Cap'n Refsmmat

Interactions between particles happen at the speed of light. Violating locality would imply that if I moved an object here, an object light-years away would notice the difference in gravitational field instantaneously. Alternately, it'd imply that in quantum entanglement, some kind of information is instantaneously transmitted from one entangled particle to the other when one is observed. Or any number of other things. Put a particle in a sealed box. Leave it for a few hours and let it bounce around a bit. Return and stare at the box. "Gee, I wonder where in the box the particle is," you think. "It'll be in there somewhere, I just don't know where exactly it is yet." Suddenly, you are beaten over the head with a large physics textbook by the Quantum Physics Fairy, because it is not the case that the particle has one definite location inside the box that you just don't know. There is merely a wavefunction that can describe the probability of it being in any particular place. The particle will decide where it is once you open the box and take a look. There is a fundamental difference between "I don't know where the particle is, but I shall find it shortly," and "The particle is not actually in a specific location until I look for it, at which point it decides where it is, based on the probability distribution given by the square of the wavefunction". The latter is experimentally correct, and the former is impossible. Presumably a digression about quotes reminding you of nukes could be predicted in advance. There is not a "culture of conformity." It is merely practicality. Experimental results are extremely hard to reconcile with intuitive models. Mathematics succeeds where intuition cannot, so physicists went with intuition. Should someone devise an intuitive model that can adequately explain quantum mechanics, physicists would be very happy, but they are not expecting that to ever happen, because quantum mechanics is very confusing and counterintuitive.

In quantum physics, it doesn't matter if you measure it directly or if you find some indirect method of determining it. Because under Bell's theorem, that is physically impossible, unless you want to abandon locality and let particles interact with each other instantaneously over long distances. Bell's theorem prohibits local hidden variables, which would be hidden properties, like momentum you can't measure. Local hidden variables cannot adequately explain how quantum physics works. It's as simple as that. Many of your questions are utterly irrelevant. It would be in your best interests to focus your posts carefully. It accurately models experimental results. If anyone comes up with an intuitive formulation that still accurately models experimental results, it will be major news.

That's the same thing. It's not a matter of modeling systems more carefully. The particle has no definite momentum until it is observed. That's not to say we can't figure out the momentum -- that means it has no definite momentum. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of our models or how many parameters we can account for. You might consider learning how general relativity treats gravity; it should answer your question. Nevertheless, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. (You have a tendency to ask 400 questions in each post, only a few of which relate to the topic. I know you're just curious, but you should filter your posts, or we quickly diverge from the intended subject.) I don't think it's absurd to suggest it's possible to introduce new familiar concepts. Mathematics, for example, becomes familiar and intuitive when you work with it for a long time, and physics expressed in mathematics becomes much easier to understand. Many physicists prefer reading equations to qualitative descriptions, because qualitative descriptions can be vague or confusing when mathematics cannot be. It has nothing to do with atomic bombs.

Sure. Locality isn't a problem. Locality is intuitive. Particles only influence their surroundings, or interact through forces which travel at the speed of light, like gravity. Gravity is intuitive. However, if we allow locality, we have to throw out counterfactual definiteness, which says something like this: If I have not yet measured some property of a system, the system merely has a definite property but I do not know it. For example, the particle has a certain momentum, and I merely need to do an experiment to determine what it is. But if we allow locality, Bell's theorem requires us to throw out counterfactual definiteness. Now, if I have not yet measured the momentum of a particle, it has no definite momentum. It's as if reality hasn't yet decided what to do with the particle until I force its hand by trying to measure it. So you could try thinking of quantum mechanics in terms of particles moving around and being observed by experiment, but that'd be wrong, because the particles don't decide how to move around until I look at them. Alternately, we could throw out locality and allow particles to instantaneously affect other particles a great distance away, which our sensibilities as well. Even Einstein whined about "spooky action at a distance." Intuitive logic as I defined it comes from everyday experience, in which case this is not true, because QM cannot be related to everyday experience. It is true, however, that working from some physical principles not present in everyday experience but nevertheless essential to physics, we can build an understanding of modern physics using these basic building blocks. However, it is necessary to introduce new building blocks, rather than relying on the material concepts we already know. We must also remember Richard Feynman's words: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

There've been leaks of radioactive particles, such as iodine-131 and radioactive steam, from the reactor containment building. Hence the concern about wind direction.

For a rotating electron to have the correct angular momentum as determined by experiment, it would have to spin so quickly that its surface would rotate faster than the speed of light. As for the Pauli exclusion principle, the underlying logic comes out of the mathematics. Without an intuitive sense, you can still determine useful facts about a situation. Thinking in terms of mathematical features allows you to estimate how something will behave, but you think about it in terms of wavefunctions and exponentials rather than physical objects doing physical things. The point of quantum mechanics is that there isn't something physical beyond the wavefunction, which describes the probability of the particle existing at various locations. When you work out the mathematics, it turns out that there is a nonzero probability of a particle making it past a boundary, simply because the boundary conditions on the wavefunction require this to be true for the equation to be solved. There is no known "actual behavior" beyond what the mathematics predicts will occur. Drawing a physical analogy to explain the behavior intuitively will mislead you, because there is no known physical explanation, only mathematics. One might postulate that there are hidden processes occurring "underneath" to explain quantum behavior, and that such processes can be modeled intuitively, but Bell's theorem rules that out.

Protip: \cos in LaTeX produces [math]\cos x[/math] instead of [math]cos x[/math]

The biggest reason Scientology has a bad name is their tendency to sue absolutely anyone who disagrees with them, to use various nefarious measures to silence critics, and to demand large sums of money to advance in the religion. The upper-level followers of Scientology reportedly have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to learn how to be a good Scientologist. Several Scientology members (including L. Ron Hubbard's wife) have been convicted of fraud and conspiracy, including cases in which the Church of Scientology stole federal government documents while defending itself against tax claims from the IRS, and one in which Scientologists tried to get a prominent Scientology critic falsely imprisoned or committed to a mental institution.

Indeed. The trouble is that this physical analogy is highly misleading. It is, in fact, physically impossible for electron spin to be caused by physical spin, because the electrons would have to spin faster than the speed of light. It also fails to explain numerous aspects of spin, such as its relation to other quantum numbers or why spin-1/2 particles behave entirely differently from spin-1 particles. (Spin-1 particles do not follow the Pauli exclusion principle and can occupy the same space at the same time.) Certain composite particles also have more possible spin states than "up" and "down." Hence intuition leads you astray. The math that leads to quantum tunneling can be pretty freaky.

I believe Anselm would respond that the ability to not exist is a weakness, not a strength, and does not contribute to God's perfection. (Anselm's God is perfect, not omnipotent, and his extreme power derives from perfection.) However, there's an existing discussion on the ontological argument you can join if you'd like to discuss it further: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/49226-the-ontological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/ It's rather off-topic here.

In physics, at least, "intuitive" refers to everyday experience with everyday objects. We all have an "intuitive" understanding of how objects interact, based on past experiences, and so we know that gravity makes things fall, no two objects occupy the same space simultaneously, objects can't pass through walls, and so on. Shown a basic physics problem, we can make a guess as to the answer simply by intuition, making analogies to real-world experiences to determine the likely result. Quantum physics is non-intuitive because it violates many of our everyday principles. In quantum physics, two objects sometimes do occupy the same space simultaneously; objects passing through "walls" is in fact essential; and gravity behaves in very strange ways. Any attempt to understand quantum physics by analogy to everyday experiences -- i.e. any attempt to understand it "intuitively" -- is bound to fail, because it is so different from ordinary experience. Hence in quantum physics it's helpful to consider things mathematically. Making analogies to everyday experience is misleading.

This may help: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29473-introduction-to-calculus-differentiation/page__view__findpost__p__409619 In this case you have several functions inside each other. sin(x) inside a square root, inside a square root with another sin x, etc.

Please see SFN rule 3.

I dunno. I think the others have date widgets correctly reading "April 1."

The UK has specifically not granted immunity to the defectors.

I think there may be a malfunction in the clock and date widget in your Fedora install.

I'll grant you #3, but the first two can easily be fixed by not firing missiles or bombs near civilian populations. Bombing tanks in the countryside, or air defense installations on the coast, brings little risk of civilian casualties. You could rely on evidence rather than lofty hypotheticals, you know.

I meant for you to clarify specifically the part I quoted, about the introduction to John. I found it interesting.

Well, I never thought the day would come that I'd be writing my last goodbyes from SFN. The past few months of my life have been times of great change, and for better or worse, that change has spread to SFN. Beginning in just a few weeks I'll be moving to Clearwater, Florida to train to become an Operating Thetan. After my recent conversion to Scientology, I have given ownership of SFN to the Church of Scientology so that they may use its vast public reach to clear negative engrams from people around the world, and to spread the word of Scientology and Dianetics far and wide. Beginning next Monday, SFN will become ScientologyForums.Net. We'll largely keep the current discussion format, although of course the Psychiatry and Psychology forum will have to go. I truly apologize for the short notice, but I believe this is all for the best. I hope SFN can join me on the path to spiritual freedom.

Not exactly.

No. Take a look at gambling, in which people spend a great amount of time figuring out which incredibly unlikely option is the best.

The point of a telescope is to resolve only the light coming from a particular direction, so re-integrating would be somewhat difficult. Gravitational lensing has been observed, however. This effect would be noticeable, or the change in light behavior would be observable in the laboratory. Yes. If we consider one wave to be one wavelength, frequency is exactly the number of waves per second passing a certain point. There's no need to be condescending.

What?

No, that is not what it means. Please read the link I provided. UN peacekeepers are already in the Ivory Coast, and nations are considering expanding the force. However, Gbagbo's forces are losing already. Bahrain has oil reserves (small ones), and its protests have only resulted in the deaths of perhaps two dozen, compared to outright artillery barrages and airstrikes in Libya. Syrian protests have similarly resulted in comparatively few deaths, although the situation is developing. Remember, Libya had thousands of deaths before intervention begain. Yemen and Sudan are similar. Somalia has had intervention, in case you've forgotten the 1990s. Do you have evidence of your claims of many innocent civilian deaths? Decisions to arm the rebels have not yet been made, and I agree it would be foolish. edit: oh, and incidentally: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?src=twrhp

Why? Mathematically: Suppose something that exists with 100% certainty is right 10% of the time. You have 10% odds of getting the right answer. Suppose that something that exists with 10% certainty is completely infallible. You also have 10% odds of getting the right answer. Sure, but religion brings a number of benefits. Faith in an infallible being is surely more reassuring than faith in a fallible mother. Pre-written holy books provide more guidance. And organized religion is known for providing strong social support networks for many people.