Re: QM Primer

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:13 PM, meekerdb 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 p

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 wi

Re: QM Primer

On 15 Nov 2013, at 16:49, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Bruno Marchal 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

Re: QM Primer

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Bruno Marchal 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: >> >>

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

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 w

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 th

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),

Re: QM Primer

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 > > > wrote: > >> Thanks for uploading it, gre

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 > > > wrote: > >> Thanks for uploading it, great job! >> >> Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM: >> >>

Re: QM Primer

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Thanks for uploading it, great job! > > Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM: > > > > Beams exist only within the experience of the various participants, not as >

Re: QM Primer

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb 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

Re: QM Primer

Thanks for uploading it, great job! Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM: Beams exist only within the experience of the various participants, not as literal beams across a vacuum. There are no literal waves or part

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 confus

Re: QM Primer

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 6:36 PM, 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 absorbi

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 t

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