." In the words of Kumar (2009), the EPR description involves "two particles, A and B,[which] interact briefly and then move off in opposite directions."[11] According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of particle B exactly. However, according to Kumar, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A. By calculation, therefore, with the exact position of particle A known, the exact position of particle B can be known. Also, the exact momentum of particle B can be measured, so the exact momentum of particle A can be worked out. Kumar writes: "EPR argued that they had proved that ...[particle] B can have simultaneously exact values of position and momentum.... Particle B has a position that is real and a momentum that is real."
EPR appeared to have contrived a means to establish the exact values of either the momentum or the position of B due to measurements made on particle A, without the slightest possibility of particle B being physically disturbed.[11]
EPR tried to set up a paradox to question the range of true application of Quantum Mechanics: Quantum theory predicts that both values cannot be known for a particle, and yet the EPR thought experiment purports to show that they must all have determinate values. The EPR paper says: "We are thus forced to conclude that the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality given by wave functions is not complete."[11]
The EPR paper ends by saying:
While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#1011564 Oct 25, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
The left turns on even former icons if they dare break rank. But Bob Woodward would have no reason to exaggerate Valerie Jarrett's power and constant attendance in this president's life and inner circle nearly 24/7. She just sleeps in her own bed. Woodward just stopped short of saying that too.
Yeah, too bad he was drooling when he said it! No one listens to him anymore; he's trying to be relevant.

Chicago, IL

#1011565 Oct 25, 2013
Standard quantum mechanics can be approached in three different ways: the matrix mechanics, the Schrödinger equation and the Feynman path integral.

The Feynman path integral[2] is the path integral over Brownian-like quantum-mechanical paths. Fractional quantum mechanics has been discovered by Nick Laskin (1999) as a result of expanding the Feynman path integral, from the Brownian-like to the Lévy-like quantum mechanical paths. A path integral over the Lévy-like quantum-mechanical paths results in a generalization of quantum mechanics.[3] If the Feynman path integral leads to the well known Schrödinger equation, then the path integral over Lévy trajectories leads to the fractional Schrödinger equation.[4] The Lévy process is characterized by the Lévy index &#945;, 0 < &#945; &#8804; 2. At the special case when &#945; = 2 the Lévy process becomes the process of Brownian motion. The fractional Schrödinger equation includes a space derivative of fractional order &#945; instead of the second order (&#945; = 2) space derivative in the standard Schrödinger equation. Thus, the fractional Schrödinger equation is a fractional differential equation in accordance with modern terminology.[5] This is the main point of the term fractional Schrödinger equation or a more general term fractional quantum mechanics. As mentioned above, at &#945; = 2 the Lévy motion becomes Brownian motion. Thus, fractional quantum mechanics includes standard quantum mechanics as a particular case at &#945; = 2. The quantum-mechanical path integral over the Lévy paths at &#945; = 2 becomes the well-known Feynman path integral and the fractional Schrödinger equation becomes the well-known Schrödinger equation.

Chicago, IL

#1011566 Oct 25, 2013
wheres that pesky mod when you need him, eman ???

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#1011567 Oct 25, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>I thought you posted from Okapoka__what's up with the new TX address? Did you know that there was some other ahole posting from Belleview yesterday?
cns news=Media Research=L Brent Bozell___ROFLMAO

Chicago, IL

#1011568 Oct 25, 2013
Usually quantum mechanics deals with matter on the scale of atoms and atomic particles. However, at low temperatures, there are phenomena that are manifestations of quantum mechanics on a macroscopic scale, the best-known being superfluidity and superconductivity.

Between 1996 to 2003 four Nobel prizes were given for work related to macroscopic quantum phenomena.[1] Macroscopic quantum phenomena can be observed in superfluid helium and in superconductors,[2] but also in dilute quantum gases and in laser light. Although these media are very different, their behavior is very similar as they all show macroscopic quantum behavior.

Quantum phenomena are generally classified as macroscopic when the quantum states are occupied by a large number of particles (typically Avogadro's number) or the quantum states involved are macroscopic in size (up to km size in superconducting wires).

New York, NY

#1011569 Oct 25, 2013
dem wrote:
<quoted text>
get the fk off my thread you lil pusssccceee
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#1011570 Oct 25, 2013
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In an impressive white-knuckle performance on live television today, members of Congress spent several hours in a hearing room pretending to understand the Internet.

Beginning this morning, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee devoted four hours to grilling Web-site contractors about site architecture, Web traffic, software, and other I.T. concepts about which their ignorance is nearly complete.

“As members of this committee, we are supposed to have a deep understanding of the technology involved in the health-care Web site,” said Chairman Fred Upton (R-Michigan).“So it was absolutely imperative for us to fake that we do.”

For the duration of the hearings, the Web contractors offered detailed testimony about “end-to-end testing,”“enterprise identity management,” and other technical concepts to a group of elected officials who can barely use e-mail.

“I would say that, to a man, we did not understand ninety-nine per cent of that computer nonsense they were going on about,” Chairman Upton said.“To me it was a whole lot of blahbitty-blahbitty-blah. I hope it wasn’t too obvious.”

Rep. Upton said that “looking serious and nodding our heads a lot” contributed to the illusion that committee members had even scant comprehension of what was being discussed.

At the end of the day, a lot of it came down to not asking the questions you really wanted to ask,” he said.“Like,‘What exactly is a Web site?’”

“Peace on Earth”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1011571 Oct 25, 2013
No Surprize wrote:
<quoted text>Paul Ryan's Medicare privatization plan did not utilize the exact same exchange system you idiot...

" and the Kaiser Family Foundation have breakdowns of the Ryan’s “Path To Prosperity” plan from March 2012."

Under Ryan’s plan, beginning in 2023, people over 65 would pick an insurance plan in a new Medicare exchange system, with Medicare competing with other insurers for their business.

The government would send money, called a premium-support payment, directly to the insurer picked by the consumer.

If the consumer picks a plan more expensive than the government premium payment they receive, the consumer must pay the difference out of pocket. If the consumer picks a cheaper plan, they pocket the difference in the form of a rebate check.

The Ryan plan set the premium payment to consumers at the cost of the second-least expensive government-approved plan.

The federal government will determine the minimum level of benefits that all plans must offer. The premium-support payment is capped at the growth of GDP, plus 0.5 percent. The subsidy will be adjusted based on the income level of the consumer.

After 2022, seniors are guaranteed they can enroll in any plan offered by the new exchanges and Medicare despite their health status or age.

In Ryan’s March 2012 plan, there is no limit of out-of-pocket costs incurred by seniors, and the plan doesn’t address prescription drug costs."

Now, what's different about Ryans' plan for Seniors and the Affordable Care Act?
tell_it_like_it_ IS

United States

#1011572 Oct 25, 2013
dem wrote:
<quoted text>
get the fk off my thread you lil pusssccceee
Mr...... Astro-phyicist...
Tell us about all the sausages in Uranus?

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#1011573 Oct 25, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes, here we have our own little Miss Cleo who is all knowing about what the President thinks, how Black people feel, how all Europeans feel about healthcare!!
I'll tell you how they feel: they think you teapartyers are insane and who in his right mind ever be against healthcare?
you idiots don't know the difference between healthcare and health insurance.

Chicago, IL

#1011574 Oct 25, 2013
Fenris the Big Bad Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt she has much use for your sht-stained, vibrating b*ttplug. Keep it in your cavernous fudge tunnel, and I'll buy you a year's supply of batteries on the Fenris entitlement program.
\go give dumb carol a big sloppy kiss with that semen all over your face.

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#1011575 Oct 25, 2013
Republicans throwing tantrums at Congressional hearings over the ACA website.

When are they going to investigate how Congress cost the economy 24 billion dollars?

Nothing like a bunch of blowhards finding fault that the website was not completely operation by Oct 1 when these same f*cking blowhard couldn't fund the government by October 1st.

Chicago, IL

#1011576 Oct 25, 2013
The physical interpretation of the quantity


depends on the number of particles. Fig.1 represents a container with a certain number of particles with a small control volume &#916;V inside. We check from time to time how many particles are in the control box. We distinguish three cases:

1. There is only one particle. In this case the control volume is empty most of the time. However, there is a certain chance to find the particle in it given by Eq.(15). The chance is proportional to &#916;V. The factor &#936;&#936;&#8727 ; is called the chance density.

2. If the number of particles is a bit larger there are usually some particles inside the box. We can define an average, but the actual number of particles in the box has relatively large fluctuations around this average.

3. In the case of a very large number of particles there will always be a lot of particles in the small box. The number will fluctuate but the fluctuations around the average are relatively small. The average number is proportional to &#916;V and &#936;&#936;&#8727 ; is now interpreted as the particle density.

In quantum mechanics the particle probability flow density Jp (unit: particles per second per m²) can be derived from the Schrödinger equation to be

Chicago, IL

#1011577 Oct 25, 2013
The phase space formulation of quantum mechanics places the position and momentum variables on equal footing, in phase space. In contrast, the Schrödinger picture uses the position or momentum representations (see also position and momentum space). The two key features of the phase space formulation are that the quantum state is described by a quasiprobability distribution (instead of a wave function, state vector, or density matrix) and operator multiplication is replaced by a star product.

The theory was fully detailed by Hip Groenewold in 1946 in his PhD thesis,[1] with significant parallel contributions by Joe Moyal,[2] each building off earlier ideas by Hermann Weyl[3] and Eugene Wigner.[4]

The chief advantage of the phase space formulation is that it makes quantum mechanics appear as similar to Hamiltonian mechanics as possible by avoiding the operator formalism, thereby "'freeing' the quantization of the 'burden' of the Hilbert space."[5] This formulation is statistical in nature and offers logical connections between quantum mechanics and classical statistical mechanics, enabling a natural comparison between the two (cf. classical limit). Quantum mechanics in phase space is often favored in certain quantum optics applications (see optical phase space), or in the study of decoherence and a range of specialized technical problems, though otherwise the formalism is less commonly employed in practical situations.[6]

The conceptual ideas underlying the development of quantum mechanics in phase space have branched into mathematical offshoots such as deformation theory (cf. Kontsevich quantization formula) and noncommutative geometry.

Chicago, IL

#1011578 Oct 25, 2013
Main articles: Quasiprobability distribution, Wigner quasiprobability distribution, and Wigner–Weyl transform
The phase space distribution f(x,p) of a quantum state is a quasiprobability distribution. In the phase space formulation, the phase-space distribution may be treated as the fundamental, primitive description of the quantum system, without any reference to wave functions or density matrices.[7]

There are several different ways to represent the distribution, all interrelated.[8][9] The most noteworthy is the Wigner representation, W(x,p), discovered first.[4] Other representations (in approximately descending order of prevalence in the literature) include the Glauber-Sudarshan P,[10][11] Husimi Q,[12] Kirkwood-Rihaczek, Mehta, Rivier, and Born-Jordan representations.[13][14] These alternatives are most useful when the Hamiltonian takes a particular form, such as normal order for the Glauber–Sudarshan P-representation. Since the Wigner representation is the most common, this article will usually stick to it, unless otherwise specified.

The phase space distribution possesses properties akin to the probability density in a 2n-dimensional phase space. For example, it is real-valued, unlike the generally complex-valued wave function. We can understand the probability of lying within a position interval, for example, by integrating the Wigner function over all momenta and over the position interval:

New York, NY

#1011579 Oct 25, 2013
dem wrote:
Alice now measures the spin along the z-axis. She can obtain one of two possible outcomes:+z or &#8722;z. Suppose she gets +z. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the quantum state of the system collapses into state I. The quantum state determines the probable outcomes of any measurement performed on the system. In this case, if Bob subsequently measures spin along the z-axis, there is 100% probability that he will obtain &#8722;z. Similarly, if Alice gets &#8722;z, Bob will get +z.
There is, of course, nothing special about choosing the z-axis: according to quantum mechanics the spin singlet state may equally well be expressed as a superposition of spin states pointing in the x direction.[13]:318 Suppose that Alice and Bob had decided to measure spin along the x-axis. We'll call these states Ia and IIa. In state Ia, Alice's electron has spin +x and Bob's positron has spin &#8722;x. In state IIa, Alice's electron has spin &#8722;x and Bob's positron has spin +x. Therefore, if Alice measures +x, the system 'collapses' into state Ia, and Bob will get &#8722;x. If Alice measures &#8722;x, the system collapses into state IIa, and Bob will get +x.
Whatever axis their spins are measured along, they are always found to be opposite. This can only be explained if the particles are linked in some way. Either they were created with a definite (opposite) spin about every axis—a "hidden variable" argument—or they are linked so that one electron "feels" which axis the other is having its spin measured along, and becomes its opposite about that one axis—an "entanglement" argument. Moreover, if the two particles have their spins measured about different axes, once the electron's spin has been measured about the x-axis (and the positron's spin about the x-axis deduced), the positron's spin about the z-axis will no longer be certain, as if (a) it knows that the measurement has taken place, or (b) it has a definite spin already, about a second axis—a hidden variable. However, it turns out that the predictions of Quantum Mechanics, which have been confirmed by experiment, cannot be explained by any hidden variable theory. This is demonstrated in Bell's theorem.[14]
In quantum mechanics, the x-spin and z-spin are "incompatible observables", meaning the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to alternating measurements of them: a quantum state cannot possess a definite value for both of these variables. Suppose Alice measures the z-spin and obtains +z, so that the quantum state collapses into state I. Now, instead of measuring the z-spin as well, Bob measures the x-spin. According to quantum mechanics, when the system is in state I, Bob's x-spin measurement will have a 50% probability of producing +x and a 50% probability of -x. It is impossible to predict which outcome will appear until Bob actually performs the measurement.

Chicago, IL

#1011580 Oct 25, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
like you molesting a child

A point of caution, however: despite the similarity in appearance, W(x,p) is not a genuine joint probability distribution, because regions under it do not represent mutually exclusive states, as required in the third axiom of probability theory. Moreover, it can, in general, take negative values even for pure states, with the unique exception of (optionally squeezed) coherent states, in violation of the first axiom.

Regions of such negative value are provable to be "small": they cannot extend to compact regions larger than a few &#295;, and hence disappear in the classical limit. They are shielded by the uncertainty principle, which does not allow precise localization within phase-space regions smaller than &#295;, and thus renders such "negative probabilities" less paradoxical. If the left side of the equation is to be interpreted as an expectation value in the Hilbert space with respect to an operator, then in the context of quantum optics this equation is known as the optical equivalence theorem.(For details on the properties and interpretation of the Wigner function, see its main article.)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
God is a Trump sucker after all!!! 16 min kyman 2
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 20 min Black Mom 62,355
TRUMP FORCE being formed to clean up Chicago! 21 min kyman 2
The Color of Crime in Chicago. 26 min kyman 23
News 700 are dead and Chicago is out of control 31 min kyman 3
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 56 min District 1 231,224
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 1 hr ChromiuMan 7,954

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages