imatfaal

above is just a rehash of previous posts. It is quite clear that you do not understand the experiments you are claiming support your theory

The whole point of the dcqe is that it measures the route that the driver photon took through the slits by observation of the idler. That information is either maintained - by looking at the signal photon pattern linked by coincidence counter to a detection of the idler by the detectors D3 and D4 then no interference occurs (not is unable to be discerned, none occurs!). But even after the signal photons have impacted the D0 detector - if we "erase" the information of the route by using a coincidence of idler photons at D1 and D2 - which because of the recombination we do not know which route was taken - then two out of phase interference patterns can be discerned. Your modification removes the recombination of the two idler paths (ie stops the eraser) and if we then look at the coincident pattern at D0 with a non-recombined path we will see two distributions each with NO interference just like at D3 and D4. If anyone could explain to me in simple terms why the D1 and D2 observations (in the real experiment not MPCs castrated version) are out of phase I would love to know - I cannot follow the heavy maths on the paper itself.

But you know what slot your original signal photon went through - and once you know that the interference disappears. The pattern does not exist if you measure which path the photon has taken - even if this measurement takes place on the idler after the signal photon has arrived at your detector. This has been checked and double checked. I will repeat - this would be easier if you gave a schematic or explained if I have the wrong layout - or confirm that I have the layout right, and explain why the experimenters who have performed this any countless similar experiments find that as soon as the path/slit is known the interference disappears and that if that knowledge is erased then the interference can again be identified.

Back to your modified delayed choice quantum eraser - which neatly removes all the delayed-choice-quantum bit. As I posted in another place

Brilliant explanation

Nice way to build confidence there Marat! Agree with all of AJB's points - would add a few more; practice (again), know your audience and make sure you know the format, if you are using materials do not trust that the organiser has even half a brain and be a control-freak, and listen real hard to the questions (it's damned easy to be totally phased by a misheard question). Best way to stop them saying "this kid is an idiot!" is to be correct. If your supervisor and department have enough confidence to send you to a conference - repay that trust by being sure of your own abilities. And let us know how it went when it is all over

Laurens - AC Graylings book is, I believe, a collection of multiple authors works - just like the bible. And I really don't think he would intend you to live by it - at best seek inspiration from certain parts that appeal to you personally.

I would have to think a lot before attempt RSA encryption with a pen and paper. I would also think of the next step up from Caesar to Vigenere to... would be Playfair (historical note this was used on active service in WWII- JFK used playfair to transmit a message to Allied command when his minesweeper was sunk by the Japanese navy). this nova site has a really nice amateur explanations of breaking a real playfair cipher used in the Telemark Heavy water raid - I still have most of the goody bag they sent as a prize You could always try dropping Jim Gillogy an email - he is a mine of information and really friendly; when the CIA made a code devised for some artwork it was Jim that cracked the first section. And i believe he led a team that cracked a low grade RSA algorithm due to inconsistencies and short cuts used by the operators. Anyway not long after WWII computers were able to crack normal codes - and generate codes no human alone could get close to. Undercover messages needed other ways to be sent - one time pads etc. If you are interested get a copy of hte Code Book by Simon Singh - its a great starter to ciphers and gets progressively more complicated.

ermm... neutron perhaps

Rugby union type events [math] \cap [/math] impending doom Sounds like the rugby world cup semifinal defeat - will the kiwis manage to choke again?

Wow - is that an Aussie saying that somewhere else really knows how to party? Packing my bags and heading to NZ if even the maddest partiers on the planet think NZ is the place to be. Might wait for the summer tho

Apo logos [math]\neq[/math] apollo. I didn't doubt any connexion between the polis and reason - I challenged the view that democracy meant rule of the reasoned, cos it just doesn't. Marat has pointed out the etymological difference in roots between demos - the people, the crowd, the mob and aristos - the best, the most excellent. Much of the development of the logos was after the fall of Athenian democracy - Aristotle floriated under the rule of Phillip of Macedon (who did not allow the Athenians into their strange breed of one soldier one vote) The Greeks not only worshipped the gods they held them in a fair amount of scorn - the gods were cruel, vindictive and petty. You didn't cross the gods because if you did they were likely to send you mad and destroy you - they most certainly were not subject to reason. democracy was a creation of man - the political animal the whole wikipedia paragraph on the possible derivation of the name Apollo is quite revealing Unfo - it is a romantic notion - and perhaps one we should strive for. But in reality what you are describing is a utopian vision of full functioning participatory democracy formed of like minded philosophers - and no where in the world has ever even begun to approximate that.

We sat and had a beer to watch the sun start to set and the end of the world. 1900bst/1800gmt came and went with no excitement. And like a fair proportion we had REM on the stereo.

Quote from this page at Beeb http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-13462926

--- My gut instinct is that the paradox relies on an intuitive but erroneous absolute movement through space - but from the frame of reference of either object the opposing ship is not moving. the fact that other observers are in relative motion to the pair does not impact on the calculations that the pilots would carry out regarding each other and of course not on the physical reality either. --- If you think of it as exchange of massless particles it also makes sense. In a non-accelerating frame of reference a beam of photons or gravitons that is emitted perpendicular to motion stays perpendicular to motion. If this was not the case one could determine velocity in absolute terms by shining a light across a box and measuring the deflection - it is only acceleration (or equiv) that would deflect the beam. If the beam of gravitons is emitted and received perpendicular to the direction of motion then the attraction must also be perpendicular.

So to get this straight in my head (the problem not the answer) - the thought experiment is trying to remove all extraneous entities/forces to demonstrate that (assuming a non-instantaneous speed of gravitational interaction) the apparent centre of mass of object B which object A interprets as the direction of force between them must be slightly to the rear of the physical centre of mass of object B (and vice versa). The only way the apparent and physical centre of mass could be coincident is if the force/perturbation was propagated without delay. The fact that the apparent centre of mass is behind the object means there is a tiny retardant force - and the objects will slow as well as come together. the momentum should stay conserved - but if the objects are slowing it hasn't been

It wasn't when you made it - but it is now!

You would have to get a real constitutional lawyer on that one - I would not know the legal consequences of a President confirming an act would not harm state security and military preparedness in the clear knowledge that it would and he was making the affirmation on purely non-military grounds and for party political gain. I don't know what the reasoning is behind the delay. Remember DADT was brought in by Clinton. Inertia to cause change? Not sure I approve of that one - this is a science forum, perhaps impetus. On a more substantive note - both the leaders you mentioned came to power in opposition to the status quo. I do think that one man or woman can take power and wield it, even today - and, if that is the case, personal responsibility must follow. Ask M Dominique S-K - poor attempt at levity. I don't know - but I tend to believe in less power in the apparatus than the press and popular fiction would have it. Equating Obama here is looking distinctly over the top. Of course Obama could - all he would need to say would be "of course on my Kenyan Birth certificate ..." Whilst any Chief Exec is in a position that requires compromise - to belittle their power is not correct. My least favourite British PM - Maggie Thatcher seemed to take a perverse delight in finding the biggest, toughest targets both within and without Government. It's a generational replaying of the new kid at school going up to the biggest bully and thumping him - declaration of the new alpha male (or female in her case...perhaps)

legalization does not equal nationalization

I think in any lengthy and reasoned piece of writing it is unnecessary and unhelpful to regularly equate one's cultural community and ability to comment to one's nation state - this a dangerous form of self-stereotyping, often manifest in an overly apologetic embarrassment of one's background ("As an Englishman it is difficult to understand the suffering..." - self-satisfaction with one's own superior awareness). I don't understand this part - America has not yet reached the vaunted status of being held up as the most respectful of cultural differentiation. In my experience Nationalists (not Nationalism) attack Globalism by saying that it doesn't work, that it destroys differentiations between cultures creating an amorphous mess, and that it's all a con trick perpetrated by international socialism/big business/the new world order (delete as applicable). And to preach Globalism one must be able to overcome theoretically/practically/emotionally the currently prevailing paradigm of nationality as an societal absolute.

An attitude of critical self-reflection. An understanding and open acknowledgement of the disparate cultures that come together on the internet. A reticence and moment of thought before making the assumption that something is a culturally undeniable. A willingness to invite comparisons and criticisms of one's own societal and political absolutes. It is quite clear from even a quick reading of some articles and posts on the internet (no names no packdrill) that the writers lacks any comprehension of an alternative perspective, or if they do have this understanding dismiss it out of hand as unworthy of contemplation. I do not limit this to American posters - although I do recognize a breed of poster from Timo's comment above.

Rule by decree has a fairly fixed and well understood meaning - and much as I dislike some of the actions of the Whitehouse in the last ten years only a very few have come close to rule by decree. A craven legislature allowed very contentious bills to be passed and they are to be regretted, but these were not executive orders (which is a US form of rule by decree). And my point is that Obama has not yet even attempted to have the bill enforced as he is still to affirm that it will not affect military readiness. This might have changed in the last few months but I believe the bill is still stalled. I suppose the metaphor could be extended - the drunk driver is still prosecuted if the damage / injury caused is well after he lost control of his vehicle. If you put something in motion - the responsibility for keeping control is yours