poor dumb carol is just lovelorn over fenris<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?
Barack Obama, our next President
"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 ... Full Story
Comments
929,241  929,260 of 1,127,064 Comments
Last updated 3 min ago
#1011520
Oct 25, 2013


#1011521
Oct 25, 2013
In quantum mechanics and its applications to quantum manyparticle 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 fourmomentum 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. 

#1011522
Oct 25, 2013
These mathematical facts suggest the continuum of all possible angular momenta for a corresponding specified quantum number:
1.One direction is constant, the other two are variable. 2.The magnitude of the vectors must be constant (for a specified state corresponding to the quantum number), so the two indeterminate components of each of the vectors must be confined to a circle, in such a way that the measurable and unmeasurable components (at an instant of time) allow the magnitudes to be constructed correctly, for all possible indeterminate components. The geometrical result is a cone of vectors, the vector starts at the apex of the cone and its tip reaches the circumference of the cone. It is convention to use the zcomponent for the measurable component of angular momentum, so the axis of the cone must be the zaxis, directed from the apex to the plane defined by the circular base of the cone, perpendicular to the plane. For different quantum numbers, the cones are different. So there are a discrete number of states the angular momenta can be, ruled by the above possible values for , s, and j. Using the previous setup of the vector as part of a cone, each state must correspond to a cone. This is for increasing , s, and j, and decreasing , s, and j> Negative quantum numbers correspond to cones reflected in the xy plane. One of these states, for a quantum number equal to zero, clearly doesn't correspond to a cone, only a circle in the xy plane. The number of cones (including the degenerate planar circle) equals the multiplicity of states,. 

#1011523
Oct 25, 2013
Having you wash my balls not only looks good, it feels good, and it is the only way to go! 

Since: Jun 13 7,302 
#1011524
Oct 25, 2013
One of Obama's WH officials let the cat out of the bag before he got caught tweeting his concern over this president's dependency on Jarrett. Don't have to assume anything. The NY Times expressed their concern about her influence over this president back in 2008. You just don't want to see what is crystal clear. 
#1011526
Oct 25, 2013
get back on fenris's lap ya hypocrite. 

#1011527
Oct 25, 2013
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


#1011528
Oct 25, 2013
Deficit is shrinking under Obama___True. Government trimmer under Obama__True Matter of fact government at all levels is smaller 

#1011530
Oct 25, 2013
Dummy, Stop telling stories... You live in a van down by the river! 

#1011531
Oct 25, 2013
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 halfsilvered 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. 

#1011532
Oct 25, 2013
hey tiny lil tea bag jagoff did you know The routine explanation of this effect was, at that time, provided by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.[citation needed] Physical quantities come in pairs which are called conjugate quantities. Examples of such conjugate pairs are position and momentum of a particle and components of spin measured around different axes. When one quantity was measured, and became determined, the conjugated quantity became indeterminate. Heisenberg explained this as a disturbance caused by measurement. The EPR paper, written in 1935, was intended to illustrate that this explanation is inadequate. It considered two entangled particles, referred to as A and B, and pointed out that measuring a quantity of a particle A will cause the conjugated quantity of particle B to become undetermined, even if there was no contact, no classical disturbance. The basic idea behind was that the quantum states of two particles in a system cannot always be decomposed from the joint state of the two. An example is: Heisenberg's principle was an attempt to provide a classical explanation of a quantum effect sometimes called nonlocality. According to EPR there were two possible explanations. Either there was some interaction between the particles, even though they were separated, or the information about the outcome of all possible measurements was already present in both particles. The EPR authors preferred the second explanation according to which that information was encoded in some 'hidden parameters'. The first explanation, that an effect propagated instantly, across a distance, is in conflict with the theory of relativity. They then concluded that quantum mechanics was incomplete since, in its formalism, there was no space for such hidden parameters. Violations of the conclusions of Bell's theorem are generally understood to have demonstrated that hypotheses of Bell's theorem, also assumed by Einstein Poldolsky and Rosen, do not apply in our world. Most physicists who have examined the matter concur that experiments, such as those of Alain Aspect and his group, have confirmed that physical probabilities, as predicted by quantum theory, do show the phenomena of Bellinequality violations that are considered to invalidate EPR's preferred "local hiddenvariables 

Since: May 13 1,601 Location hidden 
#1011533
Oct 25, 2013
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? 
#1011534
Oct 25, 2013
The article that first brought forth these matters, "Can QuantumMechanical 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 LamehiRachti 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] 

#1011535
Oct 25, 2013
get the fk off my thread you lil pusssccceee 

Since: Jun 13 7,302 
#1011537
Oct 25, 2013
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. 
#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] 

#1011539
Oct 25, 2013
Spammer: The act of obnoxiously doing repeated cutnpaste 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... 

#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 quantummechanical 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. 

#1011541
Oct 25, 2013
You dunce! We know you are getting this crap off the scifi channel... 

#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 zaxis (+z) and the positron has spin pointing downward along the zaxis (−z). In state II, the electron has spin −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


Add your comments below
Chicago Discussions
Title  Updated  Last By  Comments 

Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09)  7 min  PEllen  98,504 
amy 125  12 min  PEllen  1 
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08)  13 min  JOEL  70,103 
abby 1025  14 min  PEllen  1 
Man fatally stabbed, 8 other people shot in Thu...  36 min  reality is a crutch  1 
Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband (Jun '08)  59 min  Swedenforever  54,525 
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09)  1 hr  scirocco  68,668 
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09)  2 hr  jacques Ottawa  179,459 
Find what you want!
Search Chicago Forum Now