Shroedinger's Cat Dead! • j********o@***.com 26/02/2000 00:00:000 UTC Finally got around to reading this week's Science Times, which included an article about an experiment that has apparently debunked the "observational" and anthropocentric interpretation of quantum mechanics. It seems that the atoms of Shroedinger's cat observe each other and are likely to collapse promptly on their own without the box ever being opened. It is with a rare and welcome sense of not-shame that I read this, as I've been guessing this *for years* (based on my classical anti-weirdness instincts alone). Little ol' me, in defiance of everything I ever read in any QT text I saw. I've recently got back on the physics wagon I fell off (largely because of the unintelligibility of QM) ten years ago: my studies in QM and GR are proceding leisurely, but productively, insightfully. Tony once chided that I was the dumbest smart person he knew - sometimes I wonder if it's the other way around, but I'm growing ever more convinced that it was the bravado suck-ups in Grad School (and the Professors!) who never really understood the physics, only parotting the proofs without truly, intuitively understanding them. A lot of the weird claims in both fields that seemed implausble to me are turning out to very bad representations of the truth. I might even have a few neat ideas of my own. I think I will at minimum be able to write the best damn texts ever written - any reasonably intelligent person should be able to understand these theories! I'm (modestly) aiming for a successor to the Feynman Lectures - I want mine bound in blue. With big honkin' sans-serif capitals: FASHENA RELATIVITY Gorno There are only three truly worthy roles in life: spouse, parent, and sage - and sage is the only one you can do alone! • Glen 26/02/2000 00:00:000 UTC in article 2*************.*****.********3@n**-**.***l.com, JohnGorno at j********o@***.com wrote on 2/25/00 11:53 PM: > I think I will at minimum be able to write the best damn texts ever written - > any reasonably intelligent person should be able to understand these theories! > I'm (modestly) aiming for a successor to the Feynman Lectures - I want mine > bound in blue. With big honkin' sans-serif capitals: > FASHENA > RELATIVITY > Gorno So once written, are you also going to work this into your games timeline? Kidding aside, when is te first draft going to be available for review? Are you planning on publishing the book yourself, finding a publishing house, or do you plan to just publish it to the web? There are some web based publishers that charge folks to download books and manuscripts from websites. Dow! --Glen • t*******a@h******l.com 26/02/2000 00:00:000 UTC On 26 Feb 2000 04:53:46 GMT, j********o@***.com (JohnGorno) wrote: >Finally got around to reading this week's Science Times, which included an >article about an experiment that has apparently debunked the "observational" >and anthropocentric interpretation of quantum mechanics. It seems that the >atoms of Shroedinger's cat observe each other and are likely to collapse >promptly on their own without the box ever being opened. >It is with a rare and welcome sense of not-shame that I read this, as I've been >guessing this *for years* (based on my classical anti-weirdness instincts >alone). Little ol' me, in defiance of everything I ever read in any QT text I >saw. >I've recently got back on the physics wagon I fell off (largely because of the >unintelligibility of QM) ten years ago: my studies in QM and GR are proceding >leisurely, but productively, insightfully. Tony once chided that I was the >dumbest smart person he knew - sometimes I wonder if it's the other way around, >but I'm growing ever more convinced that it was the bravado suck-ups in Grad >School (and the Professors!) who never really understood the physics, only >parotting the proofs without truly, intuitively understanding them. A lot of >the weird claims in both fields that seemed implausble to me are turning out to >very bad representations of the truth. I might even have a few neat ideas of >my own. >I think I will at minimum be able to write the best damn texts ever written - >any reasonably intelligent person should be able to understand these theories! >I'm (modestly) aiming for a successor to the Feynman Lectures - I want mine >bound in blue. With big honkin' sans-serif capitals: >FASHENA >RELATIVITY >Gorno >There are only three truly worthy roles in life: spouse, parent, and sage - >and sage is the only one you can do alone! Okay, Gorno. You can start by explaining what the hell is meant by "Schrodinger's Cat". I've heard of that before, but only by reference ... can you enlighten us, and me? If you put yourself at level with Feynman, this had better be good. ^_^ Thom • j*******i@i*.******m.com 27/02/2000 00:00:000 UTC On 26 Feb 2000 04:53:46 GMT, JohnGorno wrote: %I think I will at minimum be able to write the best damn texts ever written - %any reasonably intelligent person should be able to understand these theories! %I'm (modestly) aiming for a successor to the Feynman Lectures - I want mine %bound in blue. With big honkin' sans-serif capitals: % %FASHENA % %RELATIVITY By ``sans-serif'' do you mean hevetica, univers, cminch, or what? • k*****t@m*-****a.com 29/02/2000 00:00:000 UTC > %bound in blue. With big honkin' sans-serif capitals: > % > %FASHENA > % > %RELATIVITY > By ``sans-serif'' do you mean hevetica, univers, cminch, or what? No I think he means like "sans-serif" the type setting. Or PS font. you know vt100 text :-) Bill Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. • j*******i@i*.******m.com 01/03/2000 00:00:000 UTC On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:00:02 GMT, k*****t@m*-****a.com wrote:   >> %bound in blue. With big honkin' sans-serif capitals:   >> %   >> %FASHENA   >> %   >> %RELATIVITY   >>   >> By ``sans-serif'' do you mean hevetica, univers, cminch, or what?   >> >No I think he means like "sans-serif" the type setting. >Or PS font. >you know vt100 text :-) >Bill There are lots of possible sans-serif typefaces. Maybe Akzidenz Grotesk is most appropriate.