Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

A<B<C<D<E

We can describe the following single silt pattern by the ordered distinct values, as follows: (A,B,C,D,E,D,C,B,A). Actually it can be reduced to (A,B,C,D,E):

By following the (A,B,C,D,E) reduction we can describe the following double silt pattern by the following redundant values
((A,B,C,D,E), (A,B,C,D,E), (A,B,C,D,E), (A,B,C,D,E), …) where order has a significance within each (A,B,C,D,E), in this case:

Please pay attention, that Standard Math does not go beyond Redundancy, and as a result, it does not have the ability to deal with strong simultaneity, which is symmetric and defined as a superposition of ids (notated as (ABC...) where order has no significance).

 

[The Man]

I have already asserted that I do not use your asymmetric simultaneity (A,B) that is weaker than the strong superposition, which is symmetric simultaneity (AB).

No Doron “asymmetric simultaneity” and “symmetric simultaneity” are just words you string together. Apparently without understanding them.

This is an additional experiment that uses the double slit experiment.

Cite the specific experiment you are referring to and we can discuss it.

Aagain, by this experiment the wave patterns of the detector are changed into a single silt pattern. We can gradually use more energetic photons, and by doing that we can move between the wave pattern and the non-wave (the single silt) pattern.

This was nonsense before and it is still nonsense now. Again…

You do understand the relationship between the energy and wavelength of the photon as well as the dependence of the distance between the slits on that wavelength, don’t you? Your assertions above indicate that you simply do not understand the double-slit experiment and simply want to ascribe your imaginary undefined nonsense as being somehow related to such experiments.

The DS of Organic Numbers are exactly these intermediate patterns, that are found between superposition of wave (non-localized) patterns and non-superposition of a single silt (localized) pattern.

A single silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of localization (a particle), where a double silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of non-localization (a wave).

Again and interference pattern is more localized (in to specific bands).

So Non-locality/Locality Linkage stands at the basis of QM, exactly as it stands the the basis of many measurements as seen in the macro level.

Nope.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again and interference pattern is more localized (in to specific bands).

You are wrong (This was nonsense before and it is still nonsense now).

Your assertion above indicates that you simply do not understand the double-slit experiment and simply want to ascribe your imaginary undefined nonsense as being somehow related to such experiment. Bucause of this nonsense you are unable to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5976833&postcount=10001 .

The real results are clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5976519&postcount=9999 .

 

[The Man]

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 be seen, a single silt pattern has a localized pattern, where a double silt pattern does not have a localized pattern.

Here you can learn about Diffraction and Interference (has a single silt envelop):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslid.html#c2

Here you can learn about Interference Only (does not have a single silt envelop):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslidi.html#c2

All these cases are described by Organic Numbers, which are used as their comprehensive framework.

I am quite familiar with double slit experiments.

And again you will see the interference pattern is more localized into specific bands. In other words the single slit pattern is more distributed over the screen. While the double slit pattern is more highly localized to specific bands.

A<B<C<D<E

We can describe the following single silt pattern by the ordered distinct values, as follows: (A,B,C,D,E,D,C,B,A). Actually it can be reduced to (A,B,C,D,E):
[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/muls1.gif[/qimg]

Actually we describe such a Patten as a superposition of sine waves of different freaqancies.

By following the (A,B,C,D,E) reduction we can describe the following double silt pattern by the following redundant values
((A,B,C,D,E), (A,B,C,D,E), (A,B,C,D,E), (A,B,C,D,E), …) where order has a significance within each (A,B,C,D,E), in this case:

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

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).

*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.

Please pay attention, that Standard Math does not go beyond Redundancy, and as a result, it does not have the ability to deal with strong simultaneity, which is symmetric and defined as a superposition of ids (notated as (ABC...) where order has no significance).

Pleas pay attention to actual math and physics including wave packet

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


The wave equation

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

And Fourier analysis


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

 

[The Man]

You are wrong (This was nonsense before and it is still nonsense now).

Your assertion above indicate that you simply do not understand the double-slit experiment and simply want to ascribe your imaginary undefined nonsense as being somehow related to such experiments.

The real results are clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5976519&postcount=9999 .

No Doron, again study the actual math and physics involved

 

[doronshadmi]

And again you will see the interference pattern is more localized into specific bands. In other words the single slit pattern is more distributed over the screen. While the double slit pattern is more highly localized to specific bands.

You can claim this nonsense as much as you like.

The simple fact is this:

Here is the result of a single silt pattern experiment:

Here is the result of a double silt pattern experiment:

As clearly be seen, a single silt pattern has a localized pattern, where a double silt pattern does not have a localized pattern.

And you still fail to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5976833&postcount=10001 and how Redundancy prevents the clear localization of the double silt pattern.

Here you can learn about Diffraction and Interference (has a single silt envelope):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslid.html#c2

Here you can learn about Interference Only (does not have a single silt envelope):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslidi.html#c2

All these cases are described by Organic Numbers, which are used as their comprehensive framework.

 

[doronshadmi]

No Doron, again study the actual math and physics involved

No The Man, your "actual math and physics" do not have the tools to understand what is really going on.

 

[jsfisher]

Please show us these errors in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 1-2 of the formula that is used for n>2 cases.

Why should I go this yet again? You don't learn from your mistakes.


And speaking of mistakes, how are you coming with those corrections to your blunders in the 3X3 presentation? Such a simple exercise, and you riddled it with so much wrong.

 

[doronshadmi]

Why should I go this yet again?

Again? There is nothing wrong in his formula, it simply used to calculate the amount of a partial case of ON's DS.

 

[doronshadmi]

And speaking of mistakes, how are you coming with those corrections to your blunders in the 3X3 presentation? Such a simple exercise, and you riddled it with so much wrong.

You are invited to show my mistakes in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5957646&postcount=9921. After all it is a simple exercise for you, so if you want to shoot shoot, don't talk.

 

[The Man]

You can claim this nonsense as much as you like.

The simple fact is this:

Ok so you just don’t see the very specific and highly localized bands of the double slit pattern or the defuse characteristics of the single slit pattern. That's OK Doron, I didn’t expect that you would understand what I was saying anyway. Just to give you a hint what I was trying to show to you is related to the slopes of the peaks rather than the height or number of peaks.

No The Man, your "actual math and physics" do not have the tools to understand what is really going on.

“what is really going on” Doron is that apparently you “do not have the tools to understand” the actual math and physics or even your own notions.

 

[doronshadmi]

Just to give you a hint what I was trying to show to you is related to the slopes of the peaks rather than the height or number of peaks.

The Man, replacement under redundancy is non-local, and this is exactly what happens in the Interference Only version of the double slit experiment (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslidi.html#c2).

In the single silt experiment, there is no replacement under redundancy and no superposition, so all is left is based on an ordered single pick (A<B<C<D<E>D>C>B>A), which is definitely a localized pattern, as can be seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5977280&postcount=10006 .

That's OK Doron, I didn’t expect that you would understand what I was saying anyway.

Speak for yourself The Man, you are failing to understand Non-locality all along this thread, because of your Local-only reasoning, which you call "Actual Math and Physics".

But I am not expecting that you would understand what I am saying anyway, for example http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5976410&postcount=9998 .

 

[jsfisher]

Again? There is nothing wrong in his formula, it simply used to calculate the amount of a partial case of ON's DS.

The formula is just as bogus as it was about a year ago. You admitted it was defective. Well, actually it was probably Moshe who explained to you that I was pointing out real defects in your formula, and you believed him even though you didn't understand the defects.

The defects haven't changed, so why are you surprised?

You can't fix it, though, can you? You never understood the formula nor what was wrong with it. It's math, and math isn't among your core competencies.


For more information, please refer back to earlier posts on the very same subject.

 

[jsfisher]

You are invited to show my mistakes in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5957646&postcount=9921.

Thank you so much for the invitation. However, you are the one making the Big Deal^{[SIZE=-3]TM[/SIZE]} of all this kXk nonsense, so the task of being correct in its presentation falls to you.

If you can't get something as simple as the 3X3 case correct, we can conclude it is all just nonsense you imagined to be important but it really isn't.

 

[Apathia]

The Arizona desert is a awful place to be in the summer.
But thank the All Embracing Universe for Ice-Cream!
And nothing takes you back to those easy summer days of your youth
than the carnival tunes from the ice-cream vendor's truck.

But beware old man Heisenberg's truck!
I saw it once when I was a boy.
We ran out to the street, eager for ice-cream cones
and unprepared to meet a strange old man.

The menu board on his truck said he had vanilla ice-cream and nut sprinkles or chocolate topping.

I told him I wanted a cone with nuts, and my sister wanted one with chocolate.

Right off, he said that was impossible. We could both have cones with nuts or both have cones with chocolate, but that she couldn't have a cone with chocolate topping at the same time I had one with nuts. That was not allowed.

I pointed to the menu board and said, "But look Mister. It says vanilla with nuts or vanilla with chocolate topping."

"No! It says nothing of the kind." he shouted.
"It only says vanilla and nuts or chocolate topping!"

"So why can't my sister have one with chocolate and I have one with nuts?"

"Because, Young Wisenheimer, Heisenberg's Ice-Creams don't answer to your local-only Law of Distribution!
Now make up your mind or leave. Will you and your sister have the Local nuts or the Non-Local chocolate sauce?"

I grabbed my sister's hand and we ran.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Arizona desert is a awful place to be in the summer.
But thank the All Embracing Universe for Ice-Cream!
And nothing takes you back to those easy summer days of your youth
than the carnival tunes from the ice-cream vendor's truck.

But beware old man Heisenberg's truck!
I saw it once when I was a boy.
We ran out to the street, eager for ice-cream cones
and unprepared to meet a strange old man.

The menu board on his truck said he had vanilla ice-cream and nut sprinkles or chocolate topping.

I told him I wanted a cone with nuts, and my sister wanted one with chocolate.

Right off, he said that was impossible. We could both have cones with nuts or both have cones with chocolate, but that she couldn't have a cone with chocolate topping at the same time I had one with nuts. That was not allowed.

I pointed to the menu board and said, "But look Mister. It says vanilla with nuts or vanilla with chocolate topping."

"No! It says nothing of the kind." he shouted.
"It only says vanilla and nuts or chocolate topping!"

"So why can't my sister have one with chocolate and I have one with nuts?"

"Because, Young Wisenheimer, Heisenberg's Ice-Creams don't answer to your local-only Law of Distribution!
Now make up your mind or leave. Will you and your sister have the Local nuts or the Non-Local chocolate sauce?"

I grabbed my sister's hand and we ran.

In that case I suggest you to go to the other side of the street and buy your ice-creams from the Organic Numbers truck, because it also sells ice-creams by the weak simultaneous law of (A,B). The strong simultaneous law of (AB) is also available for people that wish to be uncertain of the taste of the ice-cream during lick.

Also any possible mixture of uncertain/certain taste is available without any additional cost.

 

[doronshadmi]

The formula is just as bogus as it was about a year ago.

Proove it.

Well, actually it was probably Moshe who explained to you that I was pointing out real defects in your formula

I did not write any formula, which calculates the amount of the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainy x k-Redundancy tree, not before and not now, so what you say is wrong.

You never understood the formula nor what was wrong with it.

It was wrong as a general formula because in started from n>2.

The new formula starts from 0, and because of this fact it is really a general formula that enables to calculate the exact amount of all the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, after k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree distinct representation was expanded according to your remarks.

Still this expansion of the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, provides only the serial case of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, which is something that you can't comprehend, because strong simultaneity of symmetric AB superposition, is beyond your reasoning, which is stuck in the level of replacement of distinct ids under Redundancy.

Your method to calculate smaller k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees by using particular cases of bigger k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees, does not provide any information of the real complexity of a given k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, which is not limited to the amount of the Distinct States under a given tree.

And you jsfisher, can't comprehend it, because your reasoning is based on serial-only reasoning of Distinct States.

 

[doronshadmi]

Thank you so much for the invitation. However, you are the one making the Big Deal^{[SIZE=-3]TM[/SIZE]} of all this kXk nonsense, so the task of being correct in its presentation falls to you.

If you can't get something as simple as the 3X3 case correct, we can conclude it is all just nonsense you imagined to be important but it really isn't.

Jsfisher, why do you claim that it is easy to draw by hand any DS of kxk tree?

You are invited to show your simple method that draws any DS of kxk by hand.

But be aware that even if you provide this easy method; it does not provide any information of the complexity of a k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree (known also as Organic Number).

 

[doronshadmi]

Actually we describe such a Patten as a superposition of sine waves of different freaqancies.

…

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

The keywords hear are "different" and "same" , where "different" is based on (A,B,C,D,E,…) which is a weak simultaneity among distinct and ordered values that stand at the basis of any localized form.

"same" is based on (AB…) or (A,A,…) which is a strong simultaneity among non-distinct/distinct and unordered values that stand at the basis of any non-localized form (the simultaneity of (AB…) Uncertainty is more symmetric and therefore stronger than the simultaneity of (A,A,…) Redundancy).

Actually you have no clue with what you are dealing here, because you "superposition" (A quote from Wiki: "In physics and systems theory, the superposition principle, also known as superposition property, states that, for all linear systems") is based on linear reasoning.

Pleas pay attention to actual math and physics including wave packet

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


The wave equation

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

And Fourier analysis


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

It is all based on linear reasoning, for example:

The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory (also called the Wheeler–Feynman Time-Symmetric theory) is an interpretation of electrodynamics that starts from the idea that a solution to the electromagnetic field equations has to be symmetric with respect to time-inversion, as are the field equations themselves. The motivation for such choice is mainly due to the importance that time symmetry has in physics. Indeed, there is no apparent reason for which such symmetry should be broken, and therefore one time direction has no privilege to be more important than the other. Thus, a theory that respects this symmetry appears, at least, more elegant than theories with which one has to arbitrarily choose one time direction over the other as the preferred one. It is named after its originators, the late physicists Richard Feynman and John Archibald Wheeler.


…

Finally one could still consider that this formulation is still no more symmetric than the usual one as the retarded time direction still seems to be privileged. However, this is only an illusion as one can always reverse the process simply reversing who is considered as the emitter and who is considered the absorber. Any apparent 'privilege' of a time direction is only due to the arbitrary choice of which is the emitter and which the absorber.

A= emitter= transmitter
B= absorber= receiver

(AB) is the strong simultaneity where A,B ids are in a superposition (the symmetry of uncertainty).

The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory is based on the weak (A,B) simultaneity where ids are certain but their order has no significance (it is the symmetry of certainty, which is linear).

 

[zooterkin]

The keywords hear are "different" and "same" , where "different" is based on (A,B,C,D,E,…) which is a weak simultaneity among distinct and ordered values that stand at the basis of any localized form.

Where are A, B, C, D, E on those diagrams?