Physicist disentangles 'Schrodinger's cat' debate

Aug 26, 2013
Physicist disentangles ‘Schrodinger’s cat’ debate
Art Hobson, professor emeritus, physics, University of Arkansas

Physicist Art Hobson has offered a solution, within the framework of standard quantum physics, to the long-running debate about the nature of quantum measurement.

In an article published August 8 by Physical Review A, a journal of the American Physical Society, Hobson argues that the phenomenon known as "" is key to understanding the measurement problem illustrated by "Schrodinger's cat."

In 1935, Nobel Laureate Erwin Schrodinger used the example of a cat in a closed box to illustrate the central paradox of : such as electrons, photons or atoms can exist in two quantum states at once. These states are known as "superpositions."

"A measurement in quantum physics means using some sort of large-scale macroscopic device, such as a Geiger counter, to learn something about the quantum state of a microscopic system, such as an atom or a single photon," Hobson said. "Quantum theory seems to imply that if you connect the microscopic system to a large-scale measuring device that distinguishes between the two distinct states of the microscopic system, then the Geiger counter will be also 'entangled' into a superposition of existing in two simultaneous states. However, this is something that we never observe and is not acceptable."

Using Schrodinger's illustration, Hobson said the cat plays the role of the Geiger counter that is connected to a radioactive nucleus in order to determine the decayed or undecayed state of the nucleus. A "live cat" would be a macroscopic signal of an undecayed nucleus and a "dead cat" would be the macroscopic signal of a decayed nucleus. Quantum theory seems to say that the cat should therefore be entangled into a superposition of being both dead and alive, he said.

Instead, Hobson writes in his article that the cat's is "entangled" with the atom's state, implying that there is an important "nonlocal relation," or instantaneous action-at-a-distance, between the two. According to nonlocality, if any two entangled objects are sent in opposite directions and the state of one of them is altered, the second instantly alters its state in response no matter how far apart the two may be. Hobson cites direct experimental evidence supporting his analysis, from experiments performed in 1990 involving nonlocal observation of entangled pairs of photons.

"The strange thing is that the action happens instantly, with no time for light or an electromagnetic signal or radio signal to communicate between the two," Hobson said. "It is a single object that is behaving as a single object but it is in two different places. It doesn't matter what the distance is between them.

That phenomenon must be taken into account to resolve the measurement problem, he said. That means with Schrodinger's cat, the cat is no longer predicted to be both dead and alive. It is instead dead if the nucleus decays, and alive if the nucleus does not decay, just as one would expect.

According to Hobson, since 1978, three previous published analyses have suggested similar solutions to the measurement problem, but the earlier solutions were little noticed at the time and the debate continued, "leading to confusion and even to pseudoscientific claims about the implications of quantum physics," he said.

"It's important to sort out the foundations of quantum physics," Hobson said. "This theory is more than a century old now, and these ideas have been out there but they haven't been noticed or taken seriously enough. It is my hope that this resolution of the measurement problem will now be accepted by the quantum foundations community."

Explore further: Making big 'Schroedinger cats': Quantum research pushes boundary by testing micro theory for macro objects

Related Stories

New principle may help explain why nature is quantum

May 14, 2013

Like small children, scientists are always asking the question 'why?'. One question they've yet to answer is why nature picked quantum physics, in all its weird glory, as a sensible way to behave. Researchers ...

What if quantum physics worked on a macroscopic level?

Jul 25, 2013

Quantum physics concerns a world of infinitely small things. But for years, researchers from the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, have been attempting to observe the properties of quantum physics on a larger scale, ...

Playing quantum tricks with measurements

Feb 15, 2013

A team of physicists at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, performed an experiment that seems to contradict the foundations of quantum theory—at first glance. The team led by Rainer Blatt reversed a ...

Recommended for you

Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

Apr 18, 2014

Putting is arguably the most important skill in golf; in fact, it's been described as a game within a game. Now a team of Rice engineering students has devised a training putter that offers golfers audio, ...

User comments : 55

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2013
Instead, Hobson writes in his article that the cat's quantum state is "entangled" with the atom's state, implying that there is an important "nonlocal relation," or instantaneous action-at-a-distance, between the two…..

How?
"It's important to sort out the foundations of quantum physics," Hobson said….

Something likes this? …..
http://www.vacuum...19〈=en
beleg
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 26, 2013
Relation - Mathematics. a property that associates two quantities in a definite order, as equality or inequality.

Correlation - Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.

"Instead, Hobson writes in his article that the cat's quantum state is "entangled" with the atom's state, implying that there is an important "nonlocal relation," or instantaneous action-at-a-distance, between the two.

Fearing to dread where Hobson went, I clung to a parsimonious "nonlocal correlation".

"instantaneous action-at-distance, between the two" is not only redundant wording, we were talking about the events of one object, not two objects.

Oh well...I need the angel wings of Hobson.
martin_ciupa
2.7 / 5 (14) Aug 26, 2013
It appears to me that this "insight" does not address meaningfully the observer problem in any new way. Saying the "quantum state" of a distributed entangled system is non local, and observing provides instantaneous collapse of Wavefunction / Quantum state is an interpretation (among others, like MWI, CI, SI, etc.).

By saying this interpretation resolves issues is at expense of putting the Quantum state not just beyond space-time, but in a state that has no properties that can be physically tested (it is in that respect a "Hidden Variable" Bohmian notion). You must accept spookiness one way or another. (PS: The MWI interpretation at least poses other "worlds" where the states exist, other worlds are decoherent to the observer in one world, thus whilst "hidden" at lest they are natural not supernatural worlds.)

I recommend checking out the implications of Zeilinger 's retro causal Quantum Eraser experiments. We must let go of locality, causality and realism in some aspects.
martin_ciupa
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2013
"Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned."

"Our work disproves the view that a quantum system might, at a certain point in time, appear definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle. This would require communication faster than light -- which is dramatically at odds with Einstein's theory of relativity. And so, I think that this view needs to be abandoned completely. In a certain sense, quantum events are independent from space and time,"

See... http://www.nature...677.html
And...
http://www.scienc...5932.htm
martin_ciupa
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2013
"Hobson writes in his article that the cat's quantum state is "entangled" with the atom's state, implying that there is an important "nonlocal relation," or instantaneous action-at-a-distance, between the two."

This is the Hidden Variable of the Bohmian Interpretation, i.e., it is not a new insight. The "instantaneous action-at-a-distance", puts the "non-local relation" in a realm beyond space-time. As such it's metaphysical and spooky.

http://plato.stan...qm-bohm/

VendicarE
1 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2013
The purpose of the Cat in the box is to show how the state of macroscopic objects, isolated from outside observation, are subject to the same superposition of quantum states as the radioactive atom that might or might not cause the cat's demise.

It also directly implies that consciousness itself is subject to the same kind of superposition.

From moment to moment, all things - small or large, living or dead, experience a quantum superposition of internal states that are selected for and "realized" through "measurement' - AKA Interaction.

You at this very instant for example are a wave function that evolves between interactions with the outside world, toward all possible states, including death.

The Professor emeritus, needs to retire. His knowledge of quantum mechanics is lacking.

indio007
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2013
There is no way to definitively tell what is being measured.
Are we measuring the change in the measuring device caused by the quantum object ? or are we measuring the changed imposed on the quantum object by the measuring device?

Regardless ,the evidence that Einstein is wrong is piling higher and higher.
Ric = 0 ehh?
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 27, 2013
Instead, Hobson writes in his article that the cat's quantum state is "entangled" with the atom's state, implying that there is an important "nonlocal relation," or instantaneous action-at-a-distance, between the two…..


How?


Perhaps by virtue of the macroscopic system being able to amplify a bases state (observable state) of the quantum system, they are then by definition entangled.

Though I don't get how this solves anything.
tadchem
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2013
So the resolution to the dilemma of Schroedinger's Cat is Hobson's Choice?
(sorry, but I simply could NOT resist that opportunity)
amateur
3 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2013
I'm amazed that a discussion about Schrodinger's Cat can go on without any mention of Hugh Everett's many worlds interpretation, which solves all this "spookiness" quite handily. The cat is both alive and dead in different dimensional planes. ... Yes, the theory requires an extraordinarily large number of "parallel universes," but it's also the simplest and most elegant explanation. It's also quite intuitive, when you think of the co-ordinates necessary to plot the location of anything relative to anything else: (1, 2, 3) spacial dimensions; (4) time; (5) possible state.

In other words, I'll meet you at the park (1, 2, 3) at noon (4) if I can leave work early (5).
drhoo
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2013
How did this get published
orti
1.9 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2013
Could it be that there are more than 4 dimensions, and that the two objects remain adjacent to each other on one of those unseen dimensions? I'm no physicist. Is that a totally dumb idea?
akka69
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2013
I never understood the deep meaning of that experiment.
It's described as if you start with a small particle displaying a "true" quantum behaviour, then you add a big apparatus, the geiger counter, measuring the state of the particle, linked to a device which will kill the cat depending on the measured state.

And you put everything inside a box, which hides the outcome from a scientist.

Then according to Schrodinger, as long as the observer (the scientist) doesn't open the box, the cat exhibits a superposition of states du entanglement, being dead and alive at the same time.

I always considered that the whole apparatus inside the box, including the cat, was the true observer of the experiment so there never was any quantum uncertainty on the particle state.

What if the cat is beloved by the scientist who would surely cry if it's dead and smile otherwise? Would the scientist exhibit a superposition of both states (crying and smiling) before opening the box?

That's nonsense

Q-Star
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2013
I never understood the deep meaning of that experiment.


At the time, ya have to keep in mind the way these people bounced their ideas among each other,,,,, Things that we take for granted, they were just getting their "minds" around.

For me, today, the thing is an historical anecdote, that is it's only attraction.

That's nonsense


It absolutely is. The cat is macro object, made up of a megagazillion quantum particles, each with there own uncertainty,,,,, the cat is alive OR the cat is dead. Doesn't matter when ya open the box, the cat is EITHER alive OR dead. It never was or could be both.

It would beg the question how long does it take the cat to die once exposed to the cyanide, and must every cell in it be dead? Or only certain cells that are necessary for life?
VendicarE
2 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2013
"What if the cat is beloved by the scientist who would surely cry if it's dead and smile otherwise? Would the scientist exhibit a superposition of both states (crying and smiling) before opening the box?"- Akka

The key is isolation from interaction with the world outside the box, otherwise known as interaction.

Put the existing cat and box and the scientist inside another box, isolated from the outside world, and then yes, indeed the scientist is in a superposition of states until observed by the outside world (box is opened).

Between observations by the outside world, you are as much a cat, as the cat.
VendicarE
2.2 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2013
QStar expresses an opinion that is at odds with known quantum mechanics.

"Doesn't matter when ya open the box, the cat is EITHER alive OR dead. It never was or could be both." - QStar

He should avoid repeating his ignorance in the future, since all he is doing is spreading false news, and ideas contrary to known, observed, science.

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2013
"Are we measuring the change in the measuring device caused by the quantum object ? or are we measuring the changed imposed on the quantum object by the measuring device?" - indio

The answer is both, but less so for the observing machine as the number of quantum states that it can occupy approaches a continuum.

adam_russell_9615
2 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2013
As soon as the cat realizes the particle has decayed then he knows he is dead.
the end.
marraco
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2013
the second instantly alters its state


Such statement is incompatible with relativity. The keyword is "instantly".

It cannot "instantly" alter its state because that implies simultaneity, and simultaneity is relative to the observer. So different observers cannot, even theoretically, agree on the simultaneity of state change.
By non agreeing, they would be disagreeing on quantum mechanics on a fundamental way, because the second particle would not "instantly" alters its state. His state would be altered before, or after, for different observers.

Quantum theory do not says anything about simultaneity. It predicts the measuring result, but it does not state that "states" change. Relativity makes it incompatible.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2013
My computer's spellcheck changes the word "undecayed" to undecided

As Hobson explains, the cat is represented by a Geiger counter which is connected to a radioactive nucleus in order to determine the decayed or undecayed state of the nucleus. The Geiger counter is entangled with the radioactive nucleus and measures the radioactivity if the nucleus is undecayed. (live)

But if the nucleus is decayed, the Geiger counter (cat) can no longer do the measurement and is not functional (dead) with a decayed, no longer radioactive nucleus. The Geiger counter (cat) can only function if there is radioactivity to measure. The amount of information going from one to the other is dependent on the state in which one of the two is unchanged (undecayed), because they are entangled with each other and what happens to one affects the other instantaneously.

Live cat == undecayed nucleus
Dead cat == decayed nucleus
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2013
The MWI interpretation at least poses other "worlds" where the states exist,

The MWI has a problem (as far as I can tell) in that it would allow worlds with uncorrelated states in entangelment experiments.
This would mean that we are currently living in a a VERY lucky one of the multi-worlds as our observations always come out correlated.
We must let go of locality, causality and realism in some aspects.

Agreed. They just seem emergent properties of a more basic (either acausal or non-local (or both)) system.

It never was or could be both.

The appeal of the experiment is that it demonstrates that there is no clear line between what makes a quantum object (that can show superposition) and what doesn't. And this is vexing. Either there is some fundamental (unknown!) force/effect at work that delineates at a certain sizes between the two (non-linearly) - or it's all quantum objects, in which case alive/dead is the cat's state. Always. Whether observed or not.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2013
I'm amazed that a discussion about Schrodinger's Cat can go on without any mention of Hugh Everett's many worlds interpretation, which solves all this "spookiness" quite handily. The cat is both alive and dead in different dimensional planes. ... Yes, the theory requires an extraordinarily large number of "parallel universes," but it's also the simplest and most elegant explanation. It's also quite intuitive, when you think of the co-ordinates necessary to plot the location of anything relative to anything else: (1, 2, 3) spacial dimensions; (4) time; (5) possible state.

In other words, I'll meet you at the park (1, 2, 3) at noon (4) if I can leave work early (5).


It is ontologically expensive and invites its own set of problems, in particular as mentioned by AA, so is not really simple nor elegant. The desperation displayed in maintaing "realism" is embarassing.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2013
At the time, ya have to keep in mind the way these people bounced their ideas among each other,,,,, Things that we take for granted, they were just getting their "minds" around.

For me, today, the thing is an historical anecdote, that is it's only attraction.


Historically, the cat thought experiment was meant as a means of demonstrating the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation of wave-function collapse and so to imply that qm is incomplete. I believe Schrodinger admitted its silliness. However it back fired on him, as Vendicar points out, it is valid.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2013
The issue imo is not one of physical theory, but is merely epistemological. After all, the theory works while it is only a matter of interpretation.

In making a measurement, an observation, it is necessary to bring the quantum system up into the macroscopic realm where concepts like locality, counterfactuality, space, time, separability, causality,... are necessary for intuitive understanding, and so are imbedded in the experimental apparatus' arrangement. These concepts are then exposed as an mind dependent artificial synthesis, when applied to the quantum realm, and so are wrongly interpreted as indication of incomplete theory.

This is why physics can not provide knowledge of 'Independent Reality', and why 'Objective Realism' is therefore invalid. It can only provide predictive knowledge of experienced reality.

Imo, the 'wave-function' collapse is real in the sense of a collapse into concepts,... we force the quantum system up into a macroscopic conceptual framework
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2013
,... the quantum system is 'boxed-in' using macroscopically scalable concepts (the basis axis in Hilbert space), but remains unobservable until it is 'caught' by a measurement and projected onto a concept (an axis, eigenstate),... the measurement itself must force "it" into a new state.
amateur
1 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2013
MWI is ontologically expensive and invites its own set of problems, in particular as mentioned by AA, so is not really simple nor elegant. The desperation displayed in maintaing "realism" is embarassing.


Ontological expensiveness just means we don't have the wherewithal (or we're afraid) to imagine the vastness of the universe.

... Admittedly, MWI has its own problems. Particles that are truly splitting off onto different dimensional planes shouldn't have any need to interfere with each other. So a truly decoherent universe wouldn't reveal any wave function to speak of.

Still, I've gotta say I prefer it to spooky observation bias. Or the idea that small things obey different rules than big things. ... I guess that's why MWI seems so much "simpler." It means that everything obeys the same rules and reality exists regardless of an observer.
sirchick
not rated yet Aug 28, 2013
QStar expresses an opinion that is at odds with known quantum mechanics.

"Doesn't matter when ya open the box, the cat is EITHER alive OR dead. It never was or could be both." - QStar

He should avoid repeating his ignorance in the future, since all he is doing is spreading false news, and ideas contrary to known, observed, science.



How... ? Once out of the box..aka observed! At that point the cat is either dead or alive and not both as he clearly stated. At least thats what I think he meant =/
sirchick
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2013
As soon as the cat realizes the particle has decayed then he knows he is dead.
the end.


Thats a damn smart cat if it's aware about its current situation.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2013
IMO, this analogy of the cat in the form of a Geiger counter that is entangled with a radioactive nucleus doesn't explain entanglement well. I prefer the 2 identical diamonds analogy where it is the identical characteristics that enable the flow of information from one to the other no matter the distance.
The cat may split into 2 equal and identical parts where one half remains inside the box in its original state, and the other 'twin' enters into a quantum level of existence while maintaining its connection, and the twins are separate but indivisible. Both are alive and able to exchange information. Without opening the box, no one would suspect.

LOL...Does that make sense?
BAKOON
2 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2013
Your post sure as hell doesn't.
adam_russell_9615
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2013
Everyone knows by now that curiosity killed the cat. He looked.
Ober
4 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2013
PETA and femon are going to do a nude protest, due to the cruelty of quantum physicists to cats.

Please don't inform any of the blonde naked beauties, regarding the true nature of this thought experiment.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2013
Yep...I sure love pussies.
:)
bmlong
not rated yet Aug 29, 2013
So does this mean that the concept of superposition is fallacious and they cant really be in 2 places at once? or is it just that the expansion to the macro is not accepted as with the cat
indio007
1 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2013
The evidence for the reality of non-locality that has effects that are superluminal is quite voluminous at this point. Sure the EM field is propagates at C. The static and quasi-static field is instantaneous.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Aug 31, 2013
"Does that make sense?" - Sox

No
meBigGuy
not rated yet Sep 01, 2013
The relational interpretations make the most sense, work at macro and micro levels, and eliminate the need for spooky action. I don't understand why they don't gain acceptance. There is no spooky action at a distance. Things that can't ever be observed just don't exist. Spins that don't correlate can't exist. One man's superposition is another mans observed state. Search for and read about the quantum spooky socks.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Sep 01, 2013
The relational interpretations make the most sense,

However, it has a problem with stuff like delayed choice eraser experiments.
http://en.wikiped...m_eraser

meBigGuy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2013
I don't quite see the problem. I think the RQM "copout" covers it just fine.

This quote relates to EPR, but I think the issue is the same. Help me out if I'm missing something.

"The key to the RQM analysis is to remember that the results obtained on each "wing" of the experiment only become determinate for a given observer once that observer has interacted with the other observer involved."

Crudely put, it's all fuzzy until it's all done, and then it has to be consistent. The alternatives don't exist. In the Spooky Socks Analogy it is the difference between preparing the socks and preparing the dresser.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2013
How did this guy get it past the censors of a peer-reviewed journal? I have been trying for more than 7 years to publish exactly the same analysis? Sheesh!
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2013
How did this guy get it past the censors of a peer-reviewed journal? I have been trying for more than 7 years to publish exactly the same analysis? Sheesh!


That's a good question, how?

My guess would be that his analysis was presented without the "I am very smart and the other guys are criminally stupid" parts in it. (And maybe it was unencumbered by a lot of fringy sort of interpretations.) But that is just a guess, not a scientifically studied analysis.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2013
@ Q-Star

Have ya read any of my papers yet? Obviously not since ya judge without having any facts.

Can ya tell what the difference is between ya and a catfish? One is a slime-sucking, muck-raker and the other one is a fish.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2013
@ Q-Star

Have ya read any of my papers yet? Obviously not since ya judge without having any facts.

Can ya tell what the difference is between ya and a catfish? One is a slime-sucking, muck-raker and the other one is a fish.


For a really brilliant & astute scientific thinker, ya sure don't read very well.

I clearly stated it was a guess and only a guess, not the result of a scientific analysis.

Why would I go to the trouble to try to find one of your papers? Ya have reproduced them here ad nausium & explained them to us thousands of times in the most minute detail ad nausium. Ya need to learn some logic & reasoning skills, my guess was based on many very predictable and entirely consistent observations.

Now this is only a hypothesis mind ya, maybe we can test it experimentally soon if we can find some funding, I posit that: Your ego & self promoting is an invariant property of the physical universe. How might we experimentally subject that to falsification?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2013
@ Q-Star,

As usual you are proving that you are a rednecked bigot. I have argued here precisely the same points that Art Hobson is now arguing in his article!
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2013
@ Q-Star,

As usual you are proving that you are a rednecked bigot.


Hey boyo, that's Irish bigot, get it right.

I have argued here precisely the same points that Art Hobson is now arguing in his article!


I know that. Ya commented on your nonplussed state of mind because he got published & ya got rejected. I was just trying to help ya understand why. Because when ya have argued here precisely the same points, ya invariantly included all the "someone criminally stupid" & "obscenely ignorant" & "foolish liars" & "unbelievable morons" & such.

Ya really need to work on your reading skills. I didn't say your science was different, I merely guessed why his work was accepted & yours is made fun of.

Pay attention. A brilliant, insightful, Nobel class, cutting edge, & world view changing scientist like yourself should be more careful when ya are participating in a test of my hypothesis: The Universal Invariance of Johan's Ego, Observed As the Strongest Force in Nature.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
Lucky you, Irishman. I've been called a German racist for no good reason.
BAKOON
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2013
No good reason? LOL!
Well, that seems to be one of the main problems within the Black community. The culture is damaging to kids who just want to get a good education and make something of themselves when they graduate. Their lack of discipline shows up every time from both school and home. Discipline is key to success in America...and it is the Black community who will pay with the lives and futures of their children.
-Obama_socks, Insane Racist Idiot

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2013
It is ontologically expensive
This word has no meaning.
merely epistemological
This word also has no meaning.

"...philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors." Dan Dennet
the macroscopic realm where concepts like locality, counterfactuality, space, time, separability, causality,... are necessary for intuitive understanding
Science does not require intuitive understanding. Much of what it has discovered is counterintuitive. Scientists are quite comfortable with letting numbers describe these things. It is philos who find their word calculations inadequate for the task, and this bothers them a great deal.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2013
and the other 'twin' enters into a quantum level of existence while maintaining its connection, and the twins are separate but indivisible
Uh what is a 'quantum level of existence'? Is this somewhat akin to your understanding of teleportation
The cells would have to be broken down into its quantum components so that it can be "fluid" enough to travel along the circuitry connecting to the receiving lab
-?

Do you think that 'quantum existence' is akin to the metaphysical realm? If so then you would be right, as both are equally imaginary.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2013
Scientists are quite comfortable with letting numbers describe these things
They're actually pretty uncomfortable with all attempts to explain the triviality, errors and conceptual misunderstandings hiding behind all these letters. After all, in similar way like the shamans of medieval era or alchemists, who encrypted their empirical knowledge.
Oh christ another word-monger.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2013
and the other 'twin' enters into a quantum level of existence while maintaining its connection, and the twins are separate but indivisible
Uh what is a 'quantum level of existence'? Is this somewhat akin to your understanding of teleportation
-Thegoatofottoskorzeny1923 (Nazi)

Uh what understanding of teleportation? Link, please
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 05, 2013
and the other 'twin' enters into a quantum level of existence while maintaining its connection, and the twins are separate but indivisible
Uh what is a 'quantum level of existence'? Is this somewhat akin to your understanding of teleportation
-Thegoatofottoskorzeny1923 (Nazi)

Uh what understanding of teleportation? Link, please
This is the internet. You can't lie and get away with it.
http://phys.org/p...tto1923/

-Look for the bulshit about fluidity and wires. If you need to see where you said any of this crap just copy it and drop it into google. Anyone can do this to find out what an imbecile you are.
BAKOON
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2013
It's really easy to search phys.org via google for idiot comments, sockpuppet tracking, etc.

You just add "site:phys.org" to the beginning of your search. For example, if I want to search for comments about lead boomerangs, I would type:
site:phys.org "lead boomerangs"
in google.

Here's an interesting one to try:
site:phys.org marscritters.blogspot.com
Piroutte is an old sockpuppet of Obama_socks that was banned for extreme racism and violent threats.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 05, 2013
Yeah and then a few socks later she was pussycat_eyes who got banned for posting gay porn links. She said her bf did it. The same one I suppose who used to plug her while she was cooking dinner. By her own admission as if we had to know.

Hey did you see her newest drone named after her cat diarrhea? Ahaahaa
obama_socks
1 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2013
Nope, I would never name a sockpuppet Pirouette or any of the other names that Theghostofotto1923 accuses me of. I only have 2 sockpuppets which I used for a few weeks to see if Blotto could find them out. Blotto never did. And I have one other which was my primary name and that I used back in 2004-2012, and which I no longer use in this Physorg since I started with the one I use now.

Theghostofotto1923 talks to himself through his demonic sucksuckpuppets where they both lie about me and several others as a way to get even with those commenters with whom he is desperate to be rid of.

Demonic possession is a very real thing, and even more apparent on the internet where Theghostofotto's demons protect him and try to discourage commenters from having their say.

TheghostofOttoSkorzeny is a willing victim of his demons because he really BELIEVES that he is the ghost of Otto Skorzeny, the dead Nazi of World War II fame.

More news stories

Making graphene in your kitchen

Graphene has been touted as a wonder material—the world's thinnest substance, but super-strong. Now scientists say it is so easy to make you could produce some in your kitchen.

Low tolerance for pain? The reason may be in your genes

Researchers may have identified key genes linked to why some people have a higher tolerance for pain than others, according to a study released today that will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 66th Annual ...

How to keep your fitness goals on track

(HealthDay)—The New Year's resolutions many made to get fit have stalled by now. And one expert thinks that's because many people set their goals too high.