QuoteOriginally posted by: vixendude, I do understand ( although I think it is irrelevant ). Just show me the MATHS!Okay Vixen,Here's how our entanglement race is shaping up:Alice is sending an impulse signal with a Gaussian spectrum to Bob. We'll call those two the 'standard model' team.And Jane is sending a Hermite polynomial signal with a Gauss-Hermite spectrum to Dick. We'll call them the 'string' team, because they’re using the solution to the non-linear schrodinger wave equation.May the team with the maximum group velocity win!NED: (BTW. I've never use this Alice-Bob, Jane-Dick approach before, I still could be wrong)

there is no number of bosons that can ever form a fermion. two integer spins J1, J2 when added can only produce another integer spin between |J1 - J2| and |J1 + J2|. unless of course a "N"ew theory is being proposed here overturning conservation of angular momentum and equally bad, the spin-statistics theorem. QuoteOriginally posted by: NQuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteN: ... technically there is no such thing as probability theoryHow to explain the double slit experiment?TJ,Quite simply. We're fortunate that electrons have such low mass so we can see what's going on.First we need to answer this question... What would happen if two very high energy pulses of electromagnetic energy (Bosons) were fired right at each other? What would the interaction look like?The answer, thanks to a little PDE theory, is that the two very high energy waves will wrap into orbits around each other and form a Fermion. The Fermion will persist if the original waves have about the right energy for the orbits. And yes (I'm sure you'll ask) there are four types of Fermions that could have been formed... (As an artifact of some double covers) Pos or Neg charge and matter or anti-matter. The manifold of the orbit is octonian so we'd see is some projection of a polygon as quantization in real space (And TJ, this is how vertex algebra comes into play - Kac at MIT)Now that we've build a Fermion, let's send it through a double slit. Since the Fermion comprises two waves (why only two? Bott told us so), the image is constructed using standard optics techniques - no explanation required here.So TJ, does God throw the dice? Ans. Only when he/she's too lazy to do the math and stochastic approximations will do.N

there is no number of bosons that can ever form a fermion. two integer spins J1, J2 when added can only produce another integer spin between |J1 - J2| and |J1 + J2|. unless of course a "N"ew theory is being proposed here overturning conservation of angular momentum and equally bad, the spin-statistics theorem. Exactly. I am overturning conservation of angular momentum according to your orthogonal state space standard model and replacing it with a torsion-free Sp(4) manifold that preserves angular momentun in *all* three dimensions not just in two of your model (check it out!). Like for a gyroscope - Sp(4) is the required manifold.The spin-statistics theorem is incorrect since the dynamics are fully deterministic on a Sp(4) manifold. And yeah if you average the stuff on the vector bundles over enough time with a gaussian transform, one might claim the spin-statistic theorem means something, but I'm not sure what.

QuoteOriginally posted by: NQuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: NQuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteN: ... technically there is no such thing as probability theoryHow to explain the double slit experiment?TJ,Quite simply. We're fortunate that electrons have such low mass so we can see what's going on.First we need to answer this question... What would happen if two very high energy pulses of electromagnetic energy (Bosons) were fired right at each other? What would the interaction look like?The answer, thanks to a little PDE theory, is that the two very high energy waves will wrap into orbits around each other and form a Fermion. The Fermion will persist if the original waves have about the right energy for the orbits. And yes (I'm sure you'll ask) there are four types of Fermions that could have been formed... (As an artifact of some double covers) Pos or Neg charge and matter or anti-matter. The manifold of the orbit is octonian so we'd see is some projection of a polygon as quantization in real space (And TJ, this is how vertex algebra comes into play - Kac at MIT)Now that we've build a Fermion, let's send it through a double slit. Since the Fermion comprises two waves (why only two? Bott told us so), the image is constructed using standard optics techniques - no explanation required here.So TJ, does God throw the dice? Ans. Only when he/she's too lazy to do the math and stochastic approximations will do.NYou're full of **** N.Thanks TJ. That's means you should have confidence in this explanation, since one is guaranteed to get the weirdest sh*t with quaternion math.N, tell it to someone who cares... I'm tooo busy learning phynance over on off topic

i am wondering if N has an automatic word generator that creates "physics sounding" sentences. i believe they have something like that for computer science and someone even got a paper published because presumably the referees had no time.angular momentum is conserved not just in three, but four dimensions in quantum mechanics. that is why integer spins may never give you a fermion.QuoteOriginally posted by: Nthere is no number of bosons that can ever form a fermion. two integer spins J1, J2 when added can only produce another integer spin between |J1 - J2| and |J1 + J2|. unless of course a "N"ew theory is being proposed here overturning conservation of angular momentum and equally bad, the spin-statistics theorem. Exactly. I am overturning conservation of angular momentum according to your orthogonal state space standard model and replacing it with a torsion-free Sp(4) manifold that preserves angular momentun in *all* three dimensions not just in two of your model (check it out!). Like for a gyroscope - Sp(4) is the required manifold.The spin-statistics theorem is incorrect since the dynamics are fully deterministic on a Sp(4) manifold. And yeah if you average the stuff on the vector bundles over enough time with a gaussian transform, one might claim the spin-statistic theorem means something, but I'm not sure what.

QuoteMay the team with the maximum group velocity win!NO! You need to show that one of them has a group velocity greater than the speed of light.Now repeat after me: SHOW...ME...THE...MATHS

QuoteOriginally posted by: energydudei am wondering if N has an automatic word generator that creates "physics sounding" sentences. i believe they have something like that for computer science and someone even got a paper published because presumably the referees had no time.angular momentum is conserved not just in three, but four dimensions in quantum mechanics. that is why integer spins may never give you a fermion.Oh, angular momentum is conservered in four dimensions? What are you smoking? There are only 3-dimensions for any Lie group. ALL GENERALIZED COORDINATES SHARE THE 3 USUAL DIMENSIONS. For example an Sp(4) space is in three diminsions. The Sp(8) octionions are in three dimensions. How could you have studied quantum mechanics when you clearly couldn't have passed classical mechanics?Until you can do simple 'spin the top' physics, you better stay away from particle physics!You really blow me away with that crap...

QuoteOriginally posted by: vixenQuoteMay the team with the maximum group velocity win!NO! You need to show that one of them has a group velocity greater than the speed of light.Now repeat after me: SHOW...ME...THE...MATHSVixen, you crack me up. You really don't have a clue do you?

QuoteSo Alice can send Bob messages faster than the speed of light by simply sharing an entangled pair with orbits on a symplectic manifold.Just show me the maths!

NO! You need to show that one of them has a group velocity greater than the speed of light.Vixen,Since your measured speed of light is the group velocity of the wave function using your standard model, you are asking..."You need to show me that the group velocity for some wave function is faster than what I measure the speed of light to be using my standard model wave function - when there are entangled states".This is exactly the Alice-Bob vs Jane-Dick contest!The 10,000 ft view of the problem is that your model predicts the wrong speed of light when states are entangled! If you do the actual experiments (which have actually been done) , you'll also think that entangled states allow signaling at speeds greater than the probagation speed of your waves.(I am trying to get you to understand)N You also need to remember that "speed of light" is not the constant c, but is always far, far, far slower.

SHOW ME THE M..A..T..H..S..!!!

QuoteOriginally posted by: vixenSHOW ME THE M..A..T..H..S..!!!Yesterday both teams agreed on the rules. A maximum pulse power was set for the transmitters and a common noise factor (SNR) was agreed upon for both receivers. The winner was agree to be the first one to capture the transmitted pulse - defined as 3 dB down from the peak amplitude of the receive signal.This morning Jane called and said that as they narrowed the transmitted pulse (in their case, a Hermite poly) the total transmission time to the end of the received pulse decreased until it started to increase again as their signal started to behave more and more like an electron.The afternoon Alice called with something similar, but she was getting a baryon when she narrowed her gaussian pulse. (He he. After hearing that Dick and Jane became a lot more confident in their successful outcome.I asked Jane for the math, but she said she was too busy at the moment figuring out why her signal, a Boson, was turning into a somewhat chunky Fermion and slowing down her results.I asked the same of Alice, but she just said "Get lost" and returned to getting her junior baryon on a diet.That's it for now.N

Hm, it looks like N cant really explain in terms of maths what he means ...

QuoteOriginally posted by: ronwiseHm, it looks like N cant really explain in terms of maths what he means ...Hm - nothing. Do I need to remind you that Vixen brough Alice and Bob into this; I sure the hell didn't!

ronwise: this is computer-generated physics, of course there is no math behind it! he he, put names of Lie groups, Sp(4), Lorentz etc together in a grammatically correct sentence and voila!