My Big Toe Forum

Discussion and Explanation of the Writings of Tom Campbell: The Paradigm Changes Here
It is currently Thu Jun 22, 2017 2:23 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 328 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 522 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:00 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 2:34 pm
Posts: 36
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4s28XVfQaU

A very simple delayed choice quantum eraser shown in real time. The instructor uses polarizing film to "tag" each photon going through the left slit with a different polarity than the ones going through the right slit.

This results in the diffraction pattern going away.

Then, he uses yet another polarizing filter to "erase" the tags before the light hits the screen and the diffraction pattern returns.

This sort of makes sense, with what I see as one potentially significant problem. After he "tags" the light and destroys the interference pattern, the information is only "hypothetically" available in this reality. As he has not recorded a measurement to tell us which photons are Polarity-1, and which are Polarity-2, shouldn't that, of itself, cause the diffraction pattern to show up?

In other words, I've seen you say that if the detectors are on and detecting, but we don't record (or record and destroy) the "which slit" data, we will get, experimentally, a diffraction pattern. The results shown in this video tend to contract that, as it seems that's precisely what he's doing. "Detecting" (by tagging with differing polarities) but not "recording" the "which slit" data in any way, which from your lectures I think SHOULD result in an interference pattern.

Am I missing something?


Top
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:28 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:24 pm
Posts: 102
There is a simpler explanation of this experiment that just uses properties of polarized light and polarizers and has nothing to do with quantum eraser. When a 3rd filter is inserted at 45deg to the two beams that are polarized in orthogonal planes (and each of those polarizations can be represented as a vector sum of two orthogonal vectors, one of which will be parallel to the plane of the 3rd filter), that filter will let through part of each of the two beams and those parts will be polarized in the same plane and thus can interfere and produce an interference (diffraction) pattern. Of course a more complex explanation can be chosen, but why bother with such inefficiency?


Top
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:22 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Miami, FL
Hello DentalFloss.

Your observation was good. The polarizer is not recording anything yet the interference is gone. When you analyze something you have to leave the benefit of the doubt that an hypothesis could be wrong, and that is the hypothesis of the "availability of information", but read below and what I will write and you can draw your own conclusions. The interference goes away because there is a change in the experiment, therefore in the response from the VR (no involvement of recording necessary). There is no evidence that the recordings play a factor.

Actually, I just came back to post here and I saw a related message from Tom regarding this (may be it was meant to be). Things happen for a reason.

This was his message (dated May 11, 2011):

Claudio,

I quite agree, and have always agreed, that it is not the measurement that is critical -- even though many physicists call this "the measurement problem". It is not really about measurement at all -- it is about information. In most instances, a measurement leads to information so these two terms are often used interchangeably unless one is being very precise with ones words.

So when I said: "So then [the physicists] said 'let's not look, but let's leave the equipment, maybe it's the equipment that's doing it,' so you leave the sensors where they are, but you just turn off the power to what's recording the data, so now the sensors are still in place but they're not recording anything. What do you think happens? It goes through both slits, you get a wave pattern on the other side."

The critical factor is not that the measurement was not made but that the information was not collected. In this case, not making the measurement causes the information to not be collected.

That is why Chris felt compelled to say: "It depends on what you mean by "the sensors are still in place but they're not recording anything," What I meant by it was that the information was not collected.

In Chris's example, passing a light beam through a polarizer changes the polorazation of the light and that is information we know -- one does not have to measure the polarization of the light to know that the light is polarized -- that information is available without measurment -- the light is polarized because it went through a polarizer. So of course the light hits the photomultiplier "like bullets" -- it could not do anything else. The fact that the polarization was not measured is not relavent. At right angles, their could be no superposistion and thus no interference pattern. A trivial experiment with an obvious result.

Tom


Be skeptic about statements. Somebody can be so into a model that he will defend his model without limits, without realizing inconsistencies. It should be the opposite, a model should change to fit data.

From above you notice that Tom is saying that when a polarizer is placed there is information we know, even though we are not recording anything. Also he says that when we have detectors detecting but not recording we don't have availability of information. So even though in the detectors the measurement is stronger than in the polarizer and in both cases you can have no recordings, he still thinks that if you don't record in the double slit you will have interference. IT JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN. For me it looks like he explains different examples using different criteria, just to keep satisfying his errors. I can't force Tom and others to wake up and see what really happens, but hope somebody can have an open mind enough to see what happens when somebody is defending his ground to the extreme of thinking that everybody else is wrong and create all sorts of different ideas to keep a position, instead of noticing the "customization" of the excuses. Like Feynman says, doubt yourself. I appreciate Tom's message, but I hope him and others can use open minded skepticism and wake up once for all regarding MBT and QM.

Later, Clau

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:55 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 12186
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Claudio,

What you post from a statement by Tom seems perfectly clear and sensible, logical, even though we do not have the detailed description of the situation. I feel that I can understand it as being clearly stated and the words meaning what I understand them to mean.

In contrast, your following statement is not clear to me, even after multiple re readings. If your purpose in returning is to make unclear statements about unclear circumstances, for no purpose other than to disagree with Tom, this will not be a successful experiment. You must make these statements in a more understandable way that is either more defensible and proves you right or is more refutable and proves you wrong. Quoting you:
Quote:
From above you notice that Tom is saying that when a polarizer is placed there is information we know, even though we are not recording anything. Also he says that when we have detectors detecting but not recording we don't have availability of information. So even though in the detectors the measurement is stronger than in the polarizer and in both cases you can have no recordings, he still thinks that if you don't record in the double slit you will have interference. IT JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN. For me it looks like he explains different examples using different criteria, just to keep satisfying his errors. I can't force Tom and others to wake up and see what really happens, but hope somebody can have an open mind enough to see what happens when somebody is defending his ground to the extreme of thinking that everybody else is wrong and create all sorts of different ideas to keep a position, instead of noticing the "customization" of the excuses.
As I said above, Tom's descriptions and statement which you provide make sense. You must either provide details of what you mean, specific references to specific experiments and circumstances, and a clear statement, of which class this is not a member, or cease and desist. What you say, even upon repeated readings, does not provide enough information to make sense. It may make sense to you as you fill in the blanks within your own mind, but you are not providing enough information to show up any error or discrepancy in what Tom is saying to give your statement any credence. This is a path that we have been down before and we will not travel it very far before it leads again to the 'egress' per P. T. Barnum's usage. When you say "he explains different examples using different criteria", I see him using different details of an explanation of one criteria to explain different circumstances as appropriate. Tom's explanation stated as the generalization that the information present in PMR is conserved in these various experiments seems entirely consistent with the results. That you simply do not understand also seems like an entirely adequate explanation of how it seems to you.

I know that you as an INTJ simply never accept that situation, that your understanding might be inadequate, but I have never been able to see you as either such a trained physicist, which you are patently not, nor as such a master of logic, which you are demonstrably not, as to accept such statements from you entirely on face value. So unpack your statement in detail, demonstrating the logic in full detail along with the facts. I did not accept your request to be allowed to return on the basis that things will be different now just to have the opportunity to argue these points with you. I specifically told you that neither Tom nor I have time at present to waste on such arguments as wasted time. We have a relatively limited statement by you that you will either unpack and prove in detail or we will point out the deficiencies in full detail and you will shut up about this in future. Do not go wandering off into other matters or expanding your statements geometrically so that they cannot be kept up with. Delve into these details in a full 'unpacking' and logical analysis or instead, 'pack' again for departure as having learned nothing in the hiatus.

Ted


Top
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 7:15 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 12186
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Dental Floss,

Going back to your original post, which I was hoping that a physicist among us would answer and I therefore did not comment on, I first have a question. When you say "The results shown in this video tend to contract that", with the underlining added, do you mean 'contradict' instead of 'contract'? This would then make a sensible statement. Sorry to be picky, but in order to be precise, one must be 'picky' about things.

I think that what you are missing is to note that the information is present and recorded here in PMR within the minds of the participants and observers of the experiment. That is what counts. The information is present on the display screen and recorded within the minds of those IUOCs participating as observers. That is the information that is preserved by the system as what matters. What is recorded on a piece of recording media, if not observed by an IUOC, is just another probability within other possibilities. What is observed within the consciousness of an IUOC becomes information. If that information includes 'which slit' type data, as in this case, which 'side' data I believe, we get no interference pattern. If we do not have that information, we get a diffraction pattern.

Ted


Top
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 9:18 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 493
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Leipzig, Germany
alik - in the second post of this thread - already mentioned that this is not a good example for showing the effects of a delayed choice quantum eraser as the effect can be explained much simpler through the properties of polarized light.

It is an optical experiment wrongly labelled as a quantum eraser experiment.

There is a lengthy thread in which this type of experiment was also discussed.
Here is the thread and what Tom said.
It is basically the same as what alik said above and I agree with both.


Top
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 9:44 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 12186
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
alik and Jonathan,

This is why I try to leave this to those more versed in physics and QM than I am. Including Tom. Tom however is not likely to have time for the BB for a while yet. Until then, there is me and what ever help the rest of you younger and more up to date guys can give me. I'm more a metaphysician now than the engineer I once was in a time long ago and a galaxy far away.

Ted


Top
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:51 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Miami, FL
Quote:
So when I said: "So then [the physicists] said 'let's not look, but let's leave the equipment, maybe it's the equipment that's doing it,' so you leave the sensors where they are, but you just turn off the power to what's recording the data, so now the sensors are still in place but they're not recording anything. What do you think happens? It goes through both slits, you get a wave pattern on the other side."
You don't. Only the lawyer Ross Rhodes and Tom state this. Nobody else that I know of does.
Quote:
Chris Drost says: "This is totally wrong. You don't get a wave pattern on the other side, because the measurement apparatus still gets entangled with the qubit you're interested in. Anything else would violate the rules of quantum mechanics and the experiments that have been done. I hope to give you a better appreciation of quantum mechanics by showing you what's really happening in this famous puzzle."
From: https://github.com/drostie/essay-seeds/ ... bleslit.md

According to Chris Drost's comment above, it looks like Tom didn't notice that this would violate the rules of quantum mechanics.
Quote:
The critical factor is not that the measurement was not made but that the information was not collected. In this case, not making the measurement causes the information to not be collected.
First Tom says that the measurement was made but not collected and then that "in this case, not making the measurement ...". So was there a measurement or not? Trying to make sense from what Tom tried to say that for Ted was crystal clear apparently, I think Tom meant to say that no recording means no data collection.
Quote:
That is why Chris felt compelled to say: "It depends on what you mean by "the sensors are still in place but they're not recording anything," What I meant by it was that the information was not collected.
Now, he clarified what I said above. I think Chris observation makes sense, because like him so many physicists know that it is not a necessary condition to record anything to remove the interference (or wave pattern as they call it above).
Quote:
In Chris's example, passing a light beam through a polarizer changes the polorazation of the light and that is information we know -- one does not have to measure the polarization of the light to know that the light is polarized -- that information is available without measurment -- the light is polarized because it went through a polarizer. So of course the light hits the photomultiplier "like bullets" -- it could not do anything else. The fact that the polarization was not measured is not relavent. At right angles, their could be no superposistion and thus no interference pattern. A trivial experiment with an obvious result.

Tom
So first is the wrong statement about the recordings, but now to make it worse is the customized justification that Ted has trouble to see.
Tom is saying that a polarizer changes the polarization of the light to know that the light is polarized (information we know). So what is the difference between what a polarizer does and what a detector does? The detector also interacts with the coming particle (electrons or photons for example). The polarizer blocks polarization of photons in certain direction. Both are interactions. How does a detector detect a particle coming? It sends photons that interact with the coming particle (let's say an electron) and you get a photon after that collision (http://www.numericana.com/answer/relativity.htm#compton)

So, according with MBT when do we "know" information? When we use polarizers without recording and also when using detectors that need to have a recording mechanism working properly. If this is not customization of a model to satisfy this nonsense, what is it?
Remember that first he said that we need recordings, to collect, then for the polarizer we don't need to collect.
Ted, may be you can specify in the Wiki what is the criteria for the collapsing and number all the cases:

1. Beer cans in the refrigerator need a digital camera or alike to "know". So we know what a polarizer does to light for sure, but not what a refrigerator does to beer for sure. LOL. MBT customization at its best.
2. Trees in the woods need a digital camera or a witness, polarizers don't require this.
3. Detectors require perfect recordings to remove interference (collapse probabilities), witnesses are not required like for trees in the woods (2.), neither polarizers. OMA (Oh my AUM) :)


Ted, you can continue with the customized MBT behavior ... since you seem to understand MBT pretty well ...

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:40 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 493
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Hi Claudio!

This is sounding like the continuation of a personal argument.

With whomever.
Or with a theory you perceive as fundamentally flawed.
Or with both.

I have no intention to take part in that.

For me it looks like eighter a major misunderstanding of the model and thus erecting and attacking strawmen
- or not wanting to see the obvious.

Your last post is too long and laced with quotes from a totally different thread.
Your first post is quoting parts of a personal message out of context for us and nowhere to be found on the board.

I'll just summarize what I see immediately in your last post above:
you quote Tom while he is describing ... something.
It could be a Gedankenexperiment, it could be what he referred to as the eqivalent of the delayed choice quantum eraser - a description of the experiment in words more easily accessible to people whithout a pysics background.
Not sure - you give no context.

What is your point in relation to DentalFloss's problem and with alik's and my answer?

Cheers


Top
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:07 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Miami, FL
Hi Jonathan:

Good to meet you. A perception of a personal argument can only affect an ego. From an egoless approach to view it, it is not a problem.

To start some understanding, try to understand as much as you can from the beginning to the end of what I posted and try to see what you agree on, disagree or you are not sure. To increase your understanding (and this goes to all) it's better to remove doubts by asking and citing the specific quotes you don't understand, otherwise it's hard to increase understanding.

Whoever reads what I wrote and still don't see any inconsistencies or customization, it means that you are not quite there in the understanding, but I welcome people to ask.

If anybody can find a flaw or an error in my logic or a part of what I wrote I welcome people to cite the specific quotes from what is written and I can try to help out.

Later,

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:55 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 12186
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Claudio,

Have you ever heard something described, an argument between a husband and wife perhaps, as 'he said/she said'? Chris Dross says in that cited link, here is what happens and starts out with a lot of equations stating, he says, what happens and proving it, he says. Can you point to an experiment and the paper reporting it in detail or the video presentation of it being demonstrated that shows what you wish to claim? Tom is talking about an experiment and the results of it which he is explaining in terms of consciousness. Can you actually point to such an experiment where the results were different than Tom describes? Please do so, if you can.

It appears that part of your problem with the experiment with the polarizers is that you disagree with the way that Tom states in that you say "Tom is saying that when a polarizer is placed there is information we know". What Tom is saying is that a polarizer is in a sense a passive device. It does not have to be powered, only oriented to produce the polarization direction that we wish to create. So therefore we know that if there is a polarizer in place in a beam of light, we know that the leaving light beam will be polarized according to the action of that polarizer. There is no turning it on or off, there is just rotating it as needed to change the direction of polarization.

It has also been explained that this particular experiment referenced at the beginning of this thread is not really a matter of quantum mechanics. It is rather a demonstration of optical physics and polarization of light beams. You have so far not said what you think or demonstrated what you think that you are demonstrating. It still remains clear to me that Tom is appropriately modifying what he states to match the situation that he is describing as it is different in different experiments as opposed to your interpretation and implication that he is modifying his statement of principles in order to appear correctly in his statements when he is not. There is a big difference here that you should consider that you are perhaps not understanding.

With your references to trees in a woods, beers in a refrigerator, you apparently have not been able to understand those past discussions to which you refer. They are perfectly clear and unvarying descriptions of how a Virtual Reality, based upon probability, functions. The problem is in your understanding of the concepts and not in any statement of the situation. Follow through those past discussions on the BB and figure it out. References to them is not pertinent here and says nothing pertinent to this discussion.

Ted


Top
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:08 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 493
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Hi Claudio!

To say it is not affecting me would not be true.
But my perception is right, right?
;)

It is simply not nice to mix facts with personal issues and have others fish for the facts having to absorb personal arguments while doing it.

I'll not argue but tell how I understand it.
When there is a flaw in that understanding, please tell me and others!
To say something like "it just does not happen" or simply refer to someones opinion that the rules of quantum mechanics would be broken is not useful to clear things up.

Why not stay at the observable facts?
The experiment was done, we saw it.

The explanation seems to be the issue.

One explanation - the simple one - is to explain it through the properties of polarized light.
alik did that very short and nicely - Tom did that too, I linked to his answer.
What they say is basically the same.
You did not disagree - or only implicitly and I did not catch it.

It can be attempted to label that experiment as a quantum eraser and then explain what can be observed.
But this is not useful and overly complicated too.
A continuous beam of light is used, not single "photons".
There is no way to know which "photon" was going which way.
It is simply not a proper quantum eraser experiment.

A delayed choice quantum eraser experiment was done - not only one ...
Are you familiar with the one you probably referred to when you mentioned the lawyer Ross Rhodes and Tom above?
For clarity's sake here is a link to what I refer to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSRTvKgA ... 65A8505B9E

But DentalFloss's question was not about this experiment.

Cheers!


Top
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:42 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Miami, FL
Quote:
To say something like "it just does not happen" or simply refer to someones opinion that the rules of quantum mechanics would be broken is not useful to clear things up.
It is true. It does not happen. What other way can you write it. Recordings are not necessary, they don't change any QM results. You can read the link I posted but I can provide more links. It is not just someones's opinion. A quantum system evolves as the experiment is subjected to changes (e.g. polarizers, etc.). This is ignored by Tom and mixed in the causality of the experiment. This was an observation from Chris Drost, someone that knows more about QM that Tom does, and I agree with him. I have at least 3 other citations that also agree with Chris Drost POV and no one with Tom's that I know of. Do you notice anything wrong in the reasons giving by Chris Drost?

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:45 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 493
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Leipzig, Germany
This is going off topic.
It is derived of but not really related to the initial question.
If this continues it should probably move to another thread?

Based on what are you insisting on: It just does not happen?
What exactly does just not happen?
Quote:
Recordings are not necessary, they don't change any QM results.
...
A quantum system evolves as the experiment is subjected to changes (e.g. polarizers, etc.)...
Right there seems to be the foundation of "your problem" as I perceive it ...

QM is calculated by following rules - observed rules, derived rules.

Results are calculated and they are in accordance with the observed rules - and they allow to predict results of observations not yet made/still to make.
That is a sign for a good theory.
Results are what they are, the problem can be with interpreting the results.

Every bit of those (derived) rules and subsequent observations is - as I see it - in complete accordance with MBT!

They only seem counterintuitive when one insists to try to interpret them based on an unjustified assumption.
I can see no problems integrating the results of those observations when assuming a VR.
But when - for whatever reason - our here perceived physical reality (PMR) is taken as fundamental, some of those observations will not be fitting in.

There is a quote from R. Feynman - I saw an early lecture labelled:
"Quantum Mechanics Part 1 Photons - Corpuscles of light"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdZMXWmlp9g&feature=plcp
... around 23 - 25 minutes ...
of course the whole thing is interesting!

- where he made the following remark on understanding
(as I understood it, it is an old recording and the quality of sound is not too good):
Quote:
" ... we looked at it, carefully
... looked at it ... see? ...
Thats the way it looks!
...
If you don't like it ... go somwhere else!
..."
What was wrong with the "reasons" and explanation given by Chris Drost can be found in that thread.
Is it neccesary to sift through his wrong turns again?

One can surely always find citations of someone agreeing or not agreeing.
That does not tell you anything but their opinion and sheds light on the level of understanding they have.
Some of it is useful, some is not.
You - and I - have to decide yourself, possibly by making an informed and unbiased decision while still leaving it open to improvement and even change.

Cheers


Last edited by Jonathan on Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:49 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 12186
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Claudio,

Please quit ignoring what is being said to you. You are not providing either a link to a paper which reports experimental results in an actual experiment or providing a link to a video which shows those results which you say are one way and Tom says are another. Specifically where both you and Tom are referring to the same experiment and not someone's opinion or a general description. Specifically where we can see that there is some contradiction or not. Not just your statement or someone elses statement. Do you understand the request that is being made? No one is asking for you to restate things. They are asking for you to present the evidence, show us the specifics, prove your case and not just provide further opinion by you or anyone else.

All that seems to exist is that Tom gives an explanation of why an experiment has certain results, based upon the nature of consciousness experiencing a VR. You have some obscure and obsessive objection which you will not, or cannot, clarify. If you think Tom is describing the experiment and its results incorrectly, then show us that specific experiment and its reported results. Show us Tom's description of it which is different from the reported results or the demonstrated results in a Video.

Ted


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 328 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 522 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited