ParanoiA

Actually, I wonder if swansont might have this nailed down. Because, he's right in that Greene did use this terminology to explain it in a layman's perspective.

Ok, after doing some re-reading, please tell me if I'm understanding this a little better. In relation to the pellet penetrating the wall...the probability waves - the wave functionality tunnels through the wall and since the particles can be found anywhere in the wave, based on probability, then obviously at some point a particle will find itself located in the area of the wave that tunneled through...???? It seems as if the functionality waves are like water waves in that it describes the movement of these particles - except that even when these particles are isolated, they still move AS IF they were surrounded with billions of other particles moving like water. Which is where probability comes in, since there's no apparent intuitive reason why a particle would behave like that when there are no other particles near it to distort its movement like that.

Is it really that controversial? I know there's a division of belief on the validity of global warming, but I didn't realize there was that much controversy in environmental issues.

I can only imagine how distasteful he would think of my pussification rant...

Same here...I can see the whole scene right now..except for their damn faces... I think it's either James Bond - Die Another Day or Die Hard 2 - With a vengance

Nice point. And the thing is, the republicans won't get any credit for NOT crying about voter fraud and so forth. One could argue that the republicans actually get that the country rejected them, whereas when the democrats came up short they got that there were mistakes and voter fraud - never rejection, oh no. But only time will tell. Personally, I'm praying for a libertarian emergence to displace both parties and that Wynona Ryder will stalk me for a one night hookup. Which do you think will come true first?

I like the ones in the Saw movies - particularly the two piece head clamp thing with all of the nails in it slamming shut on that dude's head...and while it may not be a death scene, you gotta' appreciate a guy that saws his own foot off to get free.

See, I'm not understanding how there's a probability that would happen. Obviously I'm not grasping this concept quite right. Maybe I need to think more on the wave functionality of a particle. I tend to think of it as a particle that travels like a wave - and I doubt that's the right way to think about it.

Well sure, it's the next best thing, but it's not the best thing. Besides, alot of national politics can change quite locally. Talent was the winner over McCaskill by 7 or 8 percentage points per exit polls, but some areas around St. Louis surprisingly voted heavily democratic and gave McCaskill a solid lead and eventually the win. Of course, I wasn't glued to the TV, so I might have missed something too. Either way, I'm just saying that there's a good reason why we actually count every vote - it's more accurate and objective. So if I'm getting a discrepancy between exit polls and actual counted votes, I'm more likely going to blame the exit polls.

Hey I'm all for that. I think Hillary is more manly than George, so maybe she'll work out as president after all. And you notice daddy Bush managed to chuck the "wimp" reputation after using the military, so there might be something to that.

You better hope not. If the dems did that, their stay in both houses would be very short. With both houses under Democrat control, you don't really need to be threatened by Bush. Besides, everyone says he's stupid so what scares you so much about him? Also, most of the liberals I know think Cheney is pulling the strings for Halliburton, so how would that help anyway?

That Rolling Stone article reminds me a little of how the media gets all bent out of shape when the accused in a high profile case goes free - like O.J. They are so conditioned to their own method that they forget that's what courts are for - to keep you from punishing someone due to faulty deduction of said guilt - for whatever reason. Exit polls are not valid. Otherwise we'd just use them to elect people. We wouldn't need any machines. That's why we have an actual voting process. How silly to think that because exit polls showed Kerry in the lead, that the real vote is wrong. That's weird. That's more than weird. That's nutty. Tinfoil hat kinda nutty.

I read one at a time, swapping between fiction and non-fiction. I prefer fantasy and sci-fi for fiction, but it's hard to find a good one because I don't like cookie-cutter story lines and predictable, likeable characters. I prefer characters like Thomas Covenant for instance. Non-fiction is ultimately more interesting though. I like reading on my old text books from college. It's funny, because I never really "read" them when I was taking classes, just required reading only. Now, I kick back all geeky like and read over this stuff trying to retain it since I don't use ANY of it in my job or any other aspect of my life. I do like TV though, albeit a handful of favs - House, My Name is Earl, The Office, and Battlestar Galactica (the best TV sci-fi ever made, in my opinion).

Is this what physicists are referring to when they talk about probabilities in general? Or is this quantum tunneling just one example of probabilities in quantum physics? I'm a little disappointed in Greene's approach on this, because we spent 2 chapters on Relativity, and now just one quickie chapter on Quantum. I think I need to understand this probability theme better before going on.

And hopefully americans have learned now, that while we may be a technologically advanced force, we are not miracle workers. We cannot stop an insurgency by force within the population of the innocent - unless we're willing to sacrifice the innocent. Since that's abhorent and not acceptable, we the people need to quit insisting on "instant gratification" and practice patience. Iraq is not a war, it's about law and order. Law and order in a region where suicide bombers probably outnumber the troops is a drastically different story than law and order here in America. I heard Bill Orielly made an ass of himself - again - and said something to the effect that it shouldn't take 4 years to create an Iraqi police force and army. Well, maybe not in America, but in a war torn terror hot spot - I'm not sure how many years it's going to take.

Yeah, I really hate to jump on the "bash Rumsfeld" bandwagon, but I think he may have just got dusty on the job. I don't know why Bush didn't see it years ago and make the change.

Hmm...ok so how does that tie in with "probability"? Why is it that eventually the pellet will go through the wall? (assuming you have the millions of years of lifetime to afford shooting a plastic pellet at a concrete wall)

Yeah I agree, but only half-heartedly. I'm not sure the big plan should ever be known by any more than a handful of people at the top. And Like I said earlier, Israel's been dealing with this for decades and it's not any better now than it was then. So, the american public believing it should be done by now is unrealistic - hell quite insane actually.

Ok, so I was just reading about Quantum Tunneling. About the energy a particle has can wildly fluctuate in a short enough time scale. This is somewhat difficult to absorb because it doesn't make any intuitive sense to me about "borrowing" energy and reqlinquishing it within a small timeframe. Where does it borrow this energy from? Other nearby particles? Greene explains that if you were to shoot a plastic pellet at a concrete wall, that the wave functions of the particles making up the pellet all have a tiny piece that spills out through the wall. And so, the pellet has a small chance of going through the wall after repeating the action enough times. I'm not putting this together very well. I dont' see how pieces of a wave function penetrating the wall could equate to all of the particles penetrating the wall at some lucky point.

Precisely. Our technology has helped. And we're better trained and cared for. Even handed wouldn't be an accurate description in Vietnam or Korea, although when you consider the number of enemy combatants versus our military equipment, you could probably make a case that the net result is even handed. But technology only goes so far here. War and occupation are two different things. The "war" took a few weeks with a handful of losses - a phenominal feat by any military standard. It couldn't be won any better, any quicker, any more professionally - realistically. Our technology and training shined. But occupation and order? How does a laser guided missle help you with that? How does an Abram's tank help you with that? How do any of our military toys help you with suicide bombers and insurgents that blend in perfectly with the population you're trying to protect and invoke order within? There's no fancy computer thingy that helps with that. I don't see how we're at any more of an advantage in "occupation and order" mode than if we were using the same stuff in WWI. And what makes you think we're losing? That was the whole point of my post really. Everyone is calling this a mess and that we're losing. There are 167,000 square miles of territory in Iraq. Bombs going off every few days in a handful of cities does not equate to a loss to me. And if that is a loss, then just expect to lose no matter who is in office, or who the occupational force is, because there will always be an insurgency. Keep in mind, in most months there are more violent deaths in one major american city than in that whole country. Or maybe that's just american soldiers, I don't remember. But certainly there is more violent deaths in our country than Iraq - are we under seige? Are we still losing the civil war?

I don't know. I still feel like a jackass trying to judge war, particularly not being privy to the facts, analysis and goals kept from the public - for good reason. I have a hard time seeing this as a mess. I have an even harder time seeing this as a mess anyone can fix. This whole thing smacks of democrats and media saying something over and over enough times that people now believe it. We've been at war for over almost 4 years now and we've lost a little over 2300 soldiers. That's 1/20th of what was killed in Vietnam. It's 1/14th of what was killed in the Korean War. That's 1/127th of the number of soldiers KIA in WWII. I'm not saying it's really great and we should all celebrate - but that's hardly a "mess" compared to other actual messes as well as solid wins. And I also don't see how there's anything we can do to really "fix" it. You have insurgents that are bombing our soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Israel has been dealing with this for decades and they can't stop it. What makes anyone think we can? We are far less resolute and way more sensitive to global opinion. Just a thought...

I have to direct the credit for that to LivinLiberal. We were talking about the blatant, obvious corruption in politics and he made the point that the simple fact that far more money is spent getting the job than what the job pays - that ought to tell you something...

Now there's a democrat with a spine. Even though he's an independent now, he's still a dem to me. I think he's great. And I hope he makes the dems grovel a little...

Well, let's see...McCaskill spent $8.4 million to get a $165,000 a year job. Her husband is a millionaire developer though most of her millions come from her own merit.

Hmm..interesting how the debate was going just fine, sticking to the issues, no name calling, no BS ego stroking until you two came along and jumped into the discussion. AP started out awesome, making all kinds of sense, her professional writing style and humorous tone mixed with clever debate was very appealing. Then, she got elementary and short changed herself and used insults when she clearly didn't have to. And of course, here comes YT with his hypocritical judgemental ideas of posting style and a thirst for self importance jumping on my case after I fight back. How many times is it going to take before you two realize that insults derail debates? The person you are debating will ignore your point and focus on the insult - typical human behavior. They always have and they always will. They are all ego. Nothing but ego. They mean nothing other than to tell the other side you're out of real ammunition. And I don't pretend to be above it all, believe me. It doesn't take much coaxing to get me childish and pissy. I'm not proud of it, but I'll admit it. But I sure as hell don't start it. I am very disappointed this discussion went this way. It was a cool debate.