Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1275369 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.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#1011533 Oct 25, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
And with Obama's "recovery" generating 5 part time jobs for every 1 full time job, thus putting 5 people into poverty for every 1 person it allows a living wage, this condition won't do anything but get worse.
If you live in a household where only half the people living there are providing for the entire household, then you are either in a house where a family with children live, or you are in the average neighborhood that votes Democrat all the time.
We don't need any jobs per DBWriter. Remember, anyone that wants a job can have one, all they need to do is look for it. Has that changed?

Chicago, IL

#1011534 Oct 25, 2013
The article that first brought forth these matters, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" was published in 1935.[3] Einstein struggled to the end of his life for a theory that could better comply with his idea of causality, protesting against the view that there exists no objective physical reality other than that which is revealed through measurement interpreted in terms of quantum mechanical formalism. However, since Einstein's death, experiments analogous to the one described in the EPR paper have been carried out, starting in 1976 by French scientists Lamehi-Rachti and Mittig[4] at the Saclay Nuclear Research Centre. These experiments appear to show that the local realism idea is false.[5]

Quantum mechanics and its interpretation[edit]Main article: Interpretations of quantum mechanics
Since the early twentieth century, quantum theory has proved to be successful in describing accurately the physical reality of the mesoscopic and microscopic world, in multiple reproducible physics experiments.

Quantum mechanics was developed with the aim of describing atoms and explaining the observed spectral lines in a measurement apparatus. Although disputed, it has yet to be seriously challenged. Philosophical interpretations of quantum phenomena, however, are another matter: the question of how to interpret the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics has given rise to a variety of different answers from people of different philosophical persuasions (see Interpretations of quantum mechanics).

Quantum theory and quantum mechanics do not provide single measurement outcomes in a deterministic way. According to the understanding of quantum mechanics known as the Copenhagen interpretation, measurement causes an instantaneous collapse of the wave function describing the quantum system into an eigenstate of the observable that was measured. Einstein characterized this imagined collapse in the 1927 Solvay Conference. He presented a thought experiment in which electrons are introduced through a small hole in a sphere whose inner surface serves as a detection screen. The electrons will contact the spherical detection screen in a widely dispersed manner. Those electrons, however, are all individually described by wave fronts that expand in all directions from the point of entry. A wave as it is understood in everyday life would paint a large area of the detection screen, but the electrons would be found to impact the screen at single points and would eventually form a pattern in keeping with the probabilities described by their identical wave functions. Einstein asks what makes each electron's wave front "collapse" at its respective location. Why do the electrons appear as single bright scintillations rather than as dim washes of energy across the surface? Why does any single electron appear at one point rather than some alternative point? The behavior of the electrons gives the impression of some signal having been sent to all possible points of contact that would have nullified all but one of them, or, in other words, would have preferentially selected a single point to the exclusion of all others.[6]

Chicago, IL

#1011535 Oct 25, 2013
tell_it_like_it_IS wrote:
<quoted text>
Having you wash my balls not only looks good, it feels good, and it is the only way to go!
get the fk off my thread you lil pusssccceee

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1011537 Oct 25, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe you are exactly right.
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.

Chicago, IL

#1011538 Oct 25, 2013
Einstein was the most prominent opponent of the Copenhagen interpretation. In his view, quantum mechanics is incomplete. Commenting on this, other writers (such as John von Neumann[7] and David Bohm[8]) hypothesized that consequently there would have to be 'hidden' variables responsible for random measurement results, something which was not expressly claimed in the original paper.

The 1935 EPR paper [1] condensed the philosophical discussion into a physical argument. The authors claim that given a specific experiment, in which the outcome of a measurement is known before the measurement takes place, there must exist something in the real world, an "element of reality", that determines the measurement outcome. They postulate that these elements of reality are local, in the sense that each belongs to a certain point in spacetime. Each element may only be influenced by events which are located in the backward light cone of its point in spacetime (i.e. the past). These claims are founded on assumptions about nature that constitute what is now known as local realism.

Though the EPR paper has often been taken as an exact expression of Einstein's views, it was primarily authored by Podolsky, based on discussions at the Institute for Advanced Study with Einstein and Rosen. Einstein later expressed to Erwin Schrödinger that, "it did not come out as well as I had originally wanted; rather, the essential thing was, so to speak, smothered by the formalism."[9] In 1936 Einstein presented an individual account of his local realist ideas.[10]
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#1011539 Oct 25, 2013
Spammer: The act of obnoxiously doing repeated cut-n-paste for attention all day long to disturb others. dem, a ghetto commie dumbass on a forum, no job, running on complete empty, a moron demokRAT posting inane crap, fiction, propaganda or delusional opinion of no relevance for only his deranged amusement 24/7..

AND... when we Tea Party Patriots take back the country in 2014, you commies, brown shirt liberals and moochers will need to learn and fish or cut bait...

It's the culture...

Chicago, IL

#1011540 Oct 25, 2013
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.
tell_it_like_it_ IS

Euless, TX

#1011541 Oct 25, 2013
dem wrote:
In quantum mechanics and its applications to quantum many-particle systems, notably quantum chemistry, angular momentum diagrams, or more accurately from a mathematical viewpoint angular momentum graphs, are a diagrammatic method for representing angular momentum quantum states of a quantum system allowing calculations to be done symbolically. More specifically, the arrows encode angular momentum states in bra–ket notation and include the abstract nature of the state, such as tensor products and transformation rules.
The notation parallels the idea of Penrose graphical notation for diagrammatically expressing tensor expressions and symbolically performing multilinear manipulations, as well as Feynman diagrams for representing fundamental interactions between particles codifying integrals of delta functions, propagators, and other things, as well as four-momentum conservation.
The diagrams consist of arrows and vertices with quantum numbers as labels, hence the alternative term "graphs". The sense of each arrow is related Hermitian conjugation, which roughly corresponds to time reversal of the angular momentum states (c.f. Schrödinger equation). The diagrammatic notation is a considerably large topic in its own right with a number of specialized features – this article introduces the very basics.
You dunce!

We know you are getting this crap off the sci-fi channel...

Chicago, IL

#1011542 Oct 25, 2013
We have a source that emits electron–positron pairs, with the electron sent to destination A, where there is an observer named Alice, and the positron sent to destination B, where there is an observer named Bob. According to quantum mechanics, we can arrange our source so that each emitted pair occupies a quantum state called a spin singlet. The particles are thus said to be entangled. This can be viewed as a quantum superposition of two states, which we call state I and state II. In state I, the electron has spin pointing upward along the z-axis (+z) and the positron has spin pointing downward along the z-axis (&#8722;z). In state II, the electron has spin &#8722;z and the positron has spin +z. Therefore, it is impossible (without measuring) to know the definite state of spin of either particle in the spin singlet.[12]:421–422

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1011543 Oct 25, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
"Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away."
Do you honestly think this is something new? My father died over 40 years ago of terminal cancer. Fluids were withdrawn and he was on continuous sedation until he died. The humane thing would have been to euthanize him.

You must live a very sheltered life if you can't recognize that this has been a choice of death for decades. Very few people choose "Hail Mary" attempts to extend their lives ("money making interventions") when they are suffering.

Go out and buy the book "Knocking at Heaven's Door" to get insight into end of life choices and how, often, the rise of technologies that are meant to extend life actually lead to more suffering at the end.

IMO, more states need to adopt legislation similar to Oregon's "Death with Dignity Act:

"The Death with Dignity Act allows terminally ill Oregon residents to obtain and use prescriptions from their physicians for self-administered, lethal medications. Under the Act, ending one's life in accordance with the law does not constitute suicide. However, we use 'physician-assisted suicide' because that terminology is used in medical literature to describe ending life through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications prescribed by a physician for that purpose. The Death with Dignity Act legalizes PAS [physician-assisted suicide], but specifically prohibits euthanasia, where a physician or other person directly administers a medication to end another's life."

Bronx, NY

#1011544 Oct 25, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
How much is Soros - or Jarrett - paying you?
No one would try this hard to be so obviously off topic without getting paid.
RIGHT its sonicfilth, lily, realtime, a few you can see certain patterns and know the script too many OBJECTIVE peole on this post it gets them upset and when they know a BLACK person doesnt go with the OBAMA script they lose their mind s lololololhahahahahahaha SUPPORT BARNEYS SUPPORT BARNEYS GO ONLINE BUY A KEY CHAIN SUPPORT BARNEYS

Chicago, IL

#1011545 Oct 25, 2013
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

#1011546 Oct 25, 2013
WOW wrote:
I SUPPORT BARNEYS IN THEIR EFFORT TO PROTECT THEIR CUSTOMER BASE THAT DOESNT NEED TO SAVE FOR ANY ITEM THEY WANT BARNEYS IS NOT FOR POOR PEOPLE and they dont want or need to have happen in other stores where a wild pack of unruly thugs/thieves to grab and smash because theses people are not the customer base they want they are not JAY Z, P DIDDY, KANYE, FARRELL,MAJIC JOHNSON,stay in your lane if you had to save to buy a $300 belt you dont belong in barneys save your money and invest in stocks and bonds better return we dont need some thug from your own race to KILL YOU FOR A BELT, if you are buying a $2500 hand bag and taking the train and dont have $2500 to put in the bag after you buy it you are living above your means GOOD JOB BARNEYS TOUGH LOVE you are giving them what they are not taught at HOME I SUPPORT BARNEYS SHOP AT BARNEYS IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT
fk you, pusssccceee

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#1011547 Oct 25, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a much better solution to make insurance companies compete which would have lowered costs nationwide.
Health insurance companies made little profit compared to most companies anyway.
But the government has to compete with no one.
As long as the medical profession can get as much money as they can wherever they can to afford their malpractice insurance and put even more money in their own pockets, the costs won't go down.
Like socialist democracies who have learned the hard way universal care only looks good on paper and in utopians' minds, we didn't learn from their mistake.
Why is that, Lily? Why didn't Obama learn from their mistake?
first lets start with controlling health care costs by limiting medical malpractice rewards. Its already been tried and proven to be ineffective.

Chicago, IL

#1011548 Oct 25, 2013
Fenris the Big Bad Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm here (but I'm not queer).
Didnt rufus slade give you enough love muscle this morning?
morning, you old ja goff.
wanna su ck your moms lipstick off my co ck?
tell_it_like_it_ IS

Euless, TX

#1011549 Oct 25, 2013
dem wrote:
<quoted text>
your tea bag party is over
The EPR paradox is an early and influential critique leveled against quantum mechanics. Albert Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (known collectively as EPR) designed a thought experiment intended to reveal what they believed to be inadequacies of quantum mechanics. To that end, they hypothesized a consequence of quantum mechanics that its supporters had not noticed but looked unreasonable at the time.
According to quantum mechanics, under some conditions, a pair of quantum systems may be described by a single wave function, which encodes the probabilities of the outcomes of experiments that may be performed on the two systems, whether jointly or individually. At the time the EPR article was written, it was known from experiments that the outcome of an experiment sometimes cannot be uniquely predicted. An example of such indeterminacy can be seen when a beam of light is incident on a half-silvered mirror. One half of the beam will reflect, the other will pass. If the intensity of the beam is reduced to so that only one photon is in transit at any time, whether that photon will reflect or transmit cannot be predicted quantum mechanically.
Dem is really Bill Nye-the science guy!!!!!!

Bronx, NY

#1011551 Oct 25, 2013

Chicago, IL

#1011552 Oct 25, 2013
fenris was very popular in the hispanic homosexual community till he started raping and killing ninos

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1011553 Oct 25, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
which just goes to show you that ideas originally designed by Republicans don't work.
Single payer, universal health care is the best solution. glad you agree
That was long before European countries proved it doesn't work.

And most democrats as well as republicans didn't go along with it for the same obvious reasons the majority still don't go along with it now and didn't back then either.

Chicago, IL

#1011554 Oct 25, 2013
Here is the crux of the matter. You might imagine that, when Bob measures the x-spin of his positron, he would get an answer with absolute certainty, since prior to this he hasn't disturbed his particle at all. But Bob's positron has a 50% probability of producing +x and a 50% probability of &#8722;x—so the outcome is not certain. Bob's positron "knows" that Alice's electron has been measured, and its z-spin detected, and hence B's z-spin calculated, so its x-spin is uncertain.

Put another way, how does Bob's positron know which way to point if Alice decides (based on information unavailable to Bob) to measure x (i.e. to be the opposite of Alice's electron's spin about the x-axis) and also how to point if Alice measures z, since it is only supposed to know one thing at a time? The Copenhagen interpretation rules that say the wave function "collapses" at the time of measurement, so there must be action at a distance (entanglement) or the positron must know more than it's supposed to (hidden variables).

Here is the paradox summed up:

It is one thing to say that physical measurement of the first particle's momentum affects uncertainty in its own position, but to say that measuring the first particle's momentum affects the uncertainty in the position of the other is another thing altogether. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, i.e. faster than light, this is the "paradox".

Incidentally, Bell used spin as his example, but many types of physical quantities—referred to as "observables" in quantum mechanics—can be used. The EPR paper used momentum for the observable. Experimental realisations of the EPR scenario often use photon polarization, because polarized photons are easy to prepare and measure.

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
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Coffee Party 196,963
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr Red_Forman 6,409
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr Earthling-1 54,503
Black lives matter 4 hr Pride in ones self 1
ask amy 8-29-15 11 hr Julie 4
abby 8-28-15 12 hr Mister Tonka 4
Steve Wilkos : talk show host ? or simple mi... (Feb '08) 13 hr Tvlover 406
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages