Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 3,973 - 3,985 of 6,170
embarassed? Not in the least. I have been married for long enough that there is very little that could embarass, surprise or mystify me about the female psyche or biology.
Really? I've had a few relationships in my time, (not a large sample perhaps, but long-term qualitative studies that have fostered some familiarity with the male gender) and I must admit there are times given male behaviors will still surprise and yes, even embarrass me (though sometimes the surprises may be pleasant too). Women must be easier to understand than men are. All this time men I know have said that women are crazy, it was just part of your gender's projections of your own complex illogical testosterone-colored world.
Except perhaps, there is one thing that I have never understood - why are there always at least 4 combs, 2 hairbrushes and an acre of disposable tissues in an average handbag? And what on earth accounts for the other several kilos of "stuff"?
People expect us to have all that crap. I try not to carry a purse, but you have to put your wallet somewhere, and the cell phone, and keys...etc. Most of my clothes simply don't have good pockets for all that and even those with pockets would have odd bulges if I actually put stuff in the pockets (not that everything I own is skin-tight but women's clothes are cut differently than men's clothes). If I could con the man I am with into carrying everything I would never have a purse.
My father, who is admittedly in his 80s and not like "modern" men, carries a hanky, wallet, keys, cough drops, nail clippers, plastic comb and eyeglasses in various pockets. Men's pants and jackets seem built for that. Maybe I should just wear men's clothes.
I've gone camping with less gear than my wife regards as essential for the shortest of trips beyond the front door!
Camping must be easy in Scotland. I need a tent, sleeping bag, swiss army knife, basic foods and other items when I venture out. Yes, I also make room in the pack for chocolate. Ruffing it is no reason to be uncivilized.
Camping must be easy in Scotland. I need a tent, sleeping bag, swiss army knife, basic foods and other items when I venture out. Yes, I also make room in the pack for chocolate. Ruffing it is no reason to be uncivilized.
Well, I'm in Wales, but all I'd pack extra for Scotland would be midge repellant. Yes - tent, sleeping bag, folding bed, selection of tools, fishing gear, plenty of food, a selection of beverages, stove, a few extra cans of fuel, pots and pan, laptop, solar panels... still less than my wife can cram in her handbag
Actually I work on the principle that if it won't fit in my pockets, I'm not taking it.
No one forces women to wear impractical clothes with no pockets, and who actually needs 6 lipsticks (including 2 empty ones,) a bottle of mineral water, half a stale flapjack and 2 mirrors just to go and post a letter anyway?
The few male friends I have who have bought into the whole "man bag" thing, still manage to cope with a dainty little bag on a strap, like a camera case. Not a great belt-handled, leather tardis.
Very well, if we're agreed that it's the electromagnetic wave, not the probability wave, that propagates
Given the high likelihood of misunderstanding, I'm trying to speak very precisely here, so I have to say that there is no such thing as a probability wave. So I agree that the sentence, "The probability wave propagates." is false. As for the electromagnetic wave according to Classical Physics, Quantum Mechanics says (again, speaking precisely) that there is no such thing. As I said, Quantum Mechanics claims to supercede Classical Physics; it says that Classical Physics is wrong. So that wave doesn't exist either, according to QM.
The wave that is characteristic of the quantum-mechanical view of the world is Psi. It is Psi that propagates. Psi is not a probability wave, nor is it a Classical electromagnetic wave.
Posts 3,973 - 3,985 of 6,170
Really? I've had a few relationships in my time, (not a large sample perhaps, but long-term qualitative studies that have fostered some familiarity with the male gender) and I must admit there are times given male behaviors will still surprise and yes, even embarrass me (though sometimes the surprises may be pleasant too). Women must be easier to understand than men are. All this time men I know have said that women are crazy, it was just part of your gender's projections of your own complex illogical testosterone-colored world.
People expect us to have all that crap. I try not to carry a purse, but you have to put your wallet somewhere, and the cell phone, and keys...etc. Most of my clothes simply don't have good pockets for all that and even those with pockets would have odd bulges if I actually put stuff in the pockets (not that everything I own is skin-tight but women's clothes are cut differently than men's clothes). If I could con the man I am with into carrying everything I would never have a purse.
My father, who is admittedly in his 80s and not like "modern" men, carries a hanky, wallet, keys, cough drops, nail clippers, plastic comb and eyeglasses in various pockets. Men's pants and jackets seem built for that. Maybe I should just wear men's clothes.
I've gone camping with less gear than my wife regards as essential for the shortest of trips beyond the front door!
Camping must be easy in Scotland. I need a tent, sleeping bag, swiss army knife, basic foods and other items when I venture out. Yes, I also make room in the pack for chocolate. Ruffing it is no reason to be uncivilized.
Bev (3972):
Oh, Dear, Bev, I'm sorry! I had some vague idea at the time that it would be funny, but if I had a reason for thinking that, it has flown the coop now! Of course, you are entiled to typos, yust liek hte rets uv uts! Sometimes my insanity outruns my coping mechanisms. [Psi]
Oh, Dear, Bev, I'm sorry! I had some vague idea at the time that it would be funny, but if I had a reason for thinking that, it has flown the coop now! Of course, you are entiled to typos, yust liek hte rets uv uts! Sometimes my insanity outruns my coping mechanisms. [Psi]
Irina,
As to the electrogravity.com requote, I remain puzzled as to why, after apparently quoting the abovementioned Penrose argument with approval, you then proceed to quote (also with apparent approval) a passage in which the term "probability wave" is used for Psi.
Because the terminology is not, in itself, very important. Our understanding of what it describes is what's important. Much as I have a natural sympathy for Penrose's pedantry, I am realist enough to know when a cause is lost. "probability wave" has been common parlance for too many decades to hope to change it now without causing a great deal more confusion than we clear away.
And I remain utterly mystified by your claim that I "clearly disagree."
Well, mainly statements along the line of "My view is that it's the wave, psi, which propagates" [#3807, your emphasis.] But perhaps I'm misinterpreting that when I understand it to mean that you claim psi propagates (my objection is not to the common parlance description of it as a "wave", merely to the nature of the thing. Psi is continuous, and does not propagate.)
I agree that Psi in Quantum Mechanics is not the same as the electromagnetic wave in Classical Physics, and I have said this many times. Quantum Mechanics claims to supercede Classical Electromagnetic Theory, not to reformulate it.
Very well, if we're agreed that it's the electromagnetic wave, not the probability wave, that propagates
Could you remind me of your view of quantum tunnelling? (I've lost track amid all these posts, I'm afraid.)
Because the terminology is not, in itself, very important. Our understanding of what it describes is what's important. Much as I have a natural sympathy for Penrose's pedantry, I am realist enough to know when a cause is lost. "probability wave" has been common parlance for too many decades to hope to change it now without causing a great deal more confusion than we clear away.
Well, mainly statements along the line of "
Very well, if we're agreed that it's the electromagnetic wave, not the probability wave, that propagates
Could you remind me of your view of quantum tunnelling? (I've lost track amid all these posts, I'm afraid.)
Irina, I was kidding! There are times when I have been sensitive about the dyslexia, but usually that's just when you hit me a the wrong time. Also, in that case, I was too lazy to look up "de minimis non curate lex" instead of just typing (and Firefox hasn't got much Latin in the spell check).
Women. No sense of humor.
Women. No sense of humor.
Well, I'm in Wales, but all I'd pack extra for Scotland would be midge repellant. Yes - tent, sleeping bag, folding bed, selection of tools, fishing gear, plenty of food, a selection of beverages, stove, a few extra cans of fuel, pots and pan, laptop, solar panels... still less than my wife can cram in her handbag
Actually I work on the principle that if it won't fit in my pockets, I'm not taking it.
No one forces women to wear impractical clothes with no pockets, and who actually needs 6 lipsticks (including 2 empty ones,) a bottle of mineral water, half a stale flapjack and 2 mirrors just to go and post a letter anyway?
The few male friends I have who have bought into the whole "man bag" thing, still manage to cope with a dainty little bag on a strap, like a camera case. Not a great belt-handled, leather tardis.
"No one forces women to wear impractical clothes with no pockets"
The manufacturers of women's clothing very nearly do.
Will someone please explain to me the point of "ornamental pockets"? If you want an ornament, put on a ruddy ornament. If you want a pocket, put in a pocket!
Which is why I often buy men's clothing. It is generally (1) made better, (2) more functional, (3) longer-lasting and (4) cheaper. Hmmm... does that make me a transvestite?
The manufacturers of women's clothing very nearly do.
Will someone please explain to me the point of "ornamental pockets"? If you want an ornament, put on a ruddy ornament. If you want a pocket, put in a pocket!Which is why I often buy men's clothing. It is generally (1) made better, (2) more functional, (3) longer-lasting and (4) cheaper. Hmmm... does that make me a transvestite?
Not at all. I always buy guys pants lol. I got tired of the skin tight little jeans with no pockets or belt loops. They piss me off lol.
Psimagus:
What, did we actually find a shred of agreement, there? What's happening to us? Where did we go wrong?
A wave is often defined in Physics as a "self-propagating distubance," so if Psi is a wave in that sense, it surely propagates in that sense. But I have the feeling that you are using the word "propagates" in a different sense, in which case our disagreement may be only verbal.
Let's suppose you point a light source at a screen and then put a doubly-slit barrier between them. You press the "on" button and out comes Psi in the form of a wave. The wave moves from the flashlight to the barrier. Some of the wave then goes through the slits, spreads out on the other side, interferes with itself, and arrives at the screen. That is all I mean by "propagating": it moves. It goes from source to target.
I am in complete agreement that Psi is, in general, continuous.
What, did we actually find a shred of agreement, there? What's happening to us? Where did we go wrong?
A wave is often defined in Physics as a "self-propagating distubance," so if Psi is a wave in that sense, it surely propagates in that sense. But I have the feeling that you are using the word "propagates" in a different sense, in which case our disagreement may be only verbal.
Let's suppose you point a light source at a screen and then put a doubly-slit barrier between them. You press the "on" button and out comes Psi in the form of a wave. The wave moves from the flashlight to the barrier. Some of the wave then goes through the slits, spreads out on the other side, interferes with itself, and arrives at the screen. That is all I mean by "propagating": it moves. It goes from source to target.
I am in complete agreement that Psi is, in general, continuous.
The wave that is characteristic of the quantum-mechanical view of the world is Psi. It is Psi that propagates. Psi is not a probability wave, nor is it a Classical electromagnetic wave.
As to the nature of quantum tunneling, I refer you to the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling
with the reservation that the article puts, IMHO, too little emphasis on the fact that the everyday notion of tunneling is only being used metaphorically.
Relative to our discussion, the crux of the matter is that a quantum 'particle' can get from A to B, even though there is, between A and B, a region C in which the 'particle' cannot exist. It's not that the particle goes around the obstacle, and it's not that it makes a hole in it - it simply disappears from A and reappears at B, leaving C undisturbed. A particle could be inside an unbroken spherical shell, the shell being such that the particle cannot coexist with it, and yet appear outside the shell, without making a hole in the shell (as the everyday meaning of "tunneling" would seem to imply). This would be impossible if, like a classical or common-sense particle, the quantum 'particle' were to travel a continuous path from A to B. The postulates of Quantum Mechanics imply that such tunneling is possible. In fact, the particle is able to make a 'quantum leap' from one side of the barrier to the other, without ever being in any part of the barrier. The thicker the barrier becomes, the more improbable it is that this will happen, but it is nevertheless possible.
Hence, Quantum Mechanics allows that quantum 'particles' need not always follow continuous (unbroken) paths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling
with the reservation that the article puts, IMHO, too little emphasis on the fact that the everyday notion of tunneling is only being used metaphorically.
Relative to our discussion, the crux of the matter is that a quantum 'particle' can get from A to B, even though there is, between A and B, a region C in which the 'particle' cannot exist. It's not that the particle goes around the obstacle, and it's not that it makes a hole in it - it simply disappears from A and reappears at B, leaving C undisturbed. A particle could be inside an unbroken spherical shell, the shell being such that the particle cannot coexist with it, and yet appear outside the shell, without making a hole in the shell (as the everyday meaning of "tunneling" would seem to imply). This would be impossible if, like a classical or common-sense particle, the quantum 'particle' were to travel a continuous path from A to B. The postulates of Quantum Mechanics imply that such tunneling is possible. In fact, the particle is able to make a 'quantum leap' from one side of the barrier to the other, without ever being in any part of the barrier. The thicker the barrier becomes, the more improbable it is that this will happen, but it is nevertheless possible.
Hence, Quantum Mechanics allows that quantum 'particles' need not always follow continuous (unbroken) paths.
Dear Bev:
I am so glad to hear that you were not really hurt by my remarks! Are you really dyslexic, or was that just a manner of speaking?
I am so glad to hear that you were not really hurt by my remarks! Are you really dyslexic, or was that just a manner of speaking?
Irina, really I am more dysgraphic, but it's neurological. When I was in grade school I was the only diagnosed dyslexic reading several grades levels above my grade. Nowdays they would call it a "learning disability," which would probably have kept me out of the advanced/gifted programs, so I am glad we used old labels. Many people with "learning disabilities" have normal or above average IQ scores (that part of how they identify the LD students) but I still think the term is misleading.
I don't think it's a learning issue so much as an encoding/decoding issue. I comprehend, I just can't get the letters out right. I'll flip sounds and numbers too. I've tried a few programs (and spent many afternoons copying words I misspelled 100 times) but I still flip things and don't always put out what is in my head. The flip side (the part that is my fault) is at some point I stopped caring and think "I'm just not going to be able to type, spell or proofread so I'll focus on other things". It kind of works. You should see th difference between my scores on tests like the Miller Analogy or the LSAT and IQ tests that include a section where you have to mentally flip a picture around in your head. If there is an IQ test that has a section on copying things exactly or doing what you are told, I'll be in the low 80's :-).
I don't think it's a learning issue so much as an encoding/decoding issue. I comprehend, I just can't get the letters out right. I'll flip sounds and numbers too. I've tried a few programs (and spent many afternoons copying words I misspelled 100 times) but I still flip things and don't always put out what is in my head. The flip side (the part that is my fault) is at some point I stopped caring and think "I'm just not going to be able to type, spell or proofread so I'll focus on other things". It kind of works. You should see th difference between my scores on tests like the Miller Analogy or the LSAT and IQ tests that include a section where you have to mentally flip a picture around in your head. If there is an IQ test that has a section on copying things exactly or doing what you are told, I'll be in the low 80's :-).
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar