Re: QM Primer
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/14/2013 11:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Telmo, Bruno, I've incorporated your suggestions into an updated document. Thank you. To all: feel free to use these however you find appropriate. Jason If I use it (and I probably will - with attribution) I would replace the TV phosphor screens with photographic plates. The pedagogical difference being that silver spot that is precipitated out of the silver halide is then already classical and I could discuss the problem of quantum-classical without having to make it more difficult by including the problem of consciousness. Brent, Thanks. I am glad to hear they will come into some use. I don't think you necessarily need to get into consciousness. You might just explain that humans, like any other system of particles, can also be in superpositions (because the particles that make up the person are in superpositions). If you don't explain it in this way, how will you account for finding only one black spot? BTW, I like your idea of the photographic plates, and think I will take your suggestion. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: QM Primer
Thanks for the good work Jason. Hmm... I do have a critics, which is minor or major: I don't see any difference between the beam and the attenuated beam on my screen. In fact I would avoid color, or I would still use any trick so that even on a bad black and white screen we can clearly see the differences. Some people (like me) don't see well colors. I would have been born once year later, and I would never understood anything in math, as the modern math reform has been done in between and it promoted the use of color on the black board, and I would have unable to understand anything. Many people don't see well colors, and are usually even unaware of the fact. Colors are OK, but it helps the color blinded a lot, when the distinction is also clear and symbolical. I might come with more conceptual and/or pedagogical critics when I have more time. Best, Bruno On 15 Nov 2013, at 08:00, Jason Resch wrote: Telmo, Bruno, I've incorporated your suggestions into an updated document. Thank you. To all: feel free to use these however you find appropriate. Jason On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Nov 2013, at 18:36, Jason Resch wrote: Telmo, Thank you very much for that feedback; those are all good points and I will incorporate it into a new and improved version. Do you think it would be clearer if instead of a block of wood I used a very small (but light absorbing object), like a dust mote, or a single atom, etc. (something that more intuitively could be moved by light?) Perhaps I could built up with multiple levels, first the light hits an electron, which puts it into two states, and gives it two momentums, then the electron hits a phosphorescent screen, which puts it into multiple states of illumination, and then the person looking at the screeen is finally put into two states? That would be nice I think. One more remark, you seem to avoid formula, at all cost, including a(b+c) = ab+ ac. Of course I am a mathematician, and formula help them. I know some non mathematicians (and publishers) run away from any presence of formula, but it seems some simple one sum up so well what happend (cf one of Albert explanation of the interferometer ..). Anyway, noce work!, Bruno Jason On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Jason, nice work! A few comments: - It's not obvious what's going on when the block of wood turns into two. Even expecting the multiple outcomes, one does not intuitively expect a beam of light to move a block of wood. I don't mind the exaggeration but I suggest you make it explicit in the text and indicate displacement in the figure somehow; - Numbering figures would be a great improvement; - You should sign your work! Best, Telmo. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: QM Primer
Great work Jason! Regarding color blindness, there are some palettes to deal with this. I have a color blind colleague, and they seem to work well with him. For example: http://www.mollietaylor.com/2012/10/color-blindness-and-palette-choice.html I also use the color blind friendly palette when working with R: http://www.cookbook-r.com/Graphs/Colors_(ggplot2)/ Bruno, can you confirm if this would work for you? Telmo. On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Thanks for the good work Jason. Hmm... I do have a critics, which is minor or major: I don't see any difference between the beam and the attenuated beam on my screen. In fact I would avoid color, or I would still use any trick so that even on a bad black and white screen we can clearly see the differences. Some people (like me) don't see well colors. I would have been born once year later, and I would never understood anything in math, as the modern math reform has been done in between and it promoted the use of color on the black board, and I would have unable to understand anything. Many people don't see well colors, and are usually even unaware of the fact. Colors are OK, but it helps the color blinded a lot, when the distinction is also clear and symbolical. I might come with more conceptual and/or pedagogical critics when I have more time. Best, Bruno On 15 Nov 2013, at 08:00, Jason Resch wrote: Telmo, Bruno, I've incorporated your suggestions into an updated document. Thank you. To all: feel free to use these however you find appropriate. Jason On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Nov 2013, at 18:36, Jason Resch wrote: Telmo, Thank you very much for that feedback; those are all good points and I will incorporate it into a new and improved version. Do you think it would be clearer if instead of a block of wood I used a very small (but light absorbing object), like a dust mote, or a single atom, etc. (something that more intuitively could be moved by light?) Perhaps I could built up with multiple levels, first the light hits an electron, which puts it into two states, and gives it two momentums, then the electron hits a phosphorescent screen, which puts it into multiple states of illumination, and then the person looking at the screeen is finally put into two states? That would be nice I think. One more remark, you seem to avoid formula, at all cost, including a(b+c) = ab+ ac. Of course I am a mathematician, and formula help them. I know some non mathematicians (and publishers) run away from any presence of formula, but it seems some simple one sum up so well what happend (cf one of Albert explanation of the interferometer ..). Anyway, noce work!, Bruno Jason On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Jason, nice work! A few comments: - It's not obvious what's going on when the block of wood turns into two. Even expecting the multiple outcomes, one does not intuitively expect a beam of light to move a block of wood. I don't mind the exaggeration but I suggest you make it explicit in the text and indicate displacement in the figure somehow; - Numbering figures would be a great improvement; - You should sign your work! Best, Telmo. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: QM Primer
On 15 Nov 2013, at 13:38, Telmo Menezes wrote: Great work Jason! Regarding color blindness, there are some palettes to deal with this. I have a color blind colleague, and they seem to work well with him. For example: http://www.mollietaylor.com/2012/10/color-blindness-and-palette-choice.html I also use the color blind friendly palette when working with R: http://www.cookbook-r.com/Graphs/Colors_(ggplot2)/ Bruno, can you confirm if this would work for you? Hmm... For example, in the first link, I do see the difference *in* the palette, but if those colors are used to draw thin lines, in some subtle graphic, there is a lot of chance that I will not distinguish easily (if at all) the color #88CCEE, #44AA99, #B3B3B3, #8DA0CB, #7570B3, #66, especially if tired during a somber november day! And my dyschromatopsia is considered as a very slight one! That is why I would recommend the use of colors only in a way such that a black and white photocopy would not retrieve any information from the graphic. Bruno Telmo. On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Thanks for the good work Jason. Hmm... I do have a critics, which is minor or major: I don't see any difference between the beam and the attenuated beam on my screen. In fact I would avoid color, or I would still use any trick so that even on a bad black and white screen we can clearly see the differences. Some people (like me) don't see well colors. I would have been born once year later, and I would never understood anything in math, as the modern math reform has been done in between and it promoted the use of color on the black board, and I would have unable to understand anything. Many people don't see well colors, and are usually even unaware of the fact. Colors are OK, but it helps the color blinded a lot, when the distinction is also clear and symbolical. I might come with more conceptual and/or pedagogical critics when I have more time. Best, Bruno On 15 Nov 2013, at 08:00, Jason Resch wrote: Telmo, Bruno, I've incorporated your suggestions into an updated document. Thank you. To all: feel free to use these however you find appropriate. Jason On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Nov 2013, at 18:36, Jason Resch wrote: Telmo, Thank you very much for that feedback; those are all good points and I will incorporate it into a new and improved version. Do you think it would be clearer if instead of a block of wood I used a very small (but light absorbing object), like a dust mote, or a single atom, etc. (something that more intuitively could be moved by light?) Perhaps I could built up with multiple levels, first the light hits an electron, which puts it into two states, and gives it two momentums, then the electron hits a phosphorescent screen, which puts it into multiple states of illumination, and then the person looking at the screeen is finally put into two states? That would be nice I think. One more remark, you seem to avoid formula, at all cost, including a(b+c) = ab+ ac. Of course I am a mathematician, and formula help them. I know some non mathematicians (and publishers) run away from any presence of formula, but it seems some simple one sum up so well what happend (cf one of Albert explanation of the interferometer ..). Anyway, noce work!, Bruno Jason On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Jason, nice work! A few comments: - It's not obvious what's going on when the block of wood turns into two. Even expecting the multiple outcomes, one does not intuitively expect a beam of light to move a block of wood. I don't mind the exaggeration but I suggest you make it explicit in the text and indicate displacement in the figure somehow; - Numbering figures would be a great improvement; - You should sign your work! Best, Telmo. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything- list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Re: QM Primer
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Nov 2013, at 13:38, Telmo Menezes wrote: Great work Jason! Regarding color blindness, there are some palettes to deal with this. I have a color blind colleague, and they seem to work well with him. For example: http://www.mollietaylor.com/2012/10/color-blindness-and-palette-choice.html I also use the color blind friendly palette when working with R: http://www.cookbook-r.com/Graphs/Colors_(ggplot2)/ Bruno, can you confirm if this would work for you? Hmm... For example, in the first link, I do see the difference *in* the palette, but if those colors are used to draw thin lines, in some subtle graphic, there is a lot of chance that I will not distinguish easily (if at all) the color #88CCEE, #44AA99, #B3B3B3, #8DA0CB, #7570B3, #66, especially if tired during a somber november day! And my dyschromatopsia is considered as a very slight one! That is why I would recommend the use of colors only in a way such that a black and white photocopy would not retrieve any information from the graphic. Ok, this sounds like good advice. From your reply I notice that the palettes do work if used correctly: your level of confusion increases as we move to the right of the palette (where they admit an effectiveness degradation) and when you mix two palettes, which you are not supposed to do. So maybe this works ok for the first four colours. My good results with my color blind friend where obtained precisely by using just the first four colors in a single palette. Telmo. Bruno Telmo. On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Thanks for the good work Jason. Hmm... I do have a critics, which is minor or major: I don't see any difference between the beam and the attenuated beam on my screen. In fact I would avoid color, or I would still use any trick so that even on a bad black and white screen we can clearly see the differences. Some people (like me) don't see well colors. I would have been born once year later, and I would never understood anything in math, as the modern math reform has been done in between and it promoted the use of color on the black board, and I would have unable to understand anything. Many people don't see well colors, and are usually even unaware of the fact. Colors are OK, but it helps the color blinded a lot, when the distinction is also clear and symbolical. I might come with more conceptual and/or pedagogical critics when I have more time. Best, Bruno On 15 Nov 2013, at 08:00, Jason Resch wrote: Telmo, Bruno, I've incorporated your suggestions into an updated document. Thank you. To all: feel free to use these however you find appropriate. Jason On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Nov 2013, at 18:36, Jason Resch wrote: Telmo, Thank you very much for that feedback; those are all good points and I will incorporate it into a new and improved version. Do you think it would be clearer if instead of a block of wood I used a very small (but light absorbing object), like a dust mote, or a single atom, etc. (something that more intuitively could be moved by light?) Perhaps I could built up with multiple levels, first the light hits an electron, which puts it into two states, and gives it two momentums, then the electron hits a phosphorescent screen, which puts it into multiple states of illumination, and then the person looking at the screeen is finally put into two states? That would be nice I think. One more remark, you seem to avoid formula, at all cost, including a(b+c) = ab+ ac. Of course I am a mathematician, and formula help them. I know some non mathematicians (and publishers) run away from any presence of formula, but it seems some simple one sum up so well what happend (cf one of Albert explanation of the interferometer ..). Anyway, noce work!, Bruno Jason On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Jason, nice work! A few comments: - It's not obvious what's going on when the block of wood turns into two. Even expecting the multiple outcomes, one does not intuitively expect a beam of light to move a block of wood. I don't mind the exaggeration but I suggest you make it explicit in the text and indicate displacement in the figure somehow; - Numbering figures would be a great improvement; - You should sign your work! Best, Telmo. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because
Re: QM Primer
On 15 Nov 2013, at 16:49, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Nov 2013, at 13:38, Telmo Menezes wrote: Great work Jason! Regarding color blindness, there are some palettes to deal with this. I have a color blind colleague, and they seem to work well with him. For example: http://www.mollietaylor.com/2012/10/color-blindness-and-palette-choice.html I also use the color blind friendly palette when working with R: http://www.cookbook-r.com/Graphs/Colors_(ggplot2)/ Bruno, can you confirm if this would work for you? Hmm... For example, in the first link, I do see the difference *in* the palette, but if those colors are used to draw thin lines, in some subtle graphic, there is a lot of chance that I will not distinguish easily (if at all) the color #88CCEE, #44AA99, #B3B3B3, #8DA0CB, #7570B3, #66, especially if tired during a somber november day! And my dyschromatopsia is considered as a very slight one! That is why I would recommend the use of colors only in a way such that a black and white photocopy would not retrieve any information from the graphic. Ok, this sounds like good advice. From your reply I notice that the palettes do work if used correctly: your level of confusion increases as we move to the right of the palette (where they admit an effectiveness degradation) and when you mix two palettes, which you are not supposed to do. I was lazy, but as you can see I mix some colors inside each palette too. So maybe this works ok for the first four colours. I think so. The contrast seems more pronounced for them. My good results with my color blind friend where obtained precisely by using just the first four colors in a single palette. OK. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: QM Primer
On 11/14/2013 11:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Telmo, Bruno, I've incorporated your suggestions into an updated document. Thank you. To all: feel free to use these however you find appropriate. Jason If I use it (and I probably will - with attribution) I would replace the TV phosphor screens with photographic plates. The pedagogical difference being that silver spot that is precipitated out of the silver halide is then already classical and I could discuss the problem of quantum-classical without having to make it more difficult by including the problem of consciousness. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: QM Primer
Thanks Jason, nice work! A few comments: - It's not obvious what's going on when the block of wood turns into two. Even expecting the multiple outcomes, one does not intuitively expect a beam of light to move a block of wood. I don't mind the exaggeration but I suggest you make it explicit in the text and indicate displacement in the figure somehow; - Numbering figures would be a great improvement; - You should sign your work! Best, Telmo. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: QM Primer
Telmo, Thank you very much for that feedback; those are all good points and I will incorporate it into a new and improved version. Do you think it would be clearer if instead of a block of wood I used a very small (but light absorbing object), like a dust mote, or a single atom, etc. (something that more intuitively could be moved by light?) Perhaps I could built up with multiple levels, first the light hits an electron, which puts it into two states, and gives it two momentums, then the electron hits a phosphorescent screen, which puts it into multiple states of illumination, and then the person looking at the screeen is finally put into two states? Jason On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: Thanks Jason, nice work! A few comments: - It's not obvious what's going on when the block of wood turns into two. Even expecting the multiple outcomes, one does not intuitively expect a beam of light to move a block of wood. I don't mind the exaggeration but I suggest you make it explicit in the text and indicate displacement in the figure somehow; - Numbering figures would be a great improvement; - You should sign your work! Best, Telmo. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: QM Primer
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo, Thank you very much for that feedback; those are all good points and I will incorporate it into a new and improved version. Do you think it would be clearer if instead of a block of wood I used a very small (but light absorbing object), like a dust mote, or a single atom, etc. (something that more intuitively could be moved by light?) Perhaps I could built up with multiple levels, first the light hits an electron, which puts it into two states, and gives it two momentums, then the electron hits a phosphorescent screen, which puts it into multiple states of illumination, and then the person looking at the screeen is finally put into two states? Yeah, I would prefer this. Even if the sequence of events is a bit more complicated, I think the overall cognitive load is lower because you never have to suspend disbelief. Another thing I noticed: you say at one point that the light behaves like red light but there's never a payoff for this bit of information. Telmo. Jason On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Jason, nice work! A few comments: - It's not obvious what's going on when the block of wood turns into two. Even expecting the multiple outcomes, one does not intuitively expect a beam of light to move a block of wood. I don't mind the exaggeration but I suggest you make it explicit in the text and indicate displacement in the figure somehow; - Numbering figures would be a great improvement; - You should sign your work! Best, Telmo. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: QM Primer
I'm going to teach a public class on QM and when I saw this email I thought Great! I'll just steal Jason's stuff. And I liked the first part. But at the end you leave out decoherence and leave the impression that it is the mind that produces the classical appearance. That would REALY confuse'm. Brent On 11/10/2013 1:49 AM, Jason Resch wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3629/6823 - Release Date: 11/09/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: QM Primer
Thanks for uploading it, great job! Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM: http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/instant_eternal.jpg Beams exist only within the experience of the various participants, not as literal beams across a vacuum. There are no literal waves or particles. What is happening is that the stimulated physical components are arranged to reflect their stimulation to each other, which occurs in a physical frame of time that is essentially timeless. The physical layer, I am saying is the most primitive layer of experience, within which space and time divergence is generated. Light does not happen in spacetime, spacetime happens in experience (which is light, or any other sensation). On the right hand side, the topological layers of sensitivity slow down the instant and recapitulate larger and larger chunks of eternity into each frame of awareness. I tried to show how the footprint of the inanimate objects extends all the way down to the bottom, but remains indifferent to the spatiotemporal strata on the right hand side. Not the best diagram, I admit, but maybe gives some sense of the model I suggest. Thanks, Craig On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:49:00 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: QM Primer
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'm going to teach a public class on QM and when I saw this email I thought Great! I'll just steal Jason's stuff. And I liked the first part. Thanks. Let me know if you would like the powerpoint slides. But at the end you leave out decoherence If you have suggestions for how I could explain it simply I would be glad to try and enhance the primer with some information on decoherence. and leave the impression that it is the mind that produces the classical appearance. That would REALY confuse'm. How do you suggest I make it more clear what is responsible for classical appearances? Thanks, Jason Brent On 11/10/2013 1:49 AM, Jason Resch wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3629/6823 - Release Date: 11/09/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: QM Primer
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for uploading it, great job! Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM: http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/instant_eternal.jpg Beams exist only within the experience of the various participants, not as literal beams across a vacuum. There are no literal waves or particles. What is happening is that the stimulated physical components are arranged to reflect their stimulation to each other, which occurs in a physical frame of time that is essentially timeless. I believe in a four-dimensional existence (timeless physics). The physical layer, I am saying is the most primitive layer of experience, within which space and time divergence is generated. Light does not happen in spacetime, spacetime happens in experience (which is light, or any other sensation). Is this like describing a type of idealism then? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism ) On the right hand side, the topological layers of sensitivity slow down the instant and recapitulate larger and larger chunks of eternity into each frame of awareness. How does some particle carry all that information of its entire history? Aren't particles of the same kind practically (if not theoretically) indistinguishable? Perhaps in QM the multiple values a particle's property can take on represent an ever growing collection of information that can be associated with that particle? I tried to show how the footprint of the inanimate objects extends all the way down to the bottom, but remains indifferent to the spatiotemporal strata on the right hand side. Not the best diagram, I admit, but maybe gives some sense of the model I suggest. It took me a few times re-reading what you wrote but I think I can interpret some of what you are saying. Jason On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:49:00 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: QM Primer
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:42:34 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Thanks for uploading it, great job! Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM: http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/instant_eternal.jpg Beams exist only within the experience of the various participants, not as literal beams across a vacuum. There are no literal waves or particles. What is happening is that the stimulated physical components are arranged to reflect their stimulation to each other, which occurs in a physical frame of time that is essentially timeless. I believe in a four-dimensional existence (timeless physics). The physical layer, I am saying is the most primitive layer of experience, within which space and time divergence is generated. Light does not happen in spacetime, spacetime happens in experience (which is light, or any other sensation). Is this like describing a type of idealism then? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism ) No, I call it pansensitivity or primordial identity pansensitivity. Idealism implies a subject and and intellect. Sensitivity is about interacting experiences. On the right hand side, the topological layers of sensitivity slow down the instant and recapitulate larger and larger chunks of eternity into each frame of awareness. How does some particle carry all that information of its entire history? A particle is an appearance. If I am a large-now experience looking as a relatively small-now experience, it looks like a particle to me, but actually that appearance is just a sideways glance at a history of small-now experiences. I was trying to use the topographic map to give a sense of this - particles like islands but with roots going all the way down. The particle doesn't carry information, its appearance embodies the significance which relates itself to whatever other experience is encountering it. The entire cosmos is history, which is masked and alienated according to the significance of our own history. This kind of modulation of sense among different experiences on different frames (small-now vs large-now) is what I call eigenmorphism. It's not a smooth hierarchy, as in, we see a sharp distinction between living organisms and minerals, because of what we are and what our history has been. The same distinction would not appear from the mineral's perceptual frame (whatever that is). Aren't particles of the same kind practically (if not theoretically) indistinguishable? To us, yes, but aren't we ultimately using instruments made of particles to detect them? Perhaps in QM the multiple values a particle's property can take on represent an ever growing collection of information that can be associated with that particle? Information access is a matter of sensitivity. The more perceptual frames we can access, the more of the future and the past might be exposed (when we tap into the larger nows externally). I tried to show how the footprint of the inanimate objects extends all the way down to the bottom, but remains indifferent to the spatiotemporal strata on the right hand side. Not the best diagram, I admit, but maybe gives some sense of the model I suggest. It took me a few times re-reading what you wrote but I think I can interpret some of what you are saying. Cool. It really shouldn't be as opaque as I'm making it, it just comes out that way because I'm handicapped as far as putting it into a clear and simple explanation. Mainly it's that all of the 4-D physical histories meet in a transdimensional/transmeaureable hub (which is ordinary sense), so it is the histories themselves which are separated from each other by measure. If it were a giant porcupine, QM is looking at the tips of the quills and inferring a spacetime topology out there on the periphery. We see entanglement as the special case, but it would be sort of like *breaking the space off* between two quills so that they are automatically joined. It's a figure-ground reversal. Spacetime is nothing but insensitivity. The quills are experience, growing outward from the primordial identity. Decoherence then is really Disentanglement, and Emergence is Divergence. Craig Jason On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:49:00 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
Re: QM Primer
http://24.media.tumblr.com/81bb846756fd19a9561c4bceae885d3e/tumblr_mw2xreqAQl1qeenqko1_500.jpg Another diagram, maybe better? On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:42:34 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Thanks for uploading it, great job! Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM: http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/instant_eternal.jpg Beams exist only within the experience of the various participants, not as literal beams across a vacuum. There are no literal waves or particles. What is happening is that the stimulated physical components are arranged to reflect their stimulation to each other, which occurs in a physical frame of time that is essentially timeless. I believe in a four-dimensional existence (timeless physics). The physical layer, I am saying is the most primitive layer of experience, within which space and time divergence is generated. Light does not happen in spacetime, spacetime happens in experience (which is light, or any other sensation). Is this like describing a type of idealism then? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism ) On the right hand side, the topological layers of sensitivity slow down the instant and recapitulate larger and larger chunks of eternity into each frame of awareness. How does some particle carry all that information of its entire history? Aren't particles of the same kind practically (if not theoretically) indistinguishable? Perhaps in QM the multiple values a particle's property can take on represent an ever growing collection of information that can be associated with that particle? I tried to show how the footprint of the inanimate objects extends all the way down to the bottom, but remains indifferent to the spatiotemporal strata on the right hand side. Not the best diagram, I admit, but maybe gives some sense of the model I suggest. It took me a few times re-reading what you wrote but I think I can interpret some of what you are saying. Jason On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:49:00 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: QM Primer
On 10 Nov 2013, at 18:36, Jason Resch wrote: Telmo, Thank you very much for that feedback; those are all good points and I will incorporate it into a new and improved version. Do you think it would be clearer if instead of a block of wood I used a very small (but light absorbing object), like a dust mote, or a single atom, etc. (something that more intuitively could be moved by light?) Perhaps I could built up with multiple levels, first the light hits an electron, which puts it into two states, and gives it two momentums, then the electron hits a phosphorescent screen, which puts it into multiple states of illumination, and then the person looking at the screeen is finally put into two states? That would be nice I think. One more remark, you seem to avoid formula, at all cost, including a(b +c) = ab+ ac. Of course I am a mathematician, and formula help them. I know some non mathematicians (and publishers) run away from any presence of formula, but it seems some simple one sum up so well what happend (cf one of Albert explanation of the interferometer ..). Anyway, noce work!, Bruno Jason On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Thanks Jason, nice work! A few comments: - It's not obvious what's going on when the block of wood turns into two. Even expecting the multiple outcomes, one does not intuitively expect a beam of light to move a block of wood. I don't mind the exaggeration but I suggest you make it explicit in the text and indicate displacement in the figure somehow; - Numbering figures would be a great improvement; - You should sign your work! Best, Telmo. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: All, I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer regarding it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
