if you`s could change....

Why dont singletons flirt

morning_glory wrote:Why dont singletons flirt

dunno how to respond LOL

its true innit

erm....true

morning_glory wrote:Why dont singletons flirt

we've been here before.

low self esteem,
insecurity,
inferiority complex,
fear of rejection.


so,
in a word.

FEAR.

and it's a terrible terrible shame.

morning_glory wrote:never mind that, have you got a single mate

You do realise that I could just turn up and pretend?

Actually, you know I wouldn't do that so that's quite smart of you. I'm going to have to sit down and think about this philosophically for a while as it's all gone a bit Schrodinger's Cat

yes

but its all hypothetical.

she wrote:ever wish you hadnt asked?

she,
if that was because of my nob comments.

well,
how about mg wanting nicer tits?

what's the diff?

and yes TITS.

TITS TITS TITS.

in my vocabulary a boob is a mistake.

can't see the problem with tits.

coarse and vulgar?
mmmmmmmmmmm,
whatever.

morning_glory wrote:yes

but its all hypothetical.

That's Schrodinger for you

NotBert wrote:

morning_glory wrote:yes

but its all hypothetical.

That's Schrodinger for you

wtf is schrodinger

NotBert wrote:

morning_glory wrote:yes

but its all hypothetical.

That's Schrodinger for you

quantam physics is beyond me, I can cope with Pavlovs dog ...

hes a physicist something about 2 states at the same time

Quick example, Eric.

You have a bet and Betfair goes down until after the time it will be settled. There is a 50-50 chance your lay back has been matched.

Your lay back, even after the event, to you is both matched and unmatched. Until you can observe Betfair again, even though the event has happened, you have both winner and loser. It is the act of observation that collapses that coexistence.

Not the best analogy but it works.

okay.

but who the fk is the dinger chappie,
and where does the cat figure in this?

erixter wrote:okay.

but who the fk is the dinger chappie,
and where does the cat figure in this?

You are Schrodinger and the bet is the cat

bert,
i'm afraid we're not getting anywhere here.

never mind.

It's an experiment to demonstrate the nature of quantum mechanics, Eric, and how it can't really be imposed on day-to-day events.

A cat in a box lives or dies because of a single event at a subatomic level. The nature of quantum is that until the box is opened, therefore, the cat is both dead and alive. It is only observation that tells you which and so live cat/dead cat waveforms coexist in the box.

When you open the lid, the waveform collapses. The paradox in the experiment is that it's an experiment that would never be carried out as observation ruins it - when of course experiments are events to be observed by definition (in French, the word "experiment" is "expérience").

It was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who said "if you think you understand quantum mechanics you don't understand quantum mechanics" so we're in good company. Although I once successfully used Schrodinger to tell someone that the loaf of bread they had that was mouldy was in fact their fault because until they opened the loaf, it wasn't and it was at the same time - opening the packet collapsed the waveform and I couldn't be held responsible for that. I convinced her then to play probability and buy two further loaves.

okay.

NotBert wrote:It's an experiment to demonstrate the nature of quantum mechanics, Eric, and how it can't really be imposed on day-to-day events.

A cat in a box lives or dies because of a single event at a subatomic level. The nature of quantum is that until the box is opened, therefore, the cat is both dead and alive. It is only observation that tells you which and so live cat/dead cat waveforms coexist in the box.

When you open the lid, the waveform collapses. The paradox in the experiment is that it's an experiment that would never be carried out as observation ruins it - when of course experiments are events to be observed by definition (in French, the word "experiment" is "expérience").

It was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who said "if you think you understand quantum mechanics you don't understand quantum mechanics" so we're in good company. Although I once successfully used Schrodinger to tell someone that the loaf of bread they had that was mouldy was in fact their fault because until they opened the loaf, it wasn't and it was at the same time - opening the packet collapsed the waveform and I couldn't be held responsible for that. I convinced her then to play probability and buy two further loaves.

que

You have one atom of a radioactive isotope with a half life of 20 minutes, which means half the sample will decay in 20 minutes and produce an alpha particle.

You have a vial of poison gas with a switch that is set off when an alpha particle is in contact.

You have a cat. The gas will kill it instantaneously

You put the three in a box with instant access to the switch for any potential alpha particle.

You stop the experiment at 20 minutes and all possible changes after are blocked.
------------------------------------------------------

At 20 minutes, it is 50/50 the decay has happened, the switch has tripped and the cat is dead. The subatomic event has a real-life consiequence. However, you do not know what that consequence is until you observe it.

Until you open the box, therefore, the cat is both the waveform "dead" and the waveform "alive". It is the act of observation that collapses those two waveforms and leaves one only.

Better?

yeah, if I knew what a fucking waveform was.

morning_glory wrote:yeah, if I knew what a fucking waveform was.

And you wonder why I talk about seeing you in your skimpies all the time...

A wavefrom is in this situation, a probability function. There are two possible events - particle decayed or not which result in live cat, dead cat (although not in that order). Those are the cat waveforms we have.

The parallel is with the probability density function that is both the standard atom and its component parts at a subatomic level. Ironically, the cat, although a construct of probability density functions, is nevertheless at a social level inappropriate to be assessed at the quantuum level of a probability density function. Hence the reductio ad absurdiam of the paradox that Schrodinger creates to illustrate it. He concocts an experiment that can never be observed. That's genius and are you as turned on now as I am?

NotBert wrote:

morning_glory wrote:yeah, if I knew what a fucking waveform was.

And you wonder why I talk about seeing you in your skimpies all the time...

A wavefrom is in this situation, a probability function. There are two possible events - particle decayed or not which result in live cat, dead cat (although not in that order). Those are the cat waveforms we have.

The parallel is with the probability density function that is both the standard atom and its component parts at a subatomic level. Ironically, the cat, although a construct of probability density functions, is nevertheless at a social level inappropriate to be assessed at the quantuum level of a probability density function. Hence the reductio ad absurdiam of the paradox that Schrodinger creates to illustrate it. He concocts an experiment that can never be observed. That's genius and are you as turned on now as I am?

lose the skimpies imo,
he hasn't got time for those.