Deeper than primes

doronshadmi · Aug 5, 2011

zooterkin said:
What is that question supposed to mean?

By comprehensive science everything is under research, including the researched, the researcher and the research methods.

doronshadmi · Aug 5, 2011

Let's correct something about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7436675&postcount=16193 analogy.

This part

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, if A = "closed door" and B = "opened door", then (AB) = "indeterminate under superposition" and (A,B) = "determinate under superposition collapse".

has to be under "(" ")" because it is not related to that particular analogy, but it demonstrates the general principle of superposition and superposition collapse, no matter what (AB) superposition or (A,B) superposition collapse are involved.

---------

By using the general principle of superposition and superposition collapse, "C=A+B" expression is actually DS (A,B,C) under F (1,1,1) under 3-Uncertainty x 3-Redundancy Distinction-Tree.

Here is a typical response ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5980338&postcount=10029 ) of a person that can't get the difference between (ABC) and (A,B,C) (which are under 3-Uncertainty x 3-Redundancy Distinction-Tree):

The Man said:
doronshadmi said:

The single silt pattern is an expression of the Local aspect of the Non-local/Local Linkage, where the double slit pattern is an expression of the Non-local aspect of the Non-local/Local Linkage, and how Non-local/Local Linkage is expressed as:

a) Asymmetry of no superposition of ids (A,B)(known as Certainty).

b) Symmetry of superposition of certain ids (A,A)(known as Redundancy).

c) Symmetry of superposition of ids (AB)(known as Uncertainty).

Click to expand...

Nope, just more of your word salad Doron.

a),b),c) is taken as some case of DS (A,B,C) under F (1,1,1) under 3-Uncertainty x 3-Redundancy Distinction-Tree, but The Man can't get that because his best is closed under (A,B,C) (he can't deal with the uncertainty of superposition of ids, which in this case is DS (ABC) under F (3,0,0) under 3-Uncertainty x 3-Redundancy Distinction-Tree).

As about left-hemisphere\right-hemisphere case:

Persons that say NO in "Collapsing wavefunctions?" column of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics table, are left-only hemisphere persons that have no tolerance to Uncertainty, Indeterminate, Vagueness, etc. ...

Persons that say YES in this column have tolerance to Uncertainty, Indeterminate, Vagueness, etc. ... because they are not using only their left hemisphere.

As can be seen (according to this table) the majority of scientific community has no tolerance to Uncertainty, Indeterminate, Vagueness, etc. ...

doronshadmi · Aug 5, 2011

As about Mind-Body problem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_dichotomy ), please look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp

http://www3.tsl.uu.se/~flechl/paper/philo/stapp.pdf

doronshadmi · Aug 5, 2011

Here is an important part, taken from http://www3.tsl.uu.se/~flechl/paper/philo/stapp.pdf:

Martin Flechl said:
It seems Stapp would have to modify his opinion about the unity of consciousness if he wants to keep the possibility of free will and conserve the laws of quantum theory at the same time.

Once again, the state of unity is not some opinion at the level of thoughts, as shown (by analogy) in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594 .

Unity is the actual non-subjective state of mind ( as explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7241076&postcount=15569 ) exactly because it is the source of any possible expression, whether it is called mind or body.

The Man · Aug 6, 2011

doronshadmi said:
C is a strict result of A strict and B strict.

In other words you are still get only strict things (in this case you are using the particular case of DS (A,B,C) under F (1,1,1), which are under 3-Uncertainty x 3-Redundancy Distinction-Tree).

Nope in the exact same words I used...

The Man said:
Again you really need to learn what a wave function is, instead of just trying to conflate your nonsense with quantum mechanics by simply saying “collapsed”. Oh, and a “single variable” can represent, well, “more than one variable” including some operations like addition, as in C=A+B. That’s what makes variables useful. Learn some basic algebra.

doronshadmi said:
You are using again DS (A,B) under F (1,1), exactly because A is positive OR negative.

Certainly not, I never cited any of your DS BS, and "A" represents both positive and negative values as cited.

The Man said:
So even with “B” strictly a single positive value, “A” isn’t. Whether “A” is positive or negative is simply indeterminate.

You seem to be (perhaps deliberately) confusing the fact that "A" can be ascribed a "positive OR negative" value for any non-zero instance of "B" with some restriction on "A" not representing both a positive and a negative value for any non-zero instance of "B".

Your assertion wasn't that a variable could be a singular value at some particular instance, it was that it must be a singular value at any instance. That A²=B has, simultaneously, both positive and negative solutions for "A" given any instance of a non-zero value of "B" demonstrates that assertion to be patently false. In fact unless "A" represented both a positive and a negative value simultaneously for any non-zero instance of "B" you could not choose between a "positive OR negative" value of "A" at that instance of "B".

doronshadmi said:
Under DS (AB) superposition A is simultaneously positive AND negative, but it is not a contradiction since (AC) is non-strict.

As you claim your BS "superposition" does not use the principle of superposition, your BS "superposition" is still without any, well, superposition whatsoever.

doronshadmi said:
Not simultaneously, The Man, not simultaneously, and if it is a sum (as done in C=A+B), then the sum is some strict single value.

Fine then by all means please tell us the minimum amount of time that must pass, when B=25, between when A=-5 and when A=5?

Or perhaps at what time of day -5²=25 but 5² doesn't?

In case you have not realized "B" can represent a non-zero time (say in munities). So with both positive and negative solutions for B^-2 as "A", "A" quite literally is both positive and negative at the same time (simultaneously).

Oh, and A²=B isn't "a sum (as done in C=A+B)" that should have been obvious even to just you.

Since you have claimed "if it is a sum (as done in C=A+B), then the sum is some strict single value" please tell us the "strict single value" of "C"?

doronshadmi said:
The Man, you are still closed under strictness and simply can't get out no matter what twisted maneuvers are done by you with variables.

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

doronshadmi said:
Only if (AB) is transformed into (A,B) by classical Fourier transform, and the result is not equivalent to the state of superposition, exactly because any measurement actually changes the superposition into set of strict values (a state vector) (the superposition is collapsed into a strict state).

Read the actual definition in article you quoted Doron not just the introduction...

doronshadmi said:
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform )

The quantum Fourier transform is the classical discrete Fourier transform applied to the vector of amplitudes of a quantum state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform#Definition

Your claim...

doronshadmi said:
...there is no equivalence between the classical Fourier transform that acts on a vector (which is a set of strict values) and the natural non-strict state of quantum superposition.

is demonstrably false by the very article you cited but apparently never bothered to actually read or even just look at the definition.

doronshadmi said:
No wonder that you can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7431694&postcount=16185.

Evidently you just don't understand coherence and thus de-coherence, but that is no wonder to most others here.

doronshadmi said:
At least try to get out of your please.

It's your hole Doron and you just keep burring yourself by digging it deeper.

doronshadmi · Aug 6, 2011

Let us distinguish between (AB) and (A,B) or (ABC) and (A,B,C).

The Man said:
Fine then by all means please tell us the minimum amount of time that must pass, when B=25, between when A=-5 and when A=5?

Time is not involved here, you simply use (A,B) superposition collapse of the variables themselves if you wish to use them by some expression (A²=B, in this case)

The Man said:
Oh, and A²=B isn't "a sum (as done in C=A+B)" that should have been obvious even to just you.

Since you have claimed "if it is a sum (as done in C=A+B), then the sum is some strict single value" please tell us the "strict single value" of "C"?

Again The Man, you still do not grasp that (AB) or (ABC) are the superposition of the variables themselves, where (A,B) or (A,B,C) are the superposition collapse of these variables, which enables expressions like A²=B or C=A+B.

The Man said:
Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

Again, stop simply force your inability to distinguish between (AB) (which is an example of variables under superposition) and (A,B) (which is an example of variables under superposition collapse) onto others.

The rest of your post is derived from your inability.

More details can be found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7443804&postcount=16202.

The Man said:
I never cited any of your DS BS

You can't, exactly because your BS covers your mind, as can be seen all along this thread.

The Man said:
Your assertion wasn't that a variable could be a singular value at some particular instance, it was that it must be a singular value at any instance.

A²=B or C=A+B are expressions of superposition collapse of the variables themselves.

doronshadmi · Aug 6, 2011

Look as this:

the quantum Fourier transform acts on a quantum state, whereas the classical Fourier transform acts on a vector, so the quantum Fourier transform can not give a generic exponential speedup for any task which requires the classical Fourier transform.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform )
In other words, since superposition is involved in non-strict quantum states that are collapsed into some strict state by some measurement, there is no equivalence between the classical Fourier transform that acts on a vector (which is a set of strict values) and the natural non-strict state of quantum superposition (in this case the members of the vector are under superposition (their ids are uncertain)).

Here is the Hebrew version of this part

מאידך, בעוד הפעולה ה"קלאסית" פועלת על וקטור של ערכים, הפעולה הקוונטית הינה על מצב קוונטי הנמצא בסופרפוזיציה, כאשר המקדמים מתארים את ערכי הווקטור הקלאסי השקול. מכיוון שלא ניתן לבצע מדידה ישירה של ערכי המקדמים בסופרפוזיציה קוונטית, השקילות אינה מלאה, ולא ניתן לקבל שיפור מעריכי עבור ביצוע ההתמרה באופן כללי

and its translation to English is:

"On the other hand,
(,מאידך)
while the "classic" operation operates on vector's values,
(,בעוד הפעולה ה"קלאסית" פועלת על וקטור של ערכים)
the quantum operation is on a quantum state that is found in superposition,
(,הפעולה הקוונטית הינה על מצב קוונטי הנמצא בסופרפוזיציה)
when the coefficients describe the values of the equivalent classical vector.
(.כאשר המקדמים מתארים את ערכי הווקטור הקלאסי השקול)
Since direct measurement of the coefficients' values of quantum superposition can't be done,
(,מכיוון שלא ניתן לבצע מדידה ישירה של ערכי המקדמים בסופרפוזיציה קוונטית)
the equivalence is incomplete,
(,השקילות אינה מלאה)
and there is no exponential improvement for the transformation's implementation in general.
(.ולא ניתן לקבל שיפור מעריכי עבור ביצוע ההתמרה באופן כללי)"

The quantum Fourier transform is the classical discrete Fourier transform applied to the vector of amplitudes of a quantum state.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform )
In other words, by transforming (AB) superposition into (A,B) superposition collapse, the classical discrete Fourier transform applied to the vector of (strict) amplitudes of a quantum state (which is not under superposition anymore).

doronshadmi · Aug 6, 2011

Please look at http://techie-buzz.com/science/quantum-teleportation-of-photons-achieved.html .

In this article bits are expressed by N, where qubits are expressed by 2^N.

But the base value can be k = 2 to (any base value > 2), where qubits are expressed by k^N.

For more details, please look at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6027/330.full.pdf?ijkey=oM68vTRllELO6&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

epix · Aug 6, 2011

epix said:
Both hemispheres are used -- that's why they are included in the hardware. But there is that "third hemisphere," which can solve problems without the "learn and repeat" process. The best test for the third hemisphere is based on something that relates to 3 -- like the cube. So here is the question: What is in that box?

The third hemisphere . . . . It looks that the aliens took up the challenge.
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2011/furzeknoll/furzeknoll2011a.html

This is not a difficult puzzle: Just label the three hemispheres. If you use critical and rational thinking, then you label them with A, B, A, coz the size of them calls for it -- they are two identical objects with one different in the middle. Hence A, B, A. But critical and rational thinking has been plagued by arbitrary crap, and so you need to chose another approach. For example, go with the motif, take a sphere and cut it in half by the plane. The result is SPH / ERE.

But what happens if you cut the sphere exactly SP / HERE? This cut on 2 and 4 letters is supposed to be done coz

a) 2 + 4 = 6
b) 2 x 4 = 8

where 6 is the day and 8 is the month.

Furze Knoll, Bishop Cannings, Wiltshire. Reported 6th August.

http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2011/furzeknoll/furzeknoll2011a.html

And so if someone asks you to cut a sphere here, the natural question is to ask where exactly. If the answer doesn't come, the initial request has been deemed sufficient for you to know where.

I think the aliens stopped by a wrong planet.

(I wonder how the aliens solve my puzzle that asks what's inside that box.)

doronshadmi · Aug 6, 2011

epix said:
I think the aliens stopped by a wrong planet.

The aliens left because they are allergic to wheat.

doronshadmi · Aug 7, 2011

More about 2^N Quantum Computing and qubits' superposition:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...new-record-register-with-14-quantum-bits.html

( see also http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7447672&postcount=16208 )

doronshadmi · Aug 7, 2011

The einselected states lack coherence, and therefore do not exhibit the quantum behaviours of entanglement and superposition.

Since only quasi-local, essentially classical states survive the decoherence process, einselection can in many ways explain the emergence of a (seemingly) classical reality in a fundamentally quantum universe (at least to local observers).

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einselection )
In other words, real superposition is not lack coherence, where by this coherence even the used variables are under superposition (their ids are uncertain).

Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction-Trees can be useful for Quantum Darwinism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Darwinism ).

The Man · Aug 7, 2011

Correction

The Man said:
In case you have not realized "B" can represent a non-zero time (say in munities). So with both positive and negative solutions for B^-2 as "A", "A" quite literally is both positive and negative at the same time (simultaneously).

Highlighting added

B^-2 should have been B^1/2, B^-2 would have been the inverse of the square of “B” while B^1/2 would be the square root of “B”, I apologize for any confusion.

The Man · Aug 7, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Let us distinguish between (AB) and (A,B) or (ABC) and (A,B,C).

OK,

doronshadmi said:
Time is not involved here, you simply use (A,B) superposition collapse of the variables themselves if you wish to use them by some expression (A²=B, in this case)

If you are going to claim simultaneity or the lack of it, then time is quite specifically involved as simultaneous means ‘at the same time’. You said…

doronshadmi said:
Not simultaneously, The Man, not simultaneously, and if it is a sum (as done in C=A+B), then the sum is some strict single value.

So again…

The Man said:
Fine then by all means please tell us the minimum amount of time that must pass, when B=25, between when A=-5 and when A=5?

Or perhaps at what time of day -5²=25 but 5² doesn't?

In case you have not realized "B" can represent a non-zero time (say in munities). So with both positive and negative solutions for B^-2 as "A", "A" quite literally is both positive and negative at the same time (simultaneously).

doronshadmi said:
Again The Man, you still do not grasp that (AB) or (ABC) are the superposition of the variables themselves, where (A,B) or (A,B,C) are the superposition collapse of these variables, which enables expressions like A²=B or C=A+B.

Again Doron you simply refuse to grasp that your “superposition”, by your own assertions, is not a superposition and that you simply using the word “collapse” will not mystically imbue your non-superposition “superposition” with some quantum like properties whatever you may think they are.

doronshadmi said:
Again, stop simply force your inability to distinguish between (AB) (which is an example of variables under superposition) and (A,B) (which is an example of variables under superposition collapse) onto others.

Again stop simply lying about your “superposition” being a superposition, which you claim yourself you do not use.

doronshadmi said:
The rest of your post is derived from your inability.

More details can be found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7443804&postcount=16202.

All of your posts derive from your deliberate ignorance of mathematics and your apparently compulsive need to lie about what you claim your own notions do not use.

doronshadmi said:
You can't, exactly because your BS covers your mind, as can be seen all along this thread.

Then don’t lie about what you now claim you know I was not and could not have been using. Continuing this compulsive lying of yours about what you assert, what some article asserts and what others have asserted will not help you and fools evidently only you.

doronshadmi said:
A²=B or C=A+B are expressions of superposition collapse of the variables themselves.

No “A²=B” is an expression where the square of variable “A” is set equal to variable “B” and “C=A+B” is an expression where variable “C” is set equal to the sum of variables “A” and “B”. Again please learn what a superposition is, why it is in reference to linear systems and what the collapse of a state vector means. Simply lying and conflating your nonsense with what you would like it to mean has gotten you nowhere for 20 some odd years and will continue to do just that. Waste your entire life if you want Doron, but there are people here and elsewhere that can and have been trying to help you. The choice however remains entirely yours.

The Man · Aug 7, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Look as this:

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform )
In other words, since superposition is involved in non-strict quantum states that are collapsed into some strict state by some measurement, there is no equivalence between the classical Fourier transform that acts on a vector (which is a set of strict values) and the natural non-strict state of quantum superposition (in this case the members of the vector are under superposition (their ids are uncertain)).

Here is the Hebrew version of this part

and its translation to English is:

"On the other hand,
(,מאידך)
while the "classic" operation operates on vector's values,
(,בעוד הפעולה ה"קלאסית" פועלת על וקטור של ערכים)
the quantum operation is on a quantum state that is found in superposition,
(,הפעולה הקוונטית הינה על מצב קוונטי הנמצא בסופרפוזיציה)
when the coefficients describe the values of the equivalent classical vector.
(.כאשר המקדמים מתארים את ערכי הווקטור הקלאסי השקול)
Since direct measurement of the coefficients' values of quantum superposition can't be done,
(,מכיוון שלא ניתן לבצע מדידה ישירה של ערכי המקדמים בסופרפוזיציה קוונטית)
the equivalence is incomplete,
(,השקילות אינה מלאה)
and there is no exponential improvement for the transformation's implementation in general.
(.ולא ניתן לקבל שיפור מעריכי עבור ביצוע ההתמרה באופן כללי)"

Again read the whole article particularly the definition instead of just the introduction.

doronshadmi said:
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform )
In other words, by transforming (AB) superposition into (A,B) superposition collapse, the classical discrete Fourier transform applied to the vector of (strict) amplitudes of a quantum state (which is not under superposition anymore).

The article defines a Quantum Fourier transform in none of your “other words”. Stop lying about what the articles you cite, but evidently never actually read, say. Here is a clue to help you in the future Doron, if you have to use your own “other words” then there is a good chance those “other words” are not what the article says.

Please show where that article specifically claims a “superposition collapse” or “a quantum state (which is not under superposition anymore)”, otherwise stop just lying about what the article does assert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

Again please at least learn something…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit#Qubit_states

Qubit states
A pure qubit state is a linear superposition of the basis states. This means that the qubit can be represented as a linear combination of and :

Oh look “A pure qubit state is a linear superposition of the basis states” that being the superposition you specifically claim you do not use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit#Operations_on_pure_qubit_states

Operations on pure qubit states
There are various kinds of physical operations that can be performed on pure qubit states.[citation needed]
• A quantum logic gate can operate on a qubit: mathematically speaking, the qubit undergoes a unitary transformation. Unitary transformations correspond to rotations of the Bloch sphere.
• Standard basis measurement is an operation in which information is gained about the state of the qubit. The result of the measurement will be either , with probability | α | 2, or , with probability | β | 2. Measurement of the state of the qubit alters the values of α and β. For instance, if the result of the measurement is , α is changed to 1 (up to phase) and β is changed to 0. Note that a measurement of a qubit state entangled with another quantum system transforms a pure state into a mixed state.

“Unitary transformations” on qubit states? That sounds familiar, oh yes a Quantum Fourier transform is a unitary transformation on qubit states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform#Unitarity

Unitarity
Most of the properties of the quantum Fourier transform follow from the fact that it is a unitary transformation.

As well as...

Quantum Fourier transform
In quantum computing, the quantum Fourier transform is a linear transformation on quantum bits, and is the quantum analogue of the discrete Fourier transform.

a linear transformation.

Funny how math works and your lying, conflation and deliberate ignorance doesn’t (except evidently on just you). Please stop being deliberately ignorant, lying and trying to conflate your nonsense with what works and instead just learn at least something Doron.

doronshadmi · Aug 7, 2011

The Man said:
Funny how math works and your lying,

Not funny how your step-by-step left-hemisphere-only reasoning prevents from you to grasp a simple notion line "superposition of the variables themselves", which actually shows how the mathematical science itself is nothing but a particular case of more comprehensive framework, which is parallel (under superposition of non-strict ids), serial (under superposition collapse of strict ids) and any possible intermediate state between them.

And again, time is not involved here.

No wonder that you can't grasp something like

because step-by-step left-hemisphere-only reasoning (which is all that is for you) is nothing but some particular case of it.

doronshadmi · Aug 7, 2011

The Man said:
Again read the whole article particularly the definition instead of just the introduction.

The definitions of the article are based only on the classical Fourier transform exactly because direct measurement of the coefficients' values of quantum superposition can't be done, as written here:

doronshadmi said:
"On the other hand,
(,מאידך)
while the "classic" operation operates on vector's values,
(,בעוד הפעולה ה"קלאסית" פועלת על וקטור של ערכים)
the quantum operation is on a quantum state that is found in superposition,
(,הפעולה הקוונטית הינה על מצב קוונטי הנמצא בסופרפוזיציה)
when the coefficients describe the values of the equivalent classical vector.
(.כאשר המקדמים מתארים את ערכי הווקטור הקלאסי השקול)
Since direct measurement of the coefficients' values of quantum superposition can't be done,
(,מכיוון שלא ניתן לבצע מדידה ישירה של ערכי המקדמים בסופרפוזיציה קוונטית)
the equivalence is incomplete,
(,השקילות אינה מלאה)
and there is no exponential improvement for the transformation's implementation in general.
(.ולא ניתן לקבל שיפור מעריכי עבור ביצוע ההתמרה באופן כללי)"

and supported here:

the quantum Fourier transform acts on a quantum state, whereas the classical Fourier transform acts on a vector, so the quantum Fourier transform can not give a generic exponential speedup for any task which requires the classical Fourier transform.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform )

Persons like you, The Man, that can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7450437&postcount=16217, have no choice but to define frameworks that are limited only to strict ids.

Simply lying and conflating your nonsense with what you would like it to mean has gotten you nowhere for 20 some odd years and will continue to do just that. Waste your entire life if you want Doron, but there are people here and elsewhere that can and have been trying to help you. The choice however remains entirely yours.

Your reasoning uses a spotlight in order to research the natural life of night creatures.

Go ahead dig yourself under your spotlight

The Man · Aug 7, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Not funny how your step-by-step left-hemisphere-only reasoning prevents from you to grasp a simple notion line "superposition of the variables themselves", which actually shows how the mathematical science itself is nothing but a particular case of more comprehensive framework, which is parallel (under superposition of non-strict ids), serial (under superposition collapse of strict ids) and any possible intermediate state between them.

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

doronshadmi said:
And again, time is not involved here.

So are you claiming that your “simultaneously” does not involve simultaneity? Given your “superposition” that you claim does not use superposition that would hardly be an unusual assertion from you.

doronshadmi said:
No wonder that you can't grasp something like
[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6146/6017791855_661f47be5b_b.jpg[/qimg]
because step-by-step left-hemisphere-only reasoning (which is all that is for you) is nothing but some particular case of it.

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

The Man · Aug 7, 2011

doronshadmi said:
The definitions of the article are based only on the classical Fourier transform exactly because direct measurement of the coefficients' values of quantum superposition can't be done, as written here:

No Doron the actual definition states clearly (as quoted before)…

The quantum Fourier transform is the classical discrete Fourier transform applied to the vector of amplitudes of a quantum state.

Again read the definition not just the introduction.

doronshadmi said:
and supported here:

Here is the English version of the section of the introduction you keep quoting.

However, the quantum Fourier transform acts on a quantum state, whereas the classical Fourier transform acts on a vector, so the quantum Fourier transform can not give a generic exponential speedup for any task which requires the classical Fourier transform.

No support for you Doron.

Here is the full pharagragh from the introduction that you just keep quoting a single line from.

The quantum Fourier transform can be performed efficiently on a quantum computer, with a particular decomposition into a product of simpler unitary matrices. Using a simple decomposition, the discrete Fourier transform can be implemented as a quantum circuit consisting of only O(n²) Hadamard gates and controlled phase shift gates, where n is the number of qubits.[1] This can be compared with the classical discrete Fourier transform, which takes O(n2ⁿ) gates (where n is the number of bits), which is exponentially more than O(n²). However, the quantum Fourier transform acts on a quantum state, whereas the classical Fourier transform acts on a vector, so the quantum Fourier transform can not give a generic exponential speedup for any task which requires the classical Fourier transform.

Clearly Referring to the “O(n2ⁿ) gates (where n is the number of bits), which is exponentially more than O(n²)” as the reason for the inapplicability of the quantum Fourier transform to “give a generic exponential speedup for any task which requires the classical Fourier transform”.

That the Hebrew version for some reason refers to a direct measurement…

As in this alternate translation of the one line from the introduction you keep quoting.

On the other hand, in another the action H"klasit " works on vector of values, the action Hkwntit is on situation of my situated quantum Bsoprpozitsia, when the coefficients describe principled Hwktor the classic the weighed. Inasmuch as that it's impossible to execute a direct measurement of principled the coefficients Bsoprpozitsia Kwntit, the equivalence is not full, and it's impossible to receive an improvement of my assessor for execution Hhtmra in general

Is irrelevant as it specifically refers to such “direct measurement” as being “impossible”. Your own translation Doron specifically refutes your claims of “superposition collapse” or “a quantum state (which is not under superposition anymore)” as it asserts such direct measurement “can't be done”.

doronshadmi said:
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform )

Persons like you, The Man, that can't get grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7450437&postcount=16217, have no choice but to define frameworks that are limited only to strict ids.

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

epix · Aug 8, 2011

doronshadmi said:
More about 2^N Quantum Computing and qubits' superposition:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...new-record-register-with-14-quantum-bits.html

( see also http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7447672&postcount=16208 )

I didn't help. Just can't write down the matrix for N = 4.

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/QuantumFourierTransformCircuit/

Can you? You seem to have extended knowledge of the topic.

doronshadmi · Aug 8, 2011

The Man said:
Is irrelevant as it specifically refers to such “direct measurement” as being “impossible”.

It is impossible from the classical point of view, which is based only on strict ids of the members of a given vector, which has strict ids as a result of superposition collapse (where this result is not under superposition of ids anymore, or by analogy: "Using a spotlight prevents the ability to research the natural life of night creatures").

The Man said:
Your own translation Doron specifically refutes your claims of “superposition collapse” or “a quantum state (which is not under superposition anymore)” as it asserts such direct measurement “can't be done”.

Your are not aware of the influence of your current research methods (called "direct research methods") on the researched subject (which cause its collapse) exactly because your reasoning is tuned to deal only with strict ids, which are isparable results of your direct research methods.

In other words, you are closed under circular reasoning, where the research methods define the researched subjects only in the state of strict ids, which gives the illusion that superposition states are not reachable unless they are strict ids.

Again your left-hemisphere-only reasoning is not aware of its limitations exactly because your mind is closed by it (can't get anything beyond it).

You are nothing but a person that says NO in "Collapsing wavefunctions?" column of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics table, exactly because you are left-only hemisphere person that has no tolerance to Uncertainty, Indeterminate, Vagueness, etc. ... (and your "spotlight" research methods actually provide the initial conditions in order to deal only with strict ids, which are the result of superposition collapse that was done by you (in other words, you are under a closed self-made state of strict-only framework)).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7450437&postcount=16217 opens this circularity, but you simply can't get it.

The Man said:
Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

Your reasoning uses a spotlight in order to research the natural life of night creatures.

Go ahead dig yourself under your spotlight

[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6148/6018843906_1a874ef6e6_z.jpg[/qimg]

It is about time to leave self diggers like you behind, and move forward.

doronshadmi · Aug 8, 2011

epix said:
You seem to have extended knowledge of the topic.

Yes, by not being limited only to base 2, as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7447672&postcount=16208 .

The Man · Aug 8, 2011

doronshadmi said:
It is impossible from the classical point of view, which is based only on strict ids of the members of a given vector, which has strict ids as a result of superposition collapse (where this result is not under superposition of ids anymore, or by analogy: "Using a spotlight prevents the ability to research the natural life of night creatures").

Please learn the difference between ‘classical’ and ‘quantum’ applications as your assertions above demonstrate that you, as yet, have not. To try to put it succinctly for you ‘classical’ applications deal with continuous values while ‘quantum’ applications involve discrete values. By actually: just making up self-contradictory crap won’t get you anywhere or help you to learn anything Doron.

doronshadmi said:
Your are not aware of the influence of your current research methods (called "direct research methods") on the researched subject (which cause its collapse) exactly because your reasoning is tuned to deal only with strict ids, which are isparable results of your direct research methods.

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others

doronshadmi said:
In other words, you are closed under circular reasoning, where the research methods define the researched subjects only in the state of strict ids, which gives the illusion that superposition states are not reachable unless they are strict ids.

No Doron in the same words I used before, your own translation refutes your claims.

doronshadmi said:
Again your left-hemisphere-only reasoning is not aware of its limitations exactly because your mind is closed by it (can't get anything beyond it).

Also stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own half brained notions onto others.

doronshadmi said:
You are nothing but a person that says NO in "Collapsing wavefunctions?" column of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics table, exactly because you are left-only hemisphere person that has no tolerance to Uncertainty, Indeterminate, Vagueness, etc. ... (and your "spotlight" research methods actually provide the initial conditions in order to deal only with strict ids, which are the result of superposition collapse that was done by you (in other words, you are under a closed self-made state of strict-only framework)).

“says NO in "Collapsing wavefunctions?” Stop lying Doron, I have never made any such statement or the other assertions you claim above. In fact quite the contrary, I have clearly stated previously that the "Collapsing wavefunctions?” result in a more defined peak in the probability distribution and that any variable can be “Indeterminate”. You are nothing but a compulsive liar Doron.

doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7450437&postcount=16217 opens this circularity, but you simply can't get it.

“opens this circularity”? That makes even less sense than usual for you Doron. It’s your post Doron if you don’t like whatever “circularity” you think it “opens” then I would recommend you make more of an effort to make better posts

doronshadmi said:
Your reasoning uses a spotlight in order to research the natural life of night creatures.

Go ahead dig yourself under your spotlight

[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6148/6018843906_1a874ef6e6_z.jpg[/qimg]

It is about time to leave self diggers like you behind, and move forward.

You just lie to yourself and fallaciously expect to simply lie to (and about) everyone else as efficaciously. It’s about time you just stopped lying Doron and at least learned something.

epix · Aug 8, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Yes, by not being limited only to base 2, as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7447672&postcount=16208 .

Your reply speaks loud and clear of hoplesness: Even the explicit graphics that accompanied my request didn't help you to understand what I asked you to do. Spoon-bending Uri at least knows how to fake the paranormal . . .

Bases > 2 don't speed up the processing, coz additional components must be included in the system that would monitor the amount of voltage applied, as opposed to circuit closed/opened or absence/presence of the current.

doronshadmi · Aug 9, 2011

The Man said:
Please learn the difference between ‘classical’ and ‘quantum’ applications as your assertions above demonstrate that you, as yet, have not. To try to put it succinctly for you ‘classical’ applications deal with continuous values while ‘quantum’ applications involve discrete values. By actually: just making up self-contradictory crap won’t get you anywhere or help you to learn anything Doron.

Please learn the difference between uncertain ids under superposition, and certain ids under superposition collapse of the variables themselves (no matter if continuous or discrete values are involved with the given variables).

You will not find it in any paper that deals only with strict variables (variables under superposition collapse), exactly because papers that are based only on superposition collapse are written by scholars that use only their brain's left-hemisphere.

Once again, the power of the continuum is actually a property of at least 1-dimensional space, and no amount of 0-dimensional spaces actually reaches that power.

This fact is rigorously and immediately understood by using both brain's hemispheres, where the right-hemisphere provides the spatial\parallel abilities of the brain and the left hemisphere provides that verbal\serial\step-by-step(analytic) abilities of the brain, under a one comprehensive framework.

Your left-hemisphere-only reasoning can't get the actual power of the continuum and can't get the difference between superposition of ids and parallel-ism, and superposition collapse and serial-ism.

As a result you

The Man said:
"have clearly stated previously that the "Collapsing wavefunctions?” result in a more defined peak in the probability distribution and that any variable can be “Indeterminate”.

which is a complete nonsense simply because the pics are indeterminate only under the parallel-ism of superposition of ids, as seen if the two silts are opened (actually what is considered as a single strict photon is interfered with itself, such that its id is under superposition, or in other words, the single photon has no strict id when the two silts are opened).

Enter it into your mind: when both silts are opened the wavefunctions is not collapsed (there is a superposition of ids).

The wavefunction is collapsed (there is no superposition of ids), if a single silt is opened.

In other words: the "Collapsing wavefunctions?” result in a less defined peak in the probability distribution and that any variable can be “determinate” (there is no superposition of ids).

-------

Furthermore:

Localily stands at the basis of wavefunction collapse (superposition is collapsed), which is characterized by strict id, exactly as observed if only a single silt is opened.

Non-local stands at the basis of wavefunction that is not collapsed (superposition is not collapsed), which is characterized by non-strict id, exactly as observed if both silts are opened.

Here is your reply about this subject ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5977247&postcount=10004 ):

The Man said:
Actually we describe that pattern as simply a sine wave or a superposition of sine waves of the same frequency.

Again from the Uncertainty principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the absolute position of a particle. It could be anywhere the particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet. To obtain an accurate reading of position, this wave packet must be 'compressed' as much as possible, meaning it must be made up of increasing numbers of sine waves added together. The momentum of the particle is proportional to the wavelength of one of these waves, but it could be any of them. So a more accurate position measurement–by adding together more waves–means the momentum measurement becomes less accurate (and vice versa).

Click to expand...

*bolding added

As the peak of the wave packet becomes more localized the frequencies of the sine waves in superposition become more distributed around a single frequency. As the peak of the wave packet becomes less localized the frequencies of the sine waves in superposition become less distributed around a single frequency.

Again the single slit pattern can be described as a supposition of wave patterns distributed in frequency while the double slit pattern can be only by described as a superposition of waves of a single frequency.

The single photon however only strikes one place on the screen, its interaction with the screen is always very highly localized. The patterns only result from a significant number of photon interaction with the screen.

The patterns represent probability destitutions of finding a photon has impacted some part of the screen and those distributions are represented as I described above.

Again Doron please learn the actual math and the meaning of concept like superposition.

As can clearly be seen, the traditional understanding, which is based only on left-hemisphere reasoning, simply misses the direct proportion of being non-local AND non-strict and being local AND strict.

If both hemispheres are used, this direct proportion is immediately understood.

doronshadmi · Aug 9, 2011

Let us correct my previous post, it is badly written:

Here is the some wrong part:

----------

doronshadmi said:
As a result you

The Man said:

"have clearly stated previously that the "Collapsing wavefunctions?” result in a more defined peak in the probability distribution and that any variable can be “Indeterminate”.

Click to expand...

which is a complete nonsense simply because the pics are indeterminate only under the parallel-ism of superposition of ids, as seen if the two silts are opened (actually what is considered as a single strict photon is interfered with itself, such that its id is under superposition, or in other words, the single photon has no strict id when the two silts are opened).

Enter it into your mind: when both silts are opened the wavefunctions is not collapsed (there is a superposition of ids).

The wavefunction is collapsed (there is no superposition of ids), if a single silt is opened.

In other words: the "Collapsing wavefunctions?” result in a less defined peak in the probability distribution and that any variable can be “determinate” (there is no superposition of ids).

-------

Here is the correction:

--------------

As a result you

The Man said:
"have clearly stated previously that the "Collapsing wavefunctions?” result in a more defined peak in the probability distribution and that any variable can be “Indeterminate”.

which is a complete nonsense simply because "a more defined peak in the probability distribution" (there is a clear single peak) is exactly the result of one open silt, which is defiantly under superposition collapse, or in other words, the ids are strict.

Enter it into your mind: when both silts are opened the wavefunctions is not collapsed (there is a superposition of ids).

The wavefunction is collapsed (there is no superposition of ids), if a single silt is opened (there is a clear single peak).

In other words: the "Collapsing wavefunctions?” result in a more defined peak in the probability distribution and that any variable can be “determinate” (there is no superposition of ids since there is a clear single peak).

--------------

Here is the result of a single silt pattern experiment:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Single_slit_intensity_distribution.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/muls1.gif[/qimg]

Here is the result of a double silt pattern experiment:
[qimg]http://sciencevault.net/11hscphys/82worldcommunicates/pics/822%20Diffraction%20pattern.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/mulsi2.gif[/qimg]

As clearly can be seen, a single silt pattern has a clear single peak (it is local and there is no superposition of ids), where a double silt pattern does not have a clear single peak (it is non-local and there is superposition of ids).

------------------------------------------------------------------

Also let us correct my wrong criticism about the following wiki page:

Again from the Uncertainty principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the absolute position of a particle. It could be anywhere the particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet. To obtain an accurate reading of position, this wave packet must be 'compressed' as much as possible, meaning it must be made up of increasing numbers of sine waves added together. The momentum of the particle is proportional to the wavelength of one of these waves, but it could be any of them. So a more accurate position measurement–by adding together more waves–means the momentum measurement becomes less accurate (and vice versa).

*bolding added

If we increasing the numbers of sine waves of a given wave packet that are added together (they are 'compressed' as much as possible) we get the single silt pattern, for example:

which is definitely local AND strict (the measurement of position is more accurate).

If we decreasing the numbers of sine waves of a given wave packet that are added together (they are not 'compressed' as much as possible) we get the two open silts pattern, for example:

which is definitely non-local AND non-strict (the measurement of position is less accurate).

In other words, The Man does not understand the Uncertainty principle, and how it is related to the Double silts experiment.

----------------------------------

Here is the correction of the first part of the previous post:

The Man said:
Please learn the difference between ‘classical’ and ‘quantum’ applications as your assertions above demonstrate that you, as yet, have not. To try to put it succinctly for you ‘classical’ applications deal with continuous values while ‘quantum’ applications involve discrete values. By actually: just making up self-contradictory crap won’t get you anywhere or help you to learn anything Doron.

Please learn the difference between uncertain ids under superposition, and certain ids under superposition collapse of the variables themselves (no matter if continuous or discrete values are involved with the given variables).

For example ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution ):

is an example of discrete and strict ids.

is an example of continuous and strict ids.

Please pay attention that both cases have the same pattern of one open silt:

You will not find superposition of ids in any paper that deals only with strict variables (which are variables under superposition collapse), exactly because papers that are based only on superposition collapse are written by scholars that use only their brain's left-hemisphere.

Once again, the power of the continuum is actually a property of at least 1-dimensional space, and no amount of 0-dimensional spaces actually reaches that power.

This fact is rigorously and immediately understood by using both brain's hemispheres, where the right-hemisphere provides the spatial\parallel abilities of the brain and the left hemisphere provides that verbal\serial\step-by-step(analytic) abilities of the brain, under a one comprehensive framework.

Your left-hemisphere-only reasoning can't get the actual power of the continuum and can't get the difference between superposition of ids and parallel-ism, and superposition collapse and serial-ism (no matter if it is continuous or discrete) .

doronshadmi · Aug 9, 2011

The Man said:
( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5977247&postcount=10004 )
Actually we describe such a Patten as a superposition of sine waves of different freaqancies.

Well, actually different frequencies is a superposition collapse state, which enables the strict id of different frequencies, which are 'compressed' around a given strict peak. In other words, the superposition is collapsed around a well positioned peak (or in other words, it is local).

So, in this case we have (local AND strict ids) framework (superposition collapse).

The Man said:
( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5977247&postcount=10004 )
Actually we describe that pattern as simply a sine wave or a superposition of sine waves of the same frequency.

Well, actually the same frequency is the absence of a single peak around a particular value, or in other words the system is under superposition, which does not able the appearance of different strict frequencies around a given strict peak. In other words, the superposition is not collapsed around a well positioned peak (or in other words, it is non-local).

So, in this case we have (non-local AND non-strict ids) framework (superposition).

--------------------------------------------

As can be seen, The Man, left-hemisphere-only reasoning can't deal with real superposition.

The Man · Aug 10, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Please learn the difference between uncertain ids under superposition, and certain ids under superposition collapse of the variables themselves (no matter if continuous or discrete values are involved with the given variables).

Doron learn to use words that mean what you want to say and not simply say “superposition” that you claim does not use superposition. Until you do you are just talking deliberately self-contradictory nonsense.

doronshadmi said:
You will not find it in any paper that deals only with strict variables (variables under superposition collapse), exactly because papers that are based only on superposition collapse are written by scholars that use only their brain's left-hemisphere.

You will not find, by your own assertions any superposition in your “superposition” so your bemoaning of what “You will not find” is just a result of your own deliberately self-contradictory nonsense.

Oh, and stop simply trying to posit your half-brain notions onto others.

doronshadmi said:
Once again, the power of the continuum is actually a property of at least 1-dimensional space, and no amount of 0-dimensional spaces actually reaches that power.

Once again, nonsense. So does this “power” you refer to involve, well, power or is it a non-power “power” like your non-superposition “superposition”

doronshadmi said:
This fact is rigorously and immediately understood by using both brain's hemispheres, where the right-hemisphere provides the spatial\parallel abilities of the brain and the left hemisphere provides that verbal\serial\step-by-step(analytic) abilities of the brain, under a one comprehensive framework.

Your left-hemisphere-only reasoning can't get the actual power of the continuum and can't get the difference between superposition of ids and parallel-ism, and superposition collapse and serial-ism.

Stop simply trying to posit your half-brain notions onto others.

doronshadmi said:
As a result you
which is a complete nonsense simply because the pics are indeterminate only under the parallel-ism of superposition of ids, as seen if the two silts are opened (actually what is considered as a single strict photon is interfered with itself, such that its id is under superposition, or in other words, the single photon has no strict id when the two silts are opened).

Enter it into your mind: when both silts are opened the wavefunctions is not collapsed (there is a superposition of ids).

The wavefunction is collapsed (there is no superposition of ids), if a single silt is opened.

In other words: the "Collapsing wavefunctions?” result in a less defined peak in the probability distribution and that any variable can be “determinate” (there is no superposition of ids).

‘Oh waiter, I ordered the cheeseburger not the word salad’

doronshadmi said:
-------

Furthermore:

Localily stands at the basis of wavefunction collapse (superposition is collapsed), which is characterized by strict id, exactly as observed if only a single silt is opened.

Non-local stands at the basis of wavefunction that is not collapsed (superposition is not collapsed), which is characterized by non-strict id, exactly as observed if both silts are opened.

That’s ok Doron we already know you don’t understand the double slit experiment, no need to demonstrate that fact again.

doronshadmi said:
Here is your reply about this subject ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5977247&postcount=10004 ):

I’m quite aware of my pervious posts, thank you.

doronshadmi said:
As can clearly be seen, the traditional understanding, which is based only on left-hemisphere reasoning, simply misses the direct proportion of being non-local AND non-strict and being local AND strict.

If both hemispheres are used, this direct proportion is immediately understood.

Stop simply trying to posit your half-brain notions onto others.

doronshadmi said:
Let us correct my previous post, it is badly written:

With that as your criteria, you’ve got a lot of correcting to do.

doronshadmi said:
Here is the some wrong part:

----------

-------

Here is the correction:

--------------

As a result you

which is a complete nonsense simply because "a more defined peak in the probability distribution" (there is a clear single peak) is exactly the result of one open silt, which is defiantly under superposition collapse, or in other words, the ids are strict.

Enter it into your mind: when both silts are opened the wavefunctions is not collapsed (there is a superposition of ids).

The wavefunction is collapsed (there is no superposition of ids), if a single silt is opened (there is a clear single peak).

In other words: the "Collapsing wavefunctions?” result in a more defined peak in the probability distribution and that any variable can be “determinate” (there is no superposition of ids since there is a clear single peak).

--------------

Here is the result of a single silt pattern experiment:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Single_slit_intensity_distribution.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/muls1.gif[/qimg]

Here is the result of a double silt pattern experiment:
[qimg]http://sciencevault.net/11hscphys/82worldcommunicates/pics/822%20Diffraction%20pattern.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/mulsi2.gif[/qimg]

As clearly can be seen, a single silt pattern has a clear single peak (it is local and there is no superposition of ids), where a double silt pattern does not have a clear single peak (it is non-local and there is superposition of ids).

------------------------------------------------------------------

Find the double slit pattern when one looks through which slit each photon went (when the two slit interference pattern ‘collapses’) and see what you get.

doronshadmi said:
Also let us correct my wrong criticism about the following wiki page:

Another criteria that’s going to give you a lot of correcting to do.

doronshadmi said:
Again from the Uncertainty principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

*bolding added

If we increasing the numbers of sine waves of a given wave packet that are added together (they are 'compressed' as much as possible) we get the single silt pattern, for example:
[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/muls1.gif[/qimg]
which is definitely local AND strict (the measurement of position is more accurate).

“Numbers of sine waves of a given wave packet that are added together”? So you mean the number of waves in superposition (not your “superposition” that does not use superposition).

doronshadmi said:
If we decreasing the numbers of sine waves of a given wave packet that are added together (they are not 'compressed' as much as possible) we get the two open silts pattern, for example:
[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/mulsi2.gif[/qimg]
which is definitely non-local AND non-strict (the measurement of position is less accurate).

“Numbers of sine waves of a given wave packet that are added together”? So you mean the number of waves in superposition (not your “superposition” that does not use superposition).

doronshadmi said:
In other words, The Man does not understand the Uncertainty principle, and how it is related to the Double silts experiment.

Evidently I understand it better than you and your non-superposition “superposition”. How about that part of the “Double silts experiment” where one actually looks at which slit the each photon goes through, you seem to be deliberately ignoring that part. This is the most significant part of the experiment.

doronshadmi said:
----------------------------------

Here is the correction of the first part of the previous post:

Please learn the difference between uncertain ids under superposition, and certain ids under superposition collapse of the variables themselves (no matter if continuous or discrete values are involved with the given variables).

For example ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution ):

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Dice_Distribution_%28bar%29.svg/500px-Dice_Distribution_%28bar%29.svg.png[/qimg]
is an example of discrete and strict ids.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg/500px-Standard_deviation_diagram.svg.png[/qimg]
is an example of continuous and strict ids.

Please pay attention that both cases have the same pattern of one open silt:

[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/muls1.gif[/qimg]

You will not find superposition of ids in any paper that deals only with strict variables (which are variables under superposition collapse), exactly because papers that are based only on superposition collapse are written by scholars that use only their brain's left-hemisphere.

Once again, the power of the continuum is actually a property of at least 1-dimensional space, and no amount of 0-dimensional spaces actually reaches that power.

This fact is rigorously and immediately understood by using both brain's hemispheres, where the right-hemisphere provides the spatial\parallel abilities of the brain and the left hemisphere provides that verbal\serial\step-by-step(analytic) abilities of the brain, under a one comprehensive framework.

Your left-hemisphere-only reasoning can't get the actual power of the continuum and can't get the difference between superposition of ids and parallel-ism, and superposition collapse and serial-ism (no matter if it is continuous or discrete) .

You claimed a “correction”, please clearly indentify the error fist and then clearly indentify the correction.

doronshadmi said:
[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/muls1.gif[/qimg]

Well, actually different frequencies is a superposition collapse state, which enables the strict id of different frequencies, which are 'compressed' around a given strict peak. In other words, the superposition is collapsed around a well positioned peak (or in other words, it is local).

Nope different frequencies added together is a superposition and as your “superposition” does not use superposition a “superposition collapse” of your “superposition” is a given. Yes a single slit has a well defined position peak but the frequencies involved are more broadly distributed. Try a spectrogram, amplitude by frequency not just amplitude by time. Please learn something Doron.

doronshadmi said:
So, in this case we have (local AND strict ids) framework (superposition collapse).

Nope, again look at a spectrogram, the distribution of frequencies and their amplitudes.

doronshadmi said:
[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/mulsi2.gif[/qimg]

Well, actually the same frequency is the absence of a single peak around a particular value, or in other words the system is under superposition, which does not able the appearance of different strict frequencies around a given strict peak. In other words, the superposition is not collapsed around a well positioned peak (or in other words, it is non-local).

So, in this case we have (non-local AND non-strict ids) framework (superposition).

Nope a single frequency is a well defined peak around the value of that frequency. Again look at a spectrogram and please learn something.

doronshadmi said:
--------------------------------------------

As can be seen, The Man, left-hemisphere-only reasoning can't deal with real superposition.

Stop simply trying to posit your half-brain notions onto others.

epix · Aug 10, 2011

doronshadmi said:
For example ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution ):

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Dice_Distribution_%28bar%29.svg/500px-Dice_Distribution_%28bar%29.svg.png[/qimg]
is an example of discrete and strict ids.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg/500px-Standard_deviation_diagram.svg.png[/qimg]
is an example of continuous and strict ids.

Can you kindly disclose what is the "strict ids" in the normal distribution graph?

The Man · Aug 10, 2011

epix said:
Can you kindly disclose what is the "strict ids" in the normal distribution graph?

Sorry epix, as distributions in probability, frequency and/or time* don't explicitly assert a physically spacial position they must be deliberately ignored by the Doronic fixation on just physically spacial positions.

*When dealing with light, time and space (physically spacial position) are directly convertible by the constant C. The other mentioned distributions involve positions in the mathematical spaces that they are mapped.

doronshadmi · Aug 10, 2011

The Man said:
How about that part of the “Double silts experiment” where one actually looks at which slit the each photon goes through, you seem to be deliberately ignoring that part. This is the most significant part of the experiment.

By using strong measurement (which has a significant influence on the measured) the wave pattern of the two open silts case is collapsed into a well positioned peak, similar to the pattern of the single silt case.

From a local point of view, the wave pattern is a signature of the superposition of non-strict localities, which are collapsed into a well positioned peak pattern of strict localities by uning strong measurement.

Be aware that the appearance on the screen detector is characterized by a set of well positioned particles (=strict locality), exactly because the screen itself causes the collapse of the momentum (=non strict locality), which is characterized by wave pattern (which is a signature of non-locality of localities).

Strong measurement actually tries to measure the accurate position of a single particle after it passes the barrier of two open silts, by using small amount of measurements with significant influence on the measured.

This measurement style prevents the accurate results of both position (=strict locality) and momentum (=non strict locality), so according to this measurement position and momentum prevent each other at the quantum level.

Weak measurement ( as developed by Yakir Aharonov and recently tested by Aephraim Steinberg http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110602/full/news.2011.344.html ) measures the position of a single particle after it passes the barrier with two open silts, by using a very large amount of measurements with insignificant influence on the measured, where the result is the average of this large amount of measurements.

According to this measurement style, it is possible to reconstruct the paths (=non-locality) for an ensemble of quantum particles, which actually enables to measure both the momentum (=non strict locality) and position (=strict locality) of quantum objects and getting more precise results of both of them (the non-local (wave-like) and the local (particle-like) properties of quantum objects do not prevent each other if weak measurement is used (they prevent each other if strong measurement is used)).

No matter what measurement style is used, it does not change the fact of the existence of Non-locality (path) and Locality (position) as fundamentals of quantum objects.

It also does not change the fact that Non-locality and Locality can be in superposition of ids, that is collapsed into strict ids, as follows:

A=”Non-locality”
B=”Locality”

n=2

n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is some particular example of a novel model, which shows exactly how a mixture of states in superposition (AB,AB) are collapsed into single outcomes (A,B):

Code:

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.

The universe of single outcomes is the particular case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1) under the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree.

The Man said:
different frequencies added together is a superposition

Wrong, it can't be a superposition since different frequencies can be ordered around a strict pack, which is larger than the other peaks (or in other words, it is local).

The Man said:
a single frequency is a well defined peak around the value of that frequency.

You are right, I did not write it correctly, here is the correct one:

Well, the system is under superposition, which does not able the appearance of different strict frequencies around a given strict peak, which is larger than the other peaks. In other words, the superposition is not collapsed around a well positioned peak (or in other words, it is non-local).

doronshadmi · Aug 10, 2011

Let's correct the following part of my previous post.

Instead of

doronshadmi said:
Be aware that the appearance on the screen detector is characterized by a set of well positioned particles (=strict locality), exactly because the screen itself causes the collapse of the momentum (=non strict locality), which is characterized by wave pattern (which is a signature of non-locality of localities).

it has to be

Be aware that the appearance on the screen detector is characterized by a set of well positioned particles (=strict locality), exactly because the screen itself causes the collapse of the momentum (=non strict locality), which is characterized by wave pattern (where the wave pattern is the signature of non-locality which causes superposition among localities, such that they can't be ordered around a given peak, which is larger than all other peaks around it).

doronshadmi · Aug 10, 2011

The Man said:
Try a spectrogram, amplitude by frequency not just amplitude by time. Please learn something Doron.

1) The amplitude can be by spacetime.

2) If time is not involved, then by using only (physical or mathematical) space, the amplitude of the sin wave of the same frequency does not able the appearance of different strict frequencies around a given strict peak, which is larger than the other peaks. In other words, the superposition is not collapsed around a well positioned peak (or in other words, it is non-local).

Please learn something The Man, instead of just technically using "Fourier transform, which decomposes a function into the sum of a (potentially infinite) number of sine wave frequency components." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_domain ).

Reductionism-only (decomposition of a function, in this case) can't provide a meaningful understanding of the considered subject, The Man.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7459226&postcount=16229 your reductionist-step-by-step-only reasoning clearly airs its view, as follows:

You replied in details to the wrong post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7456081&postcount=16226 exactly because you do not get the whole picture before you reply in details (you did not see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7456413&postcount=16227 (which clearly asserts that http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7456081&postcount=16226 is wrong) before you replied in details to the wrong post).

doronshadmi · Aug 11, 2011

In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7461487&postcount=16235 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7461518&postcount=16236 posts, a straight line (which is 1-dimensional space) has a zero amplitude.

In this case the members of the set of 0-dimensional spaces along it, are indistinguishable of each other in terms of frequency.

Actually the points at the peaks of a sine wave are indistinguishable of each other exactly because of the sameness of frequency, so no matter if we deal with sine waves or not, the sameness of frequency is not sufficient for observation of points' strict ids (the non-locality of (in this case) 1-dimension space has a significant influence on the non-strictness of the point's ids, which is exactly the state of superposition of ids (they are not collapsed into strict ids).

Strict ids are observed as different frequencies, which are ordered by their strict different peaks around a given peak that is larger than the rest of the given different peaks.

A well-positioned pattern of strict ids like

can't be in a superposition of ids.

doronshadmi · Aug 12, 2011

About comparison.

By left-only hemisphere reasoning, comparison is possible only if strictness is involved.

By using both hemispheres reasoning, comparison is possible also if non-strictness is involved, for example:

The ids of (AB,AB) is non-strict, yet their amount is strict, so by using strictness AND non-strictness, comparison is actually done between 2 objects that have non-strict ids.

If both amount AND ids is non-strict (for example (ABC..., ABC..., ...) then the comparison is done between the strict Non-locality (notated here by the outer "(" ")" ) and the objects "ABC..., ABC..., ..." that their amount AND ids is non-strict, which enables to conclude, for example, that the non-strict amount of non-strict objects is actually their inability to reach strict Non-locality.

If ids are strict but there amount is non-strict (for example: 0.111...₂) we get the same conclusion about the inability of non-strict amount of strict objects to reach strict Non-locality.

-------------------

If Non-strict non-strictness = Strictness, then:

Strict Non-strictness is necessarily = Non-strict Strictness (and vice versa).

If Non-strict non-strictness ≠ Strictness, then:

Strict Non-strictness is not necessarily = Non-strict Strictness (and vice versa).

In other words, comparison is done also in this case.

doronshadmi · Aug 12, 2011

Let us correct http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464536&postcount=16238.

--------------------------

In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7461487&postcount=16235 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7461518&postcount=16236 posts, a straight line (which is 1-dimensional space) has a zero amplitude.

In this case the members of the set of 0-dimensional spaces along it, are indistinguishable of each other in terms of frequency.

Actually the points at the peaks of a sine wave are indistinguishable of each other if there the frequency is the same, so no matter if we deal with sine waves or not, the sameness of frequency is not sufficient for observation of points' different strict ids (the non-locality of (in this case) 1-dimension space has a significant influence on the non-differentiation of the point's ids in terms of frequency (they are not collapsed (the symmetry is not broken) into different strict ids).

Strict ids are observed as different frequencies (asymmetry), which are ordered by their strict different peaks around a given peak that is larger than the rest of the given different peaks.

A well-positioned pattern of different strict ids like
[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/muls1.gif[/qimg]
can't be in a superposition of ids, because superposition of ids is at least the symmetrical state of the inability to determine the id of a given object, which is not the case with a well-positioned pattern of different strict ids (which is asymmetric).

The Man · Aug 13, 2011

doronshadmi said:
By using strong measurement (which has a significant influence on the measured) the wave pattern of the two open silts case is collapsed into a well positioned peak, similar to the pattern of the single silt case.

Technically the banded interference pattern becomes two well defined peaks instead, as would be expected in the classical particle double slit case. Are you now claiming that the collapse of the wave function results in a more well defined “positioned peak”?

doronshadmi said:
From a local point of view, the wave pattern is a signature of the superposition of non-strict localities, which are collapsed into a well positioned peak pattern of strict localities by uning strong measurement.

No Doron the interference pattern results from the superposition of (sum over) possible histories. When we look at which slit each the photon passes that superposition can simply no longer include the, now impossible, both slit history. Since your “superposition of non-strict localities” does not use superposition, by your own aerations, you are just continuing to lie by calling it a “superposition of non-strict localities”. Stop lying Doron.

doronshadmi said:
Be aware that the appearance on the screen detector is characterized by a set of well positioned particles (=strict locality), exactly because the screen itself causes the collapse of the momentum (=non strict locality), which is characterized by wave pattern (which is a signature of non-locality of localities).

Be aware that the uncertainty principle still applies.

doronshadmi said:
Strong measurement actually tries to measure the accurate position of a single particle after it passes the barrier of two open silts, by using small amount of measurements with significant influence on the measured.

Detecting which slit each photon passes through just detects, well, which slit each photon passes through.

doronshadmi said:
This measurement style prevents the accurate results of both position (=strict locality) and momentum (=non strict locality), so according to this measurement position and momentum prevent each other at the quantum level.

Detecting which slit each photon passes through accurately detects which slit each photon passes through.

doronshadmi said:
Weak measurement ( as developed by Yakir Aharonov and recently tested by Aephraim Steinberg http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110602/full/news.2011.344.html ) measures the position of a single particle after it passes the barrier with two open silts, by using a very large amount of measurements with insignificant influence on the measured, where the result is the average of this large amount of measurements.

According to this measurement style, it is possible to reconstruct the paths (=non-locality) for an ensemble of quantum particles, which actually enables to measure both the momentum (=non strict locality) and position (=strict locality) of quantum objects and getting more precise results of both of them (the non-local (wave-like) and the local (particle-like) properties of quantum objects do not prevent each other if weak measurement is used (they prevent each other if strong measurement is used)).

Please try to at least learn what an average is Doron.

doronshadmi said:
No matter what measurement style is used, it does not change the fact of the existence of Non-locality (path) and Locality (position) as fundamentals of quantum objects.

Sure it doesn’t change it, as nether “locality (path)” nor “Locality (position)” are “fundamentals of quantum objects”. Though position and momentum are considered complimentary properties of quantum objects.

doronshadmi said:
It also does not change the fact that Non-locality and Locality can be in superposition of ids, that is collapsed into strict ids, as follows:

Still just deliberately self-contradictory nonsense as you claim your “superposition” does not use superposition. Stop lying Doron.

doronshadmi said:
A=”Non-locality”
B=”Locality”

n=2

n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is some particular example of a novel model, which shows exactly how a mixture of states in superposition (AB,AB) are collapsed into single outcomes (A,B):

Code:

(AB,AB) (AB,A) (AB,B) (AB) (A,A) (B,B) (A,B) (A) (B) () A * * A * * A * . A * . A * * A . . A * . A * . A . . A . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | B *_* B *_. B *_* B *_. B ._. B *_* B ._* B ._. B *_. B ._. (2,2) = (AB,AB) (2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B) (2,0)= (AB) (1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B) (1,0)= (A),(B) (0,0)= ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.

The universe of single outcomes is the particular case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1) under the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree.

Simply repeating your nonsense does not make it any less nonsense.

doronshadmi said:
Wrong, it can't be a superposition since different frequencies can be ordered around a strict pack, which is larger than the other peaks (or in other words, it is local).

By your own assertions your “superposition” can’t be a superposition. Stop lying Doron. So your problems with your “superposition” are just yours and quite deliberate. Please learn what a distribution is and how some have more defined peaks than others.

doronshadmi said:
You are right, I did not write it correctly, here is the correct one:

Well, the system is under superposition, which does not able the appearance of different strict frequencies around a given strict peak, which is larger than the other peaks. In other words, the superposition is not collapsed around a well positioned peak (or in other words, it is non-local).

Again your “superposition” does not involve superposition so it is just deliberately self-contradictory nonsense, Stop lying Doron, also please learn what a distribution is and how some have more defined peaks than others.

Your deliberate ignorance still does not change the fact that…

The Man said:
...a single frequency is a well defined peak around the value of that frequency. Again look at a spectrogram and please learn something.

You claimed…

doronshadmi said:
You are right…

To that assertion. So is “a single frequency is a well defined peak around the value of that frequency” or not?

You first assert…

doronshadmi said:
Well, the system is under superposition, which does not able the appearance of different strict frequencies around a given strict peak, which is larger than the other peaks.

A singular large peak.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, the superposition is not collapsed around a well positioned peak (or in other words, it is non-local).

Then directly contradict yourself. As always Doron if you can’t even at least agree with just yourself no one can possibly ever agree with you.

doronshadmi said:
1) The amplitude can be by spacetime.

2) If time is not involved, then by using only (physical or mathematical) space, the amplitude of the sin wave of the same frequency does not able the appearance of different strict frequencies around a given strict peak, which is larger than the other peaks. In other words, the superposition is not collapsed around a well positioned peak (or in other words, it is non-local).

So you’re simply and deliberately not going to look at a spectrogram? How unsurprisingly deliberately ignorant of you.

doronshadmi said:
Please learn something The Man, instead of just technically using "Fourier transform, which decomposes a function into the sum of a (potentially infinite) number of sine wave frequency components." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_domain ).

I learn things all the time Doron and don’t just use a Fourier transform. Your “direct perception" continues to fail you so consistently.

doronshadmi said:
Reductionism-only (decomposition of a function, in this case) can't provide a meaningful understanding of the considered subject, The Man.

Stop trying to simply post aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

doronshadmi said:
In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7459226&postcount=16229 your reductionist-step-by-step-only reasoning clearly airs its view, as follows:

Stop trying to simply post aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

doronshadmi said:
You replied in details to the wrong post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7456081&postcount=16226 exactly because you do not get the whole picture before you reply in details (you did not see

Nope, I clearly quoted the posts I replied to…

doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7456413&postcount=16227 (which clearly asserts that http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7456081&postcount=16226 is wrong) before you replied in details to the wrong post).

which included both the ones you cite. Your “direct perception” continues to fail you at even such a simple, mundane and obvious task of just seeing what posts were quote and replied to.

doronshadmi · Aug 13, 2011

The Man said:
Technically the banded interference pattern becomes two well defined peaks instead, as would be expected in the classical particle double slit case. Are you now claiming that the collapse of the wave function results in a more well defined “positioned peak”?

Good morning The Man.

I am not just "now claiming", I claim it all along the discussion.

More well defined “positioned peak” (classical single or double slit case) is exactly the collapse of the superposition of a wave function.

The Man said:
You first assert…

doronshadmi said:

Well, the system is under superposition, which does not able the appearance of different strict frequencies around a given strict peak, which is larger than the other peaks.

Click to expand...

A singular large peak.

Wrong The Man, a system under superposition is not a singular large peak (where a singular large peak is different strict frequencies around a given strict peak, which is larger than the other peaks).

The following diagram is a singular large peak:

and it is not under superposition (the superposition is collapsed into a strict singular large peak).

The Man said:
doronshadmi said:

In other words, the superposition is not collapsed around a well positioned peak (or in other words, it is non-local).

Click to expand...

Then directly contradict yourself.

Wrong again The Man.

is not a singular large peak, and it is under superposition (the superposition is not collapsed into a strict singular large peak).

The Man said:
So you’re simply and deliberately not going to look at a spectrogram?

As you see, I looked at the spectrogram with single frequency, and it is under superposition (it is not collapsed into a single large peak, where a single large peak is the first spectrogram).

The rest of your post is wrong because your misunderstanding of the considered subject, as demonstrated above.

The Man said:
Simply repeating your nonsense does not make it any less nonsense.

Simply repeating your ignorance does not make it any less ignorance.

The Man · Aug 14, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Good morning The Man.

Good evening Doron.

doronshadmi said:
I am not just "now claiming", I claim it all along the discussion.

Fine then please show where you have specifically made that claim “all along the discussion”. You may be confusing a more well defined distribution peak with a singular value. While a singular value does certainly indicated a well defined distribution peak (as well defined as a distribution peak can get) a more well defined peak than before does not require nor infer a singular value.

doronshadmi said:
More well defined “positioned peak” (classical single or double slit case) is exactly the collapse of the superposition of a wave function.

Technically that is not correct. Again looking at through which slit each photon goes just removes the both slits path from the possible histories. The reaming possible histories must still be summed over (considered in superposition) in order to accurately calculate the resulting pattern on the screen, in other words (since your so fond of them) looking through which slit each photon passes does not eliminate the superposition of possible histories it just removes one possible history (going through both slits) from that superposition of (sum over) possible histories.

doronshadmi said:
Wrong The Man, a system under superposition is not a singular large peak (where a singular large peak is different strict frequencies around a given strict peak, which is larger than the other peaks).

As usual you are simply, deliberately and self-contrarily asserting your non-superposition “superposition” as a superposition. Stop lying Doron and you might not give yourself so many difficulties. A 1 unit amplitude wave at 5 Hz in superposition with an in phase 5 amplitude wave at 5 Hz would result in a (on a spectrograph) a 6 unit vertical line at 5 Hz. Again please learn something Doron and stop lying.

doronshadmi said:
The following diagram is a singular large peak:

[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/muls1.gif[/qimg]

and it is not under superposition (the superposition is collapsed into a strict singular large peak).

Please tell us specifically what superposition “collapsed”. As usual you are simply, deliberately and self-contrarily asserting your non-superposition “superposition” as a superposition. Stop lying Doron and you might not give yourself so many difficulties. Again all the possible paths to the screen must be considered in superposition in order to accurately calculate the probability of any given photon striking any particular point on the screen. In the single slit case the only possible paths, understandably, all involve going through that single slit.

doronshadmi said:
Wrong again The Man.

[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/mulsi2.gif[/qimg]

is not a singular large peak, and it is under superposition (the superposition is not collapsed into a strict singular large peak).

Again look at a spectrogram, your deliberate ignorance will not help you.

doronshadmi said:
As you see, I looked at the spectrogram with single frequency, and it is under superposition (it is not collapsed into a single large peak, where a single large peak is the first spectrogram).

See what? You have shown no spectrogram. So you are either confused about what a spectrogram is or just simply lying. Amplitude by position (in the images linked) is not a spectrogram.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrogram

doronshadmi said:
The rest of your post is wrong because your misunderstanding of the considered subject, as demonstrated above.

All of your posts are wrong because of your simple and deliberate ignorance as well as your lying.

doronshadmi said:
Simply repeating your ignorance does not make it any less ignorance.

Doron directly addressing your assertions is not ignoring them, please learn the meaning of ignorance and you might just be less prone to your utter dependence upon it.

doronshadmi · Aug 14, 2011

The Man said:
Technically that is not correct.

It is corrent The Man.

The Man said:
looking through which slit each photon passes does not eliminate the superposition of possible histories it just removes one possible history (going through both slits) from that superposition of (sum over) possible histories.

This "just removes one possible history" is exactly the collapse of the wavefunction into a well positioned different and strict frequencies around a given peak that is larger than all these different and strict frequencies.

The Man said:
You have shown no spectrogram.

Wrong again. For example look at the following spectrogram, taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrogram :

and the two open silts case

-------------------

In other words, you are cheating yourself.

Deeper than primes

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing