Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1524171 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

#1011545 Oct 25, 2013
Alice now measures the spin along the z-axis. She can obtain one of two possible outcomes:+z or −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 −z. Similarly, if Alice gets −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 −x. In state IIa, Alice's electron has spin −x and Bob's positron has spin +x. Therefore, if Alice measures +x, the system 'collapses' into state Ia, and Bob will get −x. If Alice measures −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

United States

#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!!!!!!

New York, 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.
No Surprize

Saint Petersburg, FL

#1011555 Oct 25, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Deficit is shrinking under Obama___True.
Government trimmer under Obama__True
Matter of fact government at all levels is smaller
The deaf, dumb, and blind can't see these things, and apparently Realtime can't either you idiot.

Speaking of nuts, which squirrel is your keeper?

It's the culture...

Chicago, IL

#1011556 Oct 25, 2013
The principle of locality states that physical processes occurring at one place should have no immediate effect on the elements of reality at another location. At first sight, this appears to be a reasonable assumption to make, as it seems to be a consequence of special relativity, which states that information can never be transmitted faster than the speed of light without violating causality. It is generally believed that any theory which violates causality would also be internally inconsistent, and thus useless.[12]:427–428[15]

It turns out that the usual rules for combining quantum mechanical and classical descriptions violate the principle of locality without violating causality.[12]:427–428[15] Causality is preserved because there is no way for Alice to transmit messages (i.e. information) to Bob by manipulating her measurement axis. Whichever axis she uses, she has a 50% probability of obtaining "+" and 50% probability of obtaining "&#8722;", completely at random; according to quantum mechanics, it is fundamentally impossible for her to influence what result she gets. Furthermore, Bob is only able to perform his measurement once: there is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, known as the "no cloning theorem", which makes it impossible for him to make a million copies of the electron he receives, perform a spin measurement on each, and look at the statistical distribution of the results. Therefore, in the one measurement he is allowed to make, there is a 50% probability of getting "+" and 50% of getting "&#8722;", regardless of whether or not his axis is aligned with Alice's.

Chicago, IL

#1011557 Oct 25, 2013
However, the principle of locality appeals powerfully to physical intuition, and Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen were unwilling to abandon it. Einstein derided the quantum mechanical predictions as "spooky action at a distance". The conclusion they drew was that quantum mechanics is not a complete theory.[16]

In recent years, however, doubt has been cast on EPR's conclusion due to developments in understanding locality and especially quantum decoherence. The word locality has several different meanings in physics. For example, in quantum field theory "locality" means that quantum fields at different points of space do not interact with one another. However, quantum field theories that are "local" in this sense appear to violate the principle of locality as defined by EPR, but they nevertheless do not violate locality in a more general sense. Wavefunction collapse can be viewed as an epiphenomenon of quantum decoherence, which in turn is nothing more than an effect of the underlying local time evolution of the wavefunction of a system and all of its environment. Since the underlying behaviour doesn't violate local causality, it follows that neither does the additional effect of wavefunction collapse, whether real or apparent. Therefore, as outlined in the example above, neither the EPR experiment nor any quantum experiment demonstrates that faster-than-light signaling is possible.
No Surprize

Saint Petersburg, FL

#1011558 Oct 25, 2013
The Train Wreck has arrived. Garbage in. Garbage out. The Rats are jumping ship!

Obamakare creating a demand for insurance, cancelling existing healthcare policies to justify a demand for obamakare and the exchanges.. forces people to create an account, a self-incrimination surveillance program requiring detailed personal information selling yourself out before you can shop for obamakare.

Trojan Horse obamakare: The teat that's stuck in the ringer and demokRATs can't back down...

facebook hates obamakare: Read the hate-filled posts and see ads pandering to blacks, losers, and Hispanics...

"Carole Pratt facebook:- I have had my own private policy that I will not be able to afford to keep once the rates triple per the letter I received from Humana. I'm not eligible for "affordable" coverage on the exchange, don't qualify for subsidy. I am living, documented proof this is system will not work for me. No propaganda here."

Addie Cola facebook:- I'm 26 and uninsured and I refuse to sign up for this disaster. October 21 at 1:00pm via mobile

Janet King Beckett facebook:- Again, the Affordable Health Care Act is not for everyone. I found that out when I discovered the BRoNZE plan would cost us $6K each in my family. And that's the bottom of the barrel plan. Good luck y'all!!! We are all screwed because of this stupid government program. Another tax on the middle class!!

It's actually better obama got reelected, look like shit, get all the blame for Trojan horse obamakare and failure for the next 3 years than blaming Romney for sabotage...

If not for obamakare, Ted Cruz and the Tea Party would not have been a great success..

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

#1011559 Oct 25, 2013
In 1964, John Bell showed that the predictions of quantum mechanics in the EPR thought experiment are significantly different from the predictions of a particular class of hidden variable theories (the local hidden variable theories). Roughly speaking, quantum mechanics has a much stronger statistical correlation with measurement results performed on different axes than do these hidden variable theories. These differences, expressed using inequality relations known as "Bell's inequalities", are in principle experimentally detectable. Later work by Eberhard showed that the key properties of local hidden variable theories which lead to Bell's inequalities are locality and counter-factual definiteness. Any theory in which these principles apply produces the inequalities. Arthur Fine subsequently showed that any theory satisfying the inequalities can be modeled by a local hidden variable theory.

After the publication of Bell's paper, a variety of experiments were devised to test Bell's inequalities (experiments which generally rely on photon polarization measurement). All the experiments conducted to date have found behavior in line with the predictions of standard quantum mechanics theory.

However, Bell's theorem does not apply to all possible philosophically realist theories. It is a common misconception that quantum mechanics is inconsistent with all notions of philosophical realism, but realist interpretations of quantum mechanics are possible, although, as discussed above, such interpretations must reject either locality or counter-factual definiteness. Mainstream physics prefers to keep locality, while striving also to maintain a notion of realism that nevertheless rejects counter-factual definiteness. Examples of such mainstream realist interpretations are the consistent histories interpretation and the transactional interpretation. Fine's work showed that, taking locality as a given, there exist scenarios in which two statistical variables are correlated in a manner inconsistent with counter-factual definiteness, and that such scenarios are no more mysterious than any other, despite the inconsistency with counter-factual definiteness seeming 'counter-intuitive'.

Violation of locality is difficult to reconcile with special relativity, and is thought to be incompatible with the principle of causality. On the other hand the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics keeps counter-factual definiteness while introducing a conjectured non-local mechanism in form of the 'quantum potential', defined as one of the terms of the Schrödinger equation. Some workers in the field have also attempted to formulate hidden variable theories that exploit loopholes in actual experiments, such as the assumptions made in interpreting experimental data, although no theory has been proposed that can reproduce all the results of quantum mechanics.

There are also individual EPR-like experiments that have no local hidden variables explanation. Examples have been suggested by David Bohm and by Lucien Hardy.

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&#8260;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 ???

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Cruising phart 32,926
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr ThomasA 314,023
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Apr 20 GLOBAL FUNDING SO... 43
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Apr 20 DelucaKoehn 11
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Apr 18 RNC 11,137
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Apr 8 Allycat1999 290
News Buzzer-beating shot lifts Florida over Wisconsi... Mar '17 BuzzerPhartss 2
More from around the web