User talk:Patrick0Moran - Knowledge (XXG)

776:. That's fine with me. What bothers me is that a million years of events go by during which the position of the earth changes, a star moves into the path of the oncoming photon and moves beyond that path, a bunch of other things happen, and finally a mote of star dust comes into the path of the photon just at the right moment to get hit. If that happens, then perhaps a message gets sent backwards through time to inform that entangled twin that it is right for it to manifest itself as part of a diffraction pattern pretty much dead center of the screen. That way of thinking about things does not make me think of myself as a clockwork orange mechanically getting peeled by another clockwork orange. I can still support my idea that it really matters whether I choose to lead a better life tomorrow or choose to do something stupid like pulling a cougar's tail. However, if I think about the "decision" of how the signal photon is to be manifested as being made in the present in Kim's newly ventilated lab on the basis of a decision table that is entirely outside of time (like a dice game in which all the dice throws had been made and recorded beforehand and recorded in a secret book only known by the casino employee who announced the result of dice throws as people put down their bets stage by stage) then that would seem to imply that somehow the decision 140:

would happen to the entangled psi-functions after one of them hit a double slit? Is it the case that when the identical psi-function that resides at two positions in space hits the double-slit, then the identical psi-function that proceeds in two directions thereafter is a pair of psi-functions that are going to interfere and thus demonstrate interference? Or is it the case that when the identical psi-function that resides at two positions in space does not hit the double-slit, then the identical psi-function that proceeds in two directions thereafter is not a pair of psi-functions because nothing has happened to cut it (as the double-slit apparatus would), and there is nothing to interfere with itself and therefore no potential for interference phenomena to be manifested? In other words, which experience in the two limbs takes precedence? Does the splitting in one limb split the psi-function in the other limb despite nothing having happened to it at that locality? Or does the non-splitting in the other limb

1362:

Middle Ages, death between the Great Wars, and skin ulcers in the 21st Century. Although the fear of spiders may be a European trait ref Davey, G. C. (1994). The" disgusting" spider: The role of disease and illness in the perpetuation of fear of spiders. Society and Animals, 2(1), 17-25. Scientific advancement in Industrial Revolution and later put doubt into medical consequences of spider bites. Commonly held beleifs about spider bites were debunked as folktale and myth. California physician Emile Bogen cemented the consequences of black widow envenomation, or arachnidism, in the 20's ref Bogen, E. (1926). Arachnidism: a study in spider poisoning. Journal of the American Medical Association, 86(25), 1894-1896. Several other types of arachnidism have been described since, however, folktale and myth still dominate the perception of spider bites. Importantly, most arthropod bites are not from spiders, no spider bite is typically fatal to humans and most skin wounds are not from a spider bite.

214:

thought you are actually forced to use something like a coincidence counter between a detector on the idler particle and the detector on the "pattern-limb". Basically, I was under the impression that once you had two entangled particles, it is no longer possible to detect the "wave-like" or "particle-like" (or any other quantum state) on one of the entangled particles, without correlating its state with the other entangled particle. You propose a setup where the there are two identical entangled limbs, and say that there should be a directly visible interference pattern on both limbs in that setup. I was under the impression that both limbs in that setup would only be even-intensity blobs. I did have a look at the Walborn paper, but if you carefully read the descriptions of the interference patterns in figures 2 and 4, you will note that they are coincidence counts. Also on page 3: "The interference pattern is recovered through the coincidence detection of photons s and p."

92:

that they had "which path" information for all or most of the photons in the lower limb, then they would feel that they had a comprehensible explanation for their not getting an interference pattern in the upper limb. If they found that they were getting a nice interference fringe on a wall or some other incidental target in the lower limb, but there was no interference fringe in the upper limb, then they would have a real mystery. If they were curious and the photons coming out of PS were not getting superimposed on the same detection screen, then they could duplicate the arrangement in the upper limb in the lower limb so that the two paths coming out of PS would converge nicely and the psi-functions emerging from the two regions of PS would be superimposed and would form a nice set of interference fringes. At that point there should be interference phenomena in the upper limb too.

96:

I would put the BBO and the Glan-Thompson prism into the apparatus. The upper limb and the lower limb being the same setup, whatever was showing up in the upper limb should be showing up in the lower limb. Only then would I start doing things to the two paths that were originally going into PS. If I put PS back in, diverging the two paths considerably, I would expect to find two widely separated spots of light on the wall someplace, and I would expect that the interference pattern in the upper limb would disappear. If it didn't then my idea of common-sense reality would be reassured, but my ideas about what I thought I knew about quantum physics would be deeply shaken. I would admit that I was a total amateur going into a physics lab that I didn't know enough about, and I would start a long series of observations to try to figure out where my imagination had gotten out of hand.

30:

knowledgeable, but at least they look as if they are ;-) The bit I was wondering about concerns directly detecting an interference pattern in the top (simple) half of the experimental setup, if the lower half is removed (i.e. no explicit detector is used on the entangled idler particles). If you look at the talk-page of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser page, under the heading "Questions on slightly changed setup", you will see my question in more detail there. I am looking for a paper on an experiment where the interference pattern of entangled particles is directly visible. If you know of such a paper, I would be very grateful if you could give me the reference, or perhaps direct me to someone that might have it! I will have a look at this page under this heading from time to time to see if you have made a response. --

314:

made this one detector look at a single "line" at a time, and moved it along to its next position after a certain amount of time had elapsed. So it operates rather like a scanner that turns your hand drawing into a JPG image. If only single photons were coming through in the upper limb of the experiment, and they were not forming any kind of extended pattern, then there would be no point of looking anywhere but the center of the straight-line trajectory coming out of the laser, BBO, etc. and into the upper limb of the experiment. So they had to have been getting an extended pattern, and the only extended pattern they would not have thought worthy of special mention would have been the typical Young-s interference pattern.

53:

light trap had detected almost all of the lower-limb photons before they had gone into any beam-splitter or double-slit type of device. It is guesswork to say this because you never want to say never, but if you sent an immense number of photons off into interstellar space, the chances of any appreciable number of them lucking out and running into a galactic double-slot machine a few gazillion light years away are so slim that you might not see a single instance in your lifetime. On top of that, your upper-limb detection device would be totally swamped with photons that had not been forced to interfere with themselves, plus any number of photons that got into the apparatus without ever having been entangled.

120:

the beam splitters and mirrors they introduced a phase difference. They have taken it out electronically, but I think they could have flipped the phase relationships one more time on one or the other path and thus have brought them together in the physical apparatus. Actually, there is another problem because of all the stray photons zipping around. If I remember correctly, the BBO sometimes passes photons through without down-frequencing and creating entangled photons. On top of that, there may be stray light from ambient illumination in the lab. So for practical purposes it makes good sense to use the coincidence counter and just ignore all the stray photons.

787:

instead of an electron perhaps, as an anti-matter person rather than a regular person) or whether it is merely the side effect of probability, the effects of entropy, the unlikelihood that Humpty-Dumpty's parts would all rebound from the stone-littered pasture and form him whole once more. If time is the ratcheting "forward" of events then temporal events might be one thing and entanglement phenomena might not be involved with the ratcheting, the arrow of time, etc. I guess that is o.k., but I am only guessing. There is no what I know of to take these things into the lab, at least not in any way beyond things like the Kim experiment.

758:

the experiment. If there were no BBO and ordinary photons were heading up the dual paths to that detector then they would always do what photons do in the basic double-slit device. However, throw the second wing into the experiment and the signal photon is compelled to behave as if it were sometimes prevented from interfering with itself -- no, let me rephrase that -- the signal photon is sometimes prevented from interfering with itself. Nothing is up there to keep it from interfering with itself, but it does about half of the time. The idea is that the signal photons event and the idler photons event are the

46:

the entangled photons that are not the ones that go to the top part will still go somewhere, and that somewhere is the de facto bottom part. You can do a couple of very simple things with the bottom half. You can put a snarly collection of carbon nano-tube muffler stuffer stuff directly in the path of those nether-wending photons, pretty surely determining that they will be "detected" before their entangled twins get to do anything. You can also put a mirror in their path and direct them into interstellar space where it might take them the remaining lifetime of the universe to find something to absorb them.

404: 261: 763:

on a path that never in the entire history of the universe is ever going to find a convenient electron cruising around an atomic nucleus, boost that electron into a higher orbit, and end its existence. In that case, I suspect that as far as the Universe is concerned not only did a photon not land on a dust mote a million years later, but no photon left the laser. There is a certain kind of ironic sense of justice in that conclusion.

2048: 1945: 1734: 135:"I am looking for a paper on an experiment where the interference pattern of entangled particles is directly visible. " -- What would happen if you started out with the laser of the experiment described in this article, and you kept the BBO and Glan-Thompson prism, but then you duplicated the top limb as the bottom limb. There being no double-slit anywhere, you would get, basically, two spots of light, one for D 1887: 931:

entanglement would just dwindle away as two entangled systems drifted apart, but he later gave that idea up. So if there is no upper limit... Practically, I think we could put a target and a clock on Mars, but that destination if only several light minutes away. At one point Cramer was planning to do experiments involving long lengths of light guides. Cthugha82 may know something we could cite.

450: 1582: 1254: 220:

experiment or quantum eraser experiment, just an experiment with entangled particles. You would probably still need to have a coincidence counter in the experiment, just to verify that the setup really gives entangled particles, but once that calibration is done, the coincidence counter should be able to be ignored, and the pattern should be directly detectable by intensity. --

1037: 1661: 1538: 1491: 1453: 499: 152:

anything" to the entangled twin. If you have not "done anything" to one of the entangled photons, then you cannot expect to have "done something" to the entangled twin. But you can't mess with Einstein and causality. So you can't speak of "doing something" to an entangled photon by "doing something" to its twin.

60:

upper limb, then there will be an interference pattern observed in both of them. However, if the lower limb does anything that makes all or most of the entangled photons get absorbed ("detected") before they can interfere with themselves, then you won't get an interference pattern in the upper limb either.

274:, so for this one entangled photon that came out of the BBO, you will either get half of the psi-function and it will "show up" as a scintillation on your retina, or you will get nothing because the other half has gone somewhere else. There is only one path that leads to your eye that is standing in for D 762:

event except for space-time differences. As though that were not quirky enough, now consider what would happen if somebody in Kim's lab knocked a hole in the roof and directed the photons that originally would have arrived at detector one out into space. Not only that, but by luck they put the photon

757:

The whole issue blows my mind. One thing seems to be clear. There is what may be regarded as a single event that occurs across both "wings" of the experiment on account of there being entangled photons. The signal photon is under no restrictions due to any hobbles being imposed upon it in its wing of

727:

I'm having a difficult time with the Retrocausality section. I haven't yet found any review articles that treat the subject broadly or with any pretense at objectivity. Every paper on this subject, even those purporting be reviews, presents a strongly distinct POV, and I can't rely on my BS detection

213:

Hi P0M, and thank you for your thoughtful reply! The reason all this has me confused is that I was under the impression that entangled particles will never exhibit an interference pattern in themselves, or at least not in the double-slit-before-BBO setup. To detect any form of interference pattern, I

151:

I don't know whether it is right or not, since the whole idea of causality has been getting pretty mushy, but the idea seems to be that if you have two entangled photons and you "do something" to one of them, then some change is manifested in the form of a "correlation" even though you have not "done

91:

position, the experimenters might have been puzzled for a moment. Then they would have asked whether the photons going along the downward paths from PS had any great likelihood of interfering with each other. If they found that they were getting a couple of bright spots of light somewhere, indicating

79:

before the entangled photons going the other way were affected by beam-splitters, etc. (simply because they weren't there yet), and if the experimenters started seeing a nice interference pattern appear on the wall behind where the detection device was planned to go, then people would be so astounded

76:

I would feel lots more confident about thinking about these things if I had access to a well provisioned and adequately funded physics lab. I do not. However, I think I can be fairly confident that if, when a lab happened to be setting up the experimental device of two limbs, somebody had started the

45:

I'll give you an "off the top" response here and then check the talk page when I have more time. The problem is that once you have set up the entangled electrons, you can't just cut them out of the total picture. You can change the lower half, but you can't "remove" the lower half. The reason is that

242:

entangled photons, and would so one at a time, then you could set up some photographic negatives as two detectors, and you could determine whether just one set of double-slits would result in the production of an interference pattern on both sheets of film, or maybe would not produce an interference

156:

position," you change it. If you do nothing to this psi-function, then you don't change it. When you have one psi-function and you put it through a double-slit apparatus, then you change it in all its "locations," and so you should expect it to exhibit interference phenomena in all its "locations."

147:

If you set up such an experiment, then you would presumably get the same result in both limbs. Either you would get two interference patterns, or you would get two spots. You would in either case explain what happened as an example of entanglement. If you got an interference pattern in the limb with

110:

being out of phase with each other in such a way that the high amplitude regions of one fringe pattern "fill in" the low amplitude regions of the other fringe pattern, the result being a broad band of light with no observable fringes. In an idealized experiment, you could put a piece of photographic

95:

If I were doing this experiment, then being as inexperienced as I am I would establish a baseline by starting without the BBO. I would make sure that I could get a nice interference pattern along two limbs. That way I would know that there were no problems with the apparatus or basic alignment. Then

1598:

status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original

1270:

780:

was made outside of time and yet in knowledge of or in response to that future event, and thinking that seems to imply that the whole Universe is tied in with an event that must turn out as it is... as it is what? As it is predicted to do? As it is known before the fact to be going to do? It sounds

433:

Hi Pat, it was all thanks to you that I could get used to learning on Knowledge (XXG). I have read over a thousands articles and learned how to answer most of my own questions. Now I want to ask you one more favor in order to pick up the pace. I hope you can check your email inbox before the end of

294:

then, if the rate of single photons being fired out of our expensive single-shot laser was fast enough, persistence of vision would let you see a typical Young experiment type of interference pattern. And your twin would see a mish-mash because his two patterns would coalesce into one, and also the

252:

You could google for articles on such an experiment. I assume that if one had been done and had received a bit of publicity then we would likely have heard of it here, but who knows? Lacking that, I think that the experiment that the article covers does just what you want, but does it in such a way

119:

and see interference patterns recorded on the film. You could then position them appropriately to see how they would add up if they were in the right phase relationship. It isn't as though there are no fringes being produced in reality. The problem in the experimental setup is that the way they did

59:

a double-slit apparatus. It acts on both sets of entangled twin photons. So the "default" position for the upper limb is that there ought to be an interference except for the fact that various things can happen to the other set of entangled twins. If the lower limb is functionally equivalent to the

1361:

You and Doc James seem to have an interest in "spider bite" wiki. I disagree with the lead in. I have science as my forte but then thought it could help to have culutre as well. so something like this " Spider bites have been implicated in many ailments through history. Notably wild dancing in the

313:

there is a little vertical line and an "x." That stuff is there to indicate that the experimenters have put the detector on a sort of trolley operated by a stepping motor. Evidently a small detector sensitive enough to pick up individual photons was all they could build or afford to build, so they

786:

To return to staid reason for a moment, it would appear that anything that has to do with time is going to have a large component of subjectivity involved in it since the best minds have been unable to decide whether time is a quasi-thing, a stream in which one might swim backwards (as a positron

219:

The real interest I have is if you know of a (probably very basic, perhaps referenced in a text-book) paper where such an interference pattern (or even just a slit-pattern) is directly detected on entangled particles, by intensity, not by coincidence. It doesn't really have to be a delayed-choice

155:

If you look at this problem from a stretched mind point of view, there is only one psi-function and regardless of what it looks like from a human-in-space-time point of view, if you do anything to this psi-function "as though it were located in this position, or as though it were located in that

139:

and one for the new detector that is its stand-in in the bottom limb. Then what would happen if you put a double-slit apparatus in either the upper or the lower limb? Both members of each pair of entangled photons would have a simple psi-function before one or the other hit the double-slit. What

52:

Originally, you would not expect to see any photons heading into the upper limb of the experiment interfering with themselves because there is neither a double-slit barrier nor any device using beam splitters. You would not expect to see interference in the upper limb supposing that a nano-snarl

897:

Also the statement "Retrocausality has not won over more than a handful of partisans as a rational explanation of the findings of delayed choice experiments" was my interpretation of a statement by Cthugha82 ("This is at least the typical contemporary position..."). I'm sure nobody has actually

29:

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right way of contacting you on Knowledge (XXG), but I am guessing it might work, so here goes. I have been looking at the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser page, and noticed you giving some knowledgeable responses on the talk-page; I don't actually know if they were

930:

I don't know whether I could find a specific reference in regard to stretching the Kim experiment. On the other hand, discussions on entanglement include statements that indicate there is no time limit on how far apart correspondences can be discovered. Schrödinger was originally hopeful that

936:

I doubt that anybody has done a survey or even taken a random sample of opinion among physicists. Maybe there is a bibliography somewhere that would help us by listing prominent articles for and against. It would be fair to say something like: "The following 8 articles question the idea of

84:

interference pattern that they would call everybody's attention to this virtually unthinkable result. As far as I know, nothing like that has happened. I doubt that it is because everybody has been careful not to turn on the lasers, etc., before the whole apparatus is ready to

549:

on Goodreads is the series to which you are referring? I am referring to the titles on this page minus the "University Physics" that you did not appreciate way back when. Also, I just noticed a "University Physics. Volume 3", so is this also a series of some sort? ----

282:, then the same thing will happen. You will either get nothing or you will get one photon smack in the middle of where the "straight line" trajectory of the photon will place it. Presumably (and I'll come back to this presumption in a minute) if your twin stood at D 962:

I did another major swoop through the draft, mostly to simplify overly complex sentences that I let slide the first time through, but also a lot of simple copyediting. Please check over to make sure that I haven't adversely changed their intended meanings. Thanks!

781:

very much like the old idea of the mind of God that stands outside of time and knows before I am born that I will choose to sin and therefore be doomed to an infinity of torture in hell. Somehow I'd like to feel that I have a choice in the matter, a real choice.

1911:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

1752:

Orphaned image for many years. The image that was digitally modified still exists and this image could be recreated in the future if there was an encyclopedic need to do so. Until there is an encyclopedic need, it does not seem necessary to store the

336:

OK, so I will simply have to wait until someone figures out a way of creating only entangled particles. Probably not impossible at some point, seeing as they managed to make devices that spit out individual photons long ago! Thanks for your help!

576:

Thermodynamics, Kinetic Theory, and Statistical Thermodynamics (revision and expansion of An Introduction to Thermodynamics, Kinetic Theory, and Statistical Mechanics) -- I have the original. If only Sears did the revision I would go for the

656:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

751:

I just got started on that problem myself. I'm looking at an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia. (Personally, I think their entries can be of variable quality, but I'm willing to have a look. Just got started on it a minute

1852:

of Quantum Mechanics", or something else. Or perhaps I'm misreading! As you noted at the time, this stuff takes some digesting. But I'm also stuck on what the word "application" means here. If it said "...the range of

822:

it is essential to look at the entire event. I wonder whether it is relevant that different inertial frames have their own idea of what comes first and what comes second. Anyway, the arrival of one entangled photon at

1915:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

295:

center would be brighter than for a regular Young type interference pattern. That being said, you would nevertheless be seeing an interference pattern formed by entangled photons whenever you stood in for either D

1410:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 831:. A coincidence counter with a delay-line in it to match a nearby-received twin with its remote-received twin will not ping until the twin that is far away in space or time actuates its end of the mechanism. 148:

the double-slit apparatus, but you got a single spot of light in the other limb, then you would conclude that entanglement was not taking place or was not the kind of phenomenon that you thought it was.

101:

After looking at the talk page for the article, I think that all of the above is, in a sense, irrelevant to your real question. You seem to be concerned with the muddying effect of having the patterns at

367:! - You and Chris Howard have succeeded (in changing my mind and returning). Thanks for standing up for me in numerous places during that "Hublolly" incident I was not aware of - its very kind of you! 1857:..." I would be merrily on my way to the next sentence, and eventually (hopefully) able to get back to watching Avengers: Endgame. But now I'm wondering what Quantum Mechanics is being applied 768:

A more disturbing conclusion comes looming when we ask what happens if the photon hits something a million years after the experimenter activates the laser in the lab. A photon will appear in D

1114: 995: 1234:

Hello, I notice you have recently been involved in the above article. I have proposed a complete rewrite on the talk page, and have done a rewrite on my sandbox. Please give your opinion?

1110: 991: 303:. If you really wanted to peel apart the four layers that your twin was seeing, the we would need to re-introduce the coincidence counter and use it to sort photons into four groups at D 1468: 1681:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

1515:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

813:"Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment" may be useful. I think it is right, but only because it agrees with my prejudices at this moment. I need to study it carefully. 1700:

Hello PatrickoMoran, I read in an old article on Taekwondo where you made a comment about Mr. Charles Bewley. I used to train with him back in the 1974 time-frame in Colorado.

1553: 792:

I'm sure all of this has not been helpful to you. It may have been helpful to me in directing me to look for certain things. I'll see whether I can find more critiques on-line.

1841:

article, the wording of which survives to this day! I'm having a little trouble parsing it, and hoped you might be able to clarify. "EPR tried to set up a paradox to question

1908: 1194: 159:

I'll look around to see whether anybody has made a "Y" configuration experiment and put a polarizer in one fork, or a double-slit in one fork, or something of that sort.

1619:

to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Knowledge (XXG). Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a

1291:

to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Knowledge (XXG). Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a

1190: 1334:, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on 266:

If you put your eye where D3 is, you would see only the photons corresponding to the psi-function that, as split into two parts by the double-slit, bounced off of BS

2132: 1676: 1510: 317:

If you want an experiment that does not involve a coincidence counter, then I suspect that you will have to wait for an experimental apparatus that spits out

1898: 1204: 1124: 1005: 2115: 2011: 1796: 675: 421: 144:

the split in the psi-function in the other limb despite nothing additional having been done to it after it went through the double-slit apparatus?

692:

He didn't succeed in getting me blocked, of course, but you may wish to visit the page to add your comments. They could be useful in the future.

1327: 1624: 1296: 1606:

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a

1545: 1378: 1278:

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a

1200: 1120: 1001: 1531: 1446: 1159: 1599:

copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the

1435: 1338:

and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my

1271:

copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the

1102: 983: 1607: 1279: 1862: 344: 221: 31: 2119: 2015: 330: 207: 185: 168: 39: 1331: 1800: 1672: 1502: 594:

is what we used to call Sears and Zemanski. Don't buy it. (It would be a one-volume compilation of the classical physics titles.)

2094: 1167: 1155: 968: 920: 903: 852: 736: 697: 1431: 670: 1197:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1117:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 998:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2107: 2059: 2037: 2003: 1956: 1934: 1788: 1745: 1723: 545:

talk page. I know that you linked to a book on Amazon.com, however, since you mentioned an "MIT series" I was wondering if

2111: 2007: 1792: 1600: 1590: 635: 630: 625: 1902: 1422:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

194:

However, I don't see any indication that they have actually looked at whether an interference pattern is delivered to D

2055: 2041: 1427: 1182: 1163: 964: 916: 899: 848: 732: 693: 16: 862:

I'm happy to have been led to the Gaasbeek paper. Also the Ionicioiu and Terno paper. I think there is something in

1775: 1668: 1181:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1101:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

982:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

686: 580:

Introduction to the Theory of Relativity -- This book actually has a co-author whose name escapes me at the moment.

1713: 1705: 898:

polled researchers in the field, and so my statement also smacks of original research based on Cthugha82's words.

1374: 468: 1848:

I think there is a small grammatical issue here, but I can't decide if it should actually be "the range of true

1741: 1727: 650: 243:

pattern on either sheet of film. You would have to have a perfectly light-free room to run your experiment in.

1866: 1709: 1701: 1498: 666: 1060:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

1366: 915:

I think the draft is approaching the point where we need to get Cthugha82's take on it. What do you think?

847:

I removed a lot of cruft from the retrocausality discussion. We have a number of key citations to fill in.

340: 1370: 1272: 1262: 1049: 645: 640: 348: 225: 35: 2123: 2019: 1804: 1423: 1686: 1520: 555: 523: 1594:. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the 1460: 1266:. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the 174: 2143: 1646: 1335: 1087: 541:

Hello. I noticed that you mentioned "the original MIT series written by Francis Weston Sears" on the

1964: 1399: 1390: 546: 517: 508: 1567: 1476: 1073:

http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/haunted-by-his-brother-he-revolutionized-physics Biographical stories

620: 458:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

439: 1419: 1403: 1235: 2027: 1347: 1339: 943: 867: 832: 793: 708: 595: 383: 322: 199: 177: 160: 121: 61: 1506: 87:

there was no interference pattern in the upper limb even if they put just a regular CCD in the D

2090: 1986: 1816: 1771: 1638: 1637:-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the 1323: 1304: 1239: 1220: 1140: 1021: 512:, a WikiProject and resource for Knowledge (XXG) cleanup listings, information and discussion. 410: 403: 372: 364: 1634: 1415: 1407: 1893: 1877: 1682: 1516: 551: 2077: 1973: 1758: 1615: 1418:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1411: 1287: 2139: 1924: 1642: 1083: 1041: 660: 286:

then s/he would in each of these cases shout out, "dead center hit!" If you stood in for D

260: 1557: 1472: 435: 2131:

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the

2076:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

1972:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

1757:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

2023: 1343: 1211:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1131:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1012:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

772:

after the appropriate time gap of almost no time at all, but nothing will appear in D

1811: 1300: 1216: 1212: 1186: 1136: 1132: 1017: 1013: 478: 368: 1861:, here. Modeling reality? I hope you see this and can shed some light. Thank you! 175:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Walborn_EtAl_QuantumEraser.svg

1838: 1623:. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the 1295:. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the 866:

to cover the "citation needed" marker. Anything else that has not been marked?

1920: 1106: 191: 1162:, saying that everything is perfectly explained by classical wave arguments. 2147: 2031: 1928: 1870: 1821: 1717: 1690: 1650: 1595: 1571: 1524: 1480: 1439: 1382: 1351: 1308: 1267: 1243: 1224: 1171: 1144: 1091: 1025: 972: 951: 924: 907: 875: 856: 840: 801: 740: 716: 701: 603: 559: 527: 443: 417: 391: 376: 352: 229: 129: 69: 827:

is part of the same event in which the other entangled photon shows up at D

2100:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

1996:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

1319: 685:

DP attempted to perform a preemptive strike against me by reporting me to

25:

A question (I don't even know if this is the right way of doing things...)

1990: 937:

retrocausality, but only 3 articles supporting the idea have been found."

1660: 1537: 1490: 1452: 1406:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

987: 498: 77:

lasers, etc. going while lining up all the parts of the upper limb and

24: 1053: 585:

This series is so good that it is still spawning new textbooks today.

808:

I just took a disappointing run through all of the other commentary.

1530:

Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force listed at

55:

I mis-remembered which experimental apparatus was involved. There

455:

Hello, Patrick0Moran. Please check your email; you've got mail!

942:

I think it would be a good idea to have Cthugha82 take a look.

2071:

are too technical for readers seeking an introduction article.

1952: 1938: 1544:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

1459:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

492: 238:

If you had a device that would produce entangled photons and

2046: 1943: 1732: 1659: 1580: 1536: 1489: 1451: 1252: 497: 448: 424:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

402: 270:. The other part of that same psi-function has gone off to D 253:

that it does four possible experiments all at the same time.

1577:

File source problem with File:African Genetics (primal).jpg

1326:

of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see

1897:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

565:

The original series is as follows. All are on your link.

2118:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

2014:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

1891:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

1833: 1799:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

1781:

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing

1620: 1550:

Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force

1546:

Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force

1292: 1185:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1105:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1061: 1057: 1045: 986:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 460: 309:

As to the "presumption" mentioned above, note that by D

2083:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

1979:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

1909:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Taste (software)

1764:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

888:

extending DCQE to a year smacks of original research.

521:

the project, just add your name to the member list.

1967:, is just a transliteration of a chinese character. 1656:

File:PrayingMantissClassx.jpg listed for discussion

1056:by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just 1507:The mass request on commons of which it is a part 1398:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 1097:Disambiguation link notification for February 24 1068:List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: 978:Disambiguation link notification for February 17 409:Hello, Patrick0Moran. You have new messages at 1249:File source problem with File:Races of Bees.png 1641:of each individual file for details. Thanks, 1486:File:Skin shade map.gif listed for discussion 1328:m:Single User Login finalisation announcement 1177:Disambiguation link notification for March 18 8: 1708:) 16:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Robert Goldsworthy 1552:redirect, you might want to participate in 1467:redirect, you might want to participate in 1548:. Since you had some involvement with the 1463:. Since you had some involvement with the 884:Not marked, but the "what if" scenario in 192:http://www.scribd.com/doc/58640003/Walborn 1899:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines 1610:and ask for a chance to fix the problem. 1282:and ask for a chance to fix the problem. 2089:notice, but please explain why in your 1985:notice, but please explain why in your 1770:notice, but please explain why in your 818:As Greenstein and Zajonc point out in 659:If you have any questions, please see 1667:A file that you uploaded or altered, 1497:A file that you uploaded or altered, 1044:. I have automatically detected that 958:Another major swoop through the draft 7: 2135:of each individual page for details. 1673:Knowledge (XXG):Files for discussion 1503:Knowledge (XXG):Files for discussion 459: 1103:Wheeler's delayed choice experiment 984:Wheeler's delayed choice experiment 382:You are very welcome. Welcome back! 190:This article may be what you want: 2078:deleted for any of several reasons 2062:because of the following concern: 1974:deleted for any of several reasons 1959:because of the following concern: 1759:deleted for any of several reasons 1748:because of the following concern: 1591:File:African Genetics (primal).jpg 1556:if you have not already done so. 1471:if you have not already done so. 14: 1907:The article will be discussed at 1784:{{proposed deletion/dated files}} 1767:{{proposed deletion/dated files}} 1424:review the candidates' statements 681:You probably want to add your say 617:The media files you uploaded as: 610:Files missing description details 1885: 1843:the range of true application of 1160:Talk:Mach–Zehnder interferometer 1156:Talk:Counterfactual definiteness 1035: 360:Thanks for your encouragement... 259: 1831:Hi P0M, on 6 December 2011 you 1625:Media copyright questions page 1430:. For the Election committee, 1400:Arbitration Committee election 1391:ArbCom elections are now open! 1297:Media copyright questions page 1: 2032:22:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC) 1669:File:PrayingMantissClassx.jpg 1651:03:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC) 1440:08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 1322:I'm involved in the upcoming 1172:00:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 1145:09:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 1092:02:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 1026:09:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 973:16:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC) 952:13:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 925:10:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 908:10:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 876:09:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 857:08:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 841:06:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 802:04:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 741:03:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 528:14:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC) 444:14:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC) 198:, their upper-limb detector. 1445:Mandarin vs Other listed at 1383:19:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC) 1352:01:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC) 886:Problems with retrocausality 717:15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 702:13:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 687:the edit warring noticeboard 636:File:Population 2 sample.png 631:File:Population 1 sample.png 626:File:NASA Cavalli-Sforza.gif 464:at any time by removing the 2122:allows discussion to reach 2103:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 2086:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 2056:Introduction to eigenstates 2042:Introduction to eigenstates 2018:allows discussion to reach 1999:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 1982:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 1929:10:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC) 1803:allows discussion to reach 1426:and submit your choices on 1183:Counterfactual definiteness 1154:DP is inserting his say in 418:20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC) 392:09:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 377:00:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 17:User:Patrick0Moran/Archive1 2163: 2114:exist. In particular, the 2010:exist. In particular, the 1795:exist. In particular, the 1432:MediaWiki message delivery 1244:21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 1225:08:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 570:Mechanics, Heat, and Sound 434:this month. Thank you Pat. 2108:proposed deletion process 2004:proposed deletion process 1871:02:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC) 1822:21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC) 1789:proposed deletion process 1691:08:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC) 1481:22:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 1309:13:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC) 676:16:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC) 353:02:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 331:15:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 230:02:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 208:15:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 186:14:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 169:14:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 130:13:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 70:13:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 40:22:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC) 2148:10:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC) 1901:or whether it should be 1742:File:Chopstick fangs.png 1728:File:Chopstick fangs.png 1718:16:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC) 1633:: This is an automated, 1588:Thank you for uploading 1572:20:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC) 1532:Redirects for discussion 1525:20:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 1447:Redirects for discussion 1260:Thank you for uploading 947: 871: 836: 797: 778:to hit that mote of dust 712: 651:File:Chopstick fangs.png 604:22:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 599: 560:22:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 506:You are invited to join 387: 326: 203: 181: 164: 125: 65: 2095:the article's talk page 1991:the article's talk page 1554:the redirect discussion 1499:File:Skin shade map.gif 1469:the redirect discussion 1318:Hi Patrick0Moran! As a 1062:my operator's talk page 746:@Stigmatella aurantiaca 398:Reply to calculus books 278:. If you stand in for D 2074: 2051: 1970: 1948: 1755: 1737: 1664: 1608:request for undeletion 1601:image description page 1585: 1541: 1494: 1456: 1280:request for undeletion 1273:image description page 1263:File:Races of Bees.png 1257: 1164:Stigmatella aurantiaca 1050:John Archibald Wheeler 965:Stigmatella aurantiaca 917:Stigmatella aurantiaca 900:Stigmatella aurantiaca 849:Stigmatella aurantiaca 733:Stigmatella aurantiaca 694:Stigmatella aurantiaca 641:File:Races of Bees.png 504:Hello, Patrick0Moran. 502: 453: 407: 2120:articles for deletion 2064: 2060:proposed for deletion 2050: 2016:articles for deletion 1961: 1957:proposed for deletion 1947: 1750: 1746:proposed for deletion 1736: 1671:, has been listed at 1663: 1584: 1540: 1501:, has been listed at 1493: 1455: 1404:Arbitration Committee 1256: 665:Message delivered by 501: 452: 429:A favor I want to ask 406: 1845:Quantum Mechanics". 1801:files for discussion 1776:the file's talk page 1621:list of your uploads 1613:Please refer to the 1336:Special:MergeAccount 1293:list of your uploads 1285:Please refer to the 1213:opt-out instructions 1133:opt-out instructions 1052:may have broken the 1014:opt-out instructions 646:File:Aysha velox.png 1408:arbitration process 1195:fix with Dab solver 1115:fix with Dab solver 996:fix with Dab solver 621:File:Oxyopes sp.JPG 509:WikiProject Cleanup 489:WikiProject Cleanup 411:Maschen's talk page 2112:deletion processes 2052: 2008:deletion processes 1949: 1834:rewrote a sentence 1793:deletion processes 1738: 1710:RobertRGoldsworthy 1702:RobertRGoldsworthy 1665: 1586: 1542: 1495: 1457: 1420:arbitration policy 1258: 1230:Introduction to QM 1203:• Join us at the 1123:• Join us at the 1004:• Join us at the 820:Quantum Challenge, 592:University Physics 537:Frank Weston Sears 503: 461:remove this notice 454: 422:remove this notice 408: 321:entangled photons. 86: 54: 2038:Proposed deletion 1935:Proposed deletion 1724:Proposed deletion 1675:. Please see the 1509:. Please see the 1465:Mandarin vs Other 1461:Mandarin vs Other 1386: 1369:comment added by 1350: 1330:). By looking at 1208: 1128: 1009: 864:Quantum Challenge 731:Any suggestions? 667:Theo's Little Bot 547:this set of books 534: 533: 343:comment added by 80:to see a sort of 78: 51: 2154: 2136: 2105: 2104: 2088: 2087: 2049: 2001: 2000: 1984: 1983: 1946: 1894:Taste (software) 1889: 1888: 1878:Taste (software) 1836: 1819: 1814: 1810: 1786: 1785: 1769: 1768: 1735: 1632: 1616:image use policy 1583: 1564: 1385: 1363: 1346: 1288:image use policy 1255: 1198: 1191:check to confirm 1118: 1111:check to confirm 1078: 1039: 1038: 999: 992:check to confirm 526: 524:Northamerica1000 493: 485: 483: 477: 473: 467: 463: 451: 425: 355: 263: 115:and another at D 2162: 2161: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2130: 2116:speedy deletion 2102: 2101: 2085: 2084: 2047: 2045: 2012:speedy deletion 1998: 1997: 1981: 1980: 1944: 1942: 1918: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1855:interpretations 1832: 1829: 1817: 1812: 1808: 1797:speedy deletion 1783: 1782: 1766: 1765: 1733: 1731: 1698: 1658: 1630: 1581: 1579: 1558: 1535: 1488: 1450: 1428:the voting page 1394: 1371:Moderntarantula 1364: 1359: 1316: 1253: 1251: 1232: 1205:DPL WikiProject 1179: 1152: 1125:DPL WikiProject 1099: 1074: 1036: 1033: 1006:DPL WikiProject 980: 960: 830: 826: 775: 771: 725: 683: 678: 661:Help:Image page 612: 539: 530: 522: 491: 486: 481: 475: 471: 469:You've got mail 465: 457: 449: 431: 426: 415: 400: 362: 338: 312: 305: 302: 298: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 197: 138: 118: 114: 109: 105: 90: 27: 12: 11: 5: 2160: 2158: 2126:for deletion. 2106:will stop the 2044: 2035: 2022:for deletion. 2002:will stop the 1941: 1932: 1884: 1883: 1881: 1876:Nomination of 1874: 1828: 1825: 1807:for deletion. 1787:will stop the 1730: 1721: 1697: 1694: 1657: 1654: 1578: 1575: 1534: 1528: 1487: 1484: 1449: 1443: 1397: 1393: 1388: 1358: 1355: 1315: 1314:Global account 1312: 1250: 1247: 1231: 1228: 1178: 1175: 1151: 1148: 1098: 1095: 1080: 1079: 1070: 1069: 1032: 1029: 979: 976: 959: 956: 955: 954: 939: 938: 933: 932: 913: 912: 911: 910: 892: 891: 890: 889: 879: 878: 846: 844: 843: 828: 824: 815: 814: 810: 809: 805: 804: 789: 788: 783: 782: 773: 769: 765: 764: 754: 753: 748: 747: 724: 723:Retrocausality 721: 720: 719: 682: 679: 654: 653: 648: 643: 638: 633: 628: 623: 615:Dear uploader: 613: 611: 608: 607: 606: 587: 586: 582: 581: 578: 574: 571: 567: 566: 538: 535: 532: 531: 513: 496: 490: 487: 456: 447: 430: 427: 416:Message added 414: 401: 399: 396: 395: 394: 361: 358: 357: 356: 310: 304: 300: 296: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 257: 256: 255: 254: 247: 246: 245: 244: 233: 232: 216: 215: 195: 136: 133: 132: 116: 112: 107: 103: 98: 97: 93: 88: 73: 72: 48: 47: 26: 23: 21: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2159: 2150: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2134: 2127: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2098: 2096: 2092: 2081: 2079: 2073: 2072: 2070: 2063: 2061: 2057: 2043: 2039: 2036: 2034: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 1994: 1992: 1988: 1977: 1975: 1969: 1968: 1966: 1960: 1958: 1954: 1940: 1936: 1933: 1931: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1917: 1913: 1910: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1879: 1875: 1873: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1863:68.197.169.26 1860: 1856: 1851: 1846: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1826: 1824: 1823: 1820: 1815: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1779: 1777: 1773: 1762: 1760: 1754: 1749: 1747: 1743: 1729: 1725: 1722: 1720: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1695: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1679: 1674: 1670: 1662: 1655: 1653: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1628: 1627:. Thank you. 1626: 1622: 1618: 1617: 1611: 1609: 1604: 1602: 1597: 1593: 1592: 1576: 1574: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1563: 1562: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1539: 1533: 1529: 1527: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1513: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1492: 1485: 1483: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1454: 1448: 1444: 1442: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1392: 1389: 1387: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1356: 1354: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1313: 1311: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1299:. Thank you. 1298: 1294: 1290: 1289: 1283: 1281: 1276: 1274: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1248: 1246: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1229: 1227: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1209: 1206: 1202: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1176: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1149: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1129: 1126: 1122: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1096: 1094: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1077: 1072: 1071: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1063: 1059: 1058:edit the page 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1031:February 2014 1030: 1028: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1010: 1007: 1003: 997: 993: 989: 985: 977: 975: 974: 970: 966: 957: 953: 949: 945: 941: 940: 935: 934: 929: 928: 927: 926: 922: 918: 909: 905: 901: 896: 895: 894: 893: 887: 883: 882: 881: 880: 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 860: 859: 858: 854: 850: 842: 838: 834: 821: 817: 816: 812: 811: 807: 806: 803: 799: 795: 791: 790: 785: 784: 779: 767: 766: 761: 756: 755: 750: 749: 745: 744: 743: 742: 738: 734: 729: 722: 718: 714: 710: 706: 705: 704: 703: 699: 695: 690: 688: 680: 677: 674: 672: 668: 663:. Thank you. 662: 658: 652: 649: 647: 644: 642: 639: 637: 634: 632: 629: 627: 624: 622: 619: 618: 616: 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 588: 584: 583: 579: 575: 572: 569: 568: 564: 563: 562: 561: 557: 553: 548: 544: 536: 529: 525: 520: 519: 514: 511: 510: 500: 495: 494: 488: 480: 470: 462: 446: 445: 441: 437: 428: 423: 419: 412: 405: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 380: 379: 378: 374: 370: 366: 359: 354: 350: 346: 342: 335: 334: 333: 332: 328: 324: 320: 315: 307: 264: 262: 251: 250: 249: 248: 241: 237: 236: 235: 234: 231: 227: 223: 218: 217: 212: 211: 210: 209: 205: 201: 193: 188: 187: 183: 179: 176: 171: 170: 166: 162: 157: 153: 149: 145: 143: 131: 127: 123: 100: 99: 94: 83: 75: 74: 71: 67: 63: 58: 50: 49: 44: 43: 42: 41: 37: 33: 22: 19: 18: 2129: 2128: 2110:, but other 2099: 2091:edit summary 2082: 2075: 2069:eigenstates' 2068: 2067: 2065: 2054:The article 2053: 2006:, but other 1995: 1987:edit summary 1978: 1971: 1963: 1962: 1951:The article 1950: 1919: 1914: 1906: 1892: 1880:for deletion 1858: 1854: 1850:applications 1849: 1847: 1842: 1830: 1791:, but other 1780: 1772:edit summary 1763: 1756: 1751: 1739: 1699: 1677: 1666: 1639:page history 1629: 1614: 1612: 1605: 1589: 1587: 1560: 1559: 1549: 1543: 1511: 1496: 1464: 1458: 1395: 1365:— Preceding 1360: 1332:your account 1317: 1286: 1284: 1277: 1261: 1259: 1233: 1210: 1187:Entanglement 1180: 1153: 1130: 1100: 1081: 1075: 1034: 1011: 981: 961: 914: 885: 863: 845: 819: 777: 759: 730: 726: 691: 684: 664: 655: 614: 591: 542: 540: 516: 507: 505: 432: 363: 345:89.253.76.71 339:— Preceding 318: 316: 308: 265: 258: 239: 222:89.253.76.71 189: 172: 158: 154: 150: 146: 141: 134: 81: 56: 32:89.253.76.71 28: 20: 15: 2024:- car chasm 1839:EPR Paradox 1827:EPR Paradox 1683:Jon Kolbert 1517:AlwaysUnite 1505:. See also 1357:Spider bite 1342:. Cheers, — 1324:unification 1150:Guess what? 1040:Hello, I'm 728:instincts. 552:Steve Quinn 543:Intro to QM 2140:FastilyBot 1965:WP:NOTDICT 1678:discussion 1643:FastilyBot 1512:discussion 1416:topic bans 1215:. Thanks, 1135:. Thanks, 1107:Glan prism 1084:BracketBot 1042:BracketBot 1016:. Thanks, 420:. You can 111:paper at D 2124:consensus 2058:has been 2020:consensus 1955:has been 1805:consensus 1744:has been 1740:The file 1696:Taekwondo 1631:ATTENTION 1596:copyright 1561:Steel1943 1412:site bans 1340:talk page 1268:copyright 1199:Read the 1119:Read the 1046:your edit 1000:Read the 577:revision. 484:template. 436:Mastertek 82:ex nihilo 2138:Thanks, 1379:contribs 1367:unsigned 1344:DerHexer 1082:Thanks, 590:I think 341:unsigned 2133:history 1903:deleted 1837:on the 1473:Si Trew 1320:Steward 1301:Stefan2 1236:Mcplums 1217:DPL bot 1137:DPL bot 1018:DPL bot 988:Orbital 671:opt-out 369:Maschen 2093:or on 1989:or on 1774:or on 1753:image. 1402:. The 1348:(Talk) 1054:syntax 573:Optics 365:Thanks 1921:Imcdc 774:2,3,4 752:ago.) 707:Done. 173:See: 106:and D 2144:talk 2028:talk 1925:talk 1867:talk 1813:Bigr 1714:talk 1706:talk 1687:talk 1647:talk 1568:talk 1521:talk 1477:talk 1436:talk 1375:talk 1305:talk 1240:talk 1221:talk 1168:talk 1158:and 1141:talk 1088:talk 1022:talk 969:talk 948:talk 921:talk 904:talk 872:talk 853:talk 837:talk 798:talk 760:same 737:talk 713:talk 698:talk 600:talk 556:talk 518:join 440:talk 388:talk 373:talk 349:talk 327:talk 319:only 299:or D 290:or D 240:only 226:talk 204:talk 182:talk 165:talk 142:heal 126:talk 66:talk 36:talk 2040:of 1953:Zhi 1939:Zhi 1937:of 1818:Tex 1726:of 1635:BOT 1396:Hi, 1201:FAQ 1121:FAQ 1048:to 1002:FAQ 944:P0M 868:P0M 833:P0M 794:P0M 709:P0M 689:. 596:P0M 515:To 479:ygm 474:or 384:P0M 323:P0M 306:. 200:P0M 178:P0M 161:P0M 122:P0M 85:go. 62:P0M 2146:) 2097:. 2080:. 2030:) 1993:. 1976:. 1927:) 1905:. 1869:) 1859:to 1809:★ 1778:. 1761:. 1716:) 1689:) 1649:) 1603:. 1570:) 1523:) 1479:) 1438:) 1414:, 1381:) 1377:• 1307:) 1275:. 1242:) 1223:) 1193:| 1170:) 1143:) 1113:| 1090:) 1064:. 1024:) 994:| 971:) 950:) 923:) 906:) 874:) 855:) 839:) 800:) 739:) 715:) 700:) 602:) 558:) 482:}} 476:{{ 472:}} 466:{{ 442:) 390:) 375:) 351:) 329:) 228:) 206:) 184:) 167:) 128:) 68:) 57:is 38:) 2142:( 2066:' 2026:( 1923:( 1865:( 1712:( 1704:( 1685:( 1645:( 1566:( 1519:( 1475:( 1434:( 1373:( 1303:( 1238:( 1219:( 1207:. 1189:( 1166:( 1139:( 1127:. 1109:( 1086:( 1076:] 1020:( 1008:. 990:( 967:( 946:( 919:( 902:( 870:( 851:( 835:( 829:n 825:0 823:D 796:( 770:0 735:( 711:( 696:( 673:) 669:( 598:( 554:( 438:( 413:. 386:( 371:( 347:( 325:( 311:0 301:2 297:1 292:2 288:1 284:0 280:4 276:3 272:4 268:a 224:( 202:( 196:p 180:( 163:( 137:0 124:( 117:2 113:1 108:2 104:1 102:D 89:0 64:( 34:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index