@ChrisWhite dont be fear the bohmian mechanics! anyway you must have ordered something related eh? ("accidentally"? wink wink) anyway, how does one determine/ identify "bohmians with an axe to grind"? and presumably without actually readiing the book? :P
quite to the contrary it seems at times its all the "shut up and calculate crowd" with the so-called "axe to grind"... :|
was a bit shocked to find this at 6v, missed it back when it was posted! you antibohmian extremists are gonna have to work a little harder! "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down!" as the japanese say... o_O
As a particle travels to a screen, it is traveling through 3-dimensional space. In the oil droplet experiment, there are only two dimensions of any importance—the droplet merely moves along the surface of a wavey fluid. It seems like a 3-dimensional wavey superfluid would result in far more compl...
ps was surfing movie previews/ trailers yesterday & noticed that yudkowski is interviewed in this one... the singularity is near... it was definitely one of the more grandiose/ psychedelic/ scattered previews on level with a religious movie... maybe will watch it sometime for cheap kicks... o_O
@Slereah I don't need a tux either, but I wear one when there is a need to project really ridiculous levels of swank.
Or, in all seriousness, you use unreasonable precision in a computer code because it is easy and it's one less thing to have to worry about.
On top of which lathes reliably cut things round to better than a part in a thousand, even if keeping them that way through subsequent handling is tough.
I know a machinist who cut precision inside threads on a 1 mm diameter source capsule for a colleague of mine. He always seems slightly disappointed with the projects I brought him.
Until I wanted to weld two sub-millimeter thick pieces of 316L steal.
After some research he asked if the project budget would extend to buying an electron beam welder, and after I said "No" he recommended an outfit in southern California to outsource the job.
The way these puzzles works with so few moves relies on some kind of symmetry in these figures
Is there a name to these kinds of symmetry? As far I can observe, it seemed that the initial figure and the solved figure (which is not present until the figure becomes the solved figure) are related by a combination of rotation and reflection
Slightly more than the usual number of reallt crappy question lately, but much, much worse they are getting more than the usual ratio of really crappy answers.
@TanMath I redid all the computation a few times, and realized that I had been wrong since the beginning :c since the length at start is of course the diameter 2R and nor the radius R. Now I find a somewhat coherent result.
@JohnDuffield cc @theNamesCross well, I would mind marking with "Edit:" a little :-P The preferred way to add content into a post (or remove from it) is to update the post so that it looks like you'd written it that way all along - there's no need to indicate in the post itself which parts are new and which parts existed originally. That's why the revision history exists, so that people who care about when parts of the post were introduced can see it.
Note that $GL(n)$ can be identified with an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ and hence its tangent space (at the identity) is just $\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$.
which is exactly $\operatorname{Mat}(n\times n)\cong \operatorname{End}(n)$
(this way you don't actually prove that the Lie bracket is the same one as the natural one on $\operatorname{End}(n)$)
" there are specific choice of a,b,a′,b′a,b,a′,b′ such that correlations between them don't satisfy Bell's inequality, hence the measurements cannot be random variables of a probability space. "
Please note: if a question post is not self-contained, lots of would-be answerers will simply lose interest and move on.
You can't seriously expect people to read your question, read the Wikipedia article, put all the pieces together, figure out what you're asking, and write an answer.
It's the job of the person writing the question to make it easy for everyone else to understand that question and provide an answer.
This is probably a huge part of why you haven't gotten an answer.
Yes, I know that, so I realize that I need to ask for a discussion on formulating. I have difficulty organizing such a post since QM is what I am quite unfamiliar with.
@FrankScience Ok, in that case I definitely think you should focus on learning some basic quantum before tackling your Bell question.
@FrankScience Measurement is the most poorly explained (and understood) part of quantum mechanics, and Bell violations are a complexity on top of that.
user54412
I like to be more optimistic. I think a purely probability-based description can be given, and might even be better, because it avoids all the nonsense people get into over "what is a measurement?"
On the book I'm reading, it's just related to an observable.
namely, a Hermitien operator on the Hilbert space.
user54412
8:06 PM
Then again, I've just spent some time going through the wikipedia pages and references, and I realized I can't point to any source that isn't itself confused on the topic.
I thought the nuance of the question was this: Why does it seem that the CHSH inequality should hold for all random variables, but it can be violated by QM, which is a theory of random variables?
@FrankScience The inequality does not hold for all random variables.
user54412
Of course, since Bell/CHSH all reference local hidden variable theories, any statement of them that doesn't distinguish locality seems incomplete, which is what I think Henning Makholm is saying.
It almost looks like the binomial distribution for getting $m$ out of $N$ with probability $\gamma$, except we ignored $(1-\gamma)^{N-m}$ (because $\gamma \ll 1$?), and there's an extra $m!$ (because reasons?)
@ChrisWhite What you comment on Henning Makholm's answer is sound to me, but one of my goal of posting this question is to clarify these concepts. I'm still unclear after reading Le Bellac and wiki pages.
@TanMath Yep! Well Saturn is far enough away to be treated as a celestial sphere, so you can imagine this as a pea sized black hole, and you're a tiny camera about eight pea radii from it :D
@FrankScience hi, how much time do you want to dedicate to this? have studied bells thm in some depth. keep in mind its over ~½ century old now & massive amts have been written on it and there is some new thinking. there are many different ways to approach it. plz drop by here for more discussion. (hint: maybe "nobody can be satisfied" right now because the state of existing knowledge is not fully satisfactory.)
bells thm & related ideology seems to have a quality of partial knowledge as hinted in the blind men/ elephant story... not unlike QM itself...
@ChrisWhite can you elaborate on this pov? eg is it contained somewhere in the literature that can be pointed to?
I'd love to see longer-term data on that. It might just be my eyes, but there seems to be a slight downward trend over time. Or perhaps a periodic chance in the trend.
@vzn The point is that I'm focusing on mathematical formulation and argument, not on whether it's physically accessible, so maybe nothing is not fully satisfactory.
